@frederik said:

Remember the old Google is Listening! thread...?
Yeah... The one where - in particular - "darling" spend a lot of time to comment and answer the questions from this very community...

It seems as if Trimble has a different position to this subject and instead they have turned a deaf ear to their customers...

The lack of comments from TSU team cries to heaven...

Have to say that I'm really surprised about this...!!

When Trimble's email support form, the form you must pay $95 for the privilege of submitting, doesn't even have the version (2013)as an option for which you paid the $95, I would say that Trimble may be demonstrably stone deaf to paying customers at the moment.

http://www.sketchup.com/intl/en/support/pro-support.html

If this process is automated, as it appears to be, you may likely be SOL at being heard at this time.

This is rookie lack of attention to detail, but appears to be in keeping with what I'm experiencing in using 2013 thus far.

@swingman said:

Besides SpaceNavigator being a no show, 2013 Pro will neither print,nor export textures on my Win7 laptop. All I get is line drawings.

I may be missing a simple configuration, but have both Pro 8 and Pro 2013 installed and can find no difference in configuration between the two ... Pro 8 continues to perform/print/export as it always has.

What am I missing?

Problem identified, but not solved.

It is an OpenGL problem/BUG with SketchUp2013 Pro.

Turn off "Hardware Acceleration" in Preferences in 2013Pro and the behavior, as described above, becomes normal; IOW, with Hardware Acceleration OFF, both printing and export work with regard to visibility of materials, colors and textures contained in the model.

Once again, I have two installations of SketchUp, Pro8 and 2013 Pro on the same machine.

Pro8 does NOT exhibit this OpenGL problem/bug/behavior on the same machine.

I can visualize a few reasons for this (dual installation with conflicting registry info for starters; a driver issue, or is it just a BUG in 2013's implementaion??)

Whatever the reason, SketchUp 2013 is a total bust for me thus far. Apparently, it is time to test the efficacy of Trimble's $95 support scheme.

OS: Win 7 64-bit
Dell XPS 15
Display Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M (driver 9.18.13.697 10/2/12)

Any suggestions welcomed.

Thanks!

Did fill out a bug report on Trimble's site link in the Bug report sticky on this forum.

Edit: Updated to nVidia's latest driver, to no avail.

@chris fullmer said:

Can you post the model here to look at?

Chris

Hi Chris, the model makes no difference. A simple rectangle, with any texture/color/material on the face, exhibits the same behavior.

@unknownuser said:

it seems as if you may be trying to vector print or export to pdf..

these are vector formats therefore will not deal with raster images..
(layout on the other hand has a hybrid mode which can vectorize lines while outputting rasterized images at the same time)

Printing to a printer; exporting to a 2D graphic (jpg), or exporting an animation (mp4); all come out as a line drawing when using 2013Pro, with no textures, colors or materials in evidence.

Same the same actions in Pro 8 with the same file (Pro8), on a paralell installation on the same laptop are all desirable outcomes.

Been using SU Pro in a commercial construction setting for five years with no problems ... baffled.

Gotta be something simple, or misconfigured, a permissions issue, perhaps? But where, why and how??

Besides SpaceNavigator being a no show, 2012 Pro will neither print,nor export textures on my Win7 laptop. All I get is line drawings.

I may be missing a simple configuration, but have both Pro 8 and Pro 2013 installed and can find no difference in configuration between the two ... Pro 8 continues to perform/print/export as it always has.

What am I missing?

Well done, James! There is still a 1/64" discrepancy in LenX when scaled, but, it is consistent now, and, as you point out, that may well be a problem with one of the stile dimensions ... much, much better however!

... and I work to a 1/32 in any event.

I haven't time to go over it with a fine tooth comb to absorb the rationale for the changes you made, but the proof is in the pudding.

Rest assured I will study this carefully. I wish I could find some additional documentation on dc's, it appears sparse. I've been using spreadsheets for 20 years, and did a good deal of VB and database programming back in the early 90's, but it's been awhile and I'm rusty on the current concepts.

I build custom homes and also design and build the kitchen cabinets that go into them, thus my use of SketchUp for about a year now. SU is worlds above the CAD programs I've used the past ten years in both intuitiveness, and the "design and presentation" aspect, which is most important to me and in which the program excels.

Once again, I can't thank you enough for your kind assistance and interest in helping!

Karl ...
http://www.e-woodshop.net
http://www.palonet.com

James,

Unlike mine, your model works as expected. I need to study it to understand where I went wrong.

I appreciate the time you took ... that was might nice of you. I would, of course, appreciate any further advice/comments you may have should you get a chance to take a look at the one I uploaded.

Once again, your help is very much appreciated. Thank you!

Karl ...

@unknownuser said:

The above bit assumes you have done things to the X position of the parts, to make sure it doesn't fly apart.
<snip>

If I am completely wrong, then could you post your model so that people can have a look at it and check what is wrong?

If you wouldn't mind taking a look, here is the dc model. As you will see, the rails are "LenX=Right Stile!X-1.5".

Thanks!

Test1.skp

This dynamic component, comprised of five sub components (two vertical stiles, three horizontal rails) relies on user selected lengths in a List Box to input the variable "LenX".

The problem can be seen in the attached file. The actual lenX of the component, as measured by the dimension tool, does not coincide with the input value for lenX.

Additionally, the error increases with the increase in LenX.

NOTE: creating a dynamic component, like a simple box, drawn without sub components, does not exhibit the inaccuracy above, using the exact same attributes.

Therefore, even though being as accurate as possible when creating the component with regard to the sub components positions relative to each other, I suspect that "resolution" when attaching the sub components to each other is playing a part in the inaccuracy?

Is this a known problem and is there a way around it?

Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks ...

For those who find themselves wrestling with the creation of dynamic components, start here:

Explained in minutes what took hours ... just to find the link.

Never mind ... I figured it out:

THINK: "X" +/- ... sheesh!

Position is everything ...

I'm trying to grasp the nuts n'bolts concepts for dynamic component creation, but can't seem to find much documentation on seemingly simple issues. I've printed out the dynamic "fence posts and rail" tutorial, which is a similar concept, but cannot seem to apply that to my goal below.

The goal is make the "top" rail sub component in the component "frame" below, fit precisely between the two stiles when the model is scaled to different reference points.

Theoretically, I'd like to be able to scale the frame between two locations/reference points, in both lenX and lenZ. The ultimate objective being to have a dynamic component "face frame" which can be used to design a line of cabinets with regard to size, and which are in other than industry standard 3" widths (I build all my cabinets using the "face frame" as the base/starting point, instead of vice versa).

(Note: I've left out an intended bottom rail for simplicities sake during my early efforts, as one less sub component to deal with).

AFAICT, the proper constraints have been added to each of the three subcomponents, as well as the component Frame itself.

There are three issues I'm struggling with:

Getting the top rail to consistently scale properly between the left and right stiles; none of the dimensions seem to add up to the various formulas after the scale; and, during scaling, it seems that upon release of the mouse to complete the scale at the intended reference point, there always seems to be a slight shift, either away from or toward the intended reference, causing the intended dimension to be off.

If someone could give me a nudge in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

My mind is apparently starting to feel my age, so be easy on me ...

Thanks

@unknownuser said:

What kind of modeling do you do? Architecture? Mechanical? Cars?

The first thing anyone will tell you is to make sure that if you are working w/ objects that repeat w/in a model, make sure they're components. It won't make the orbiting and panning faster, but when you save the file, your file size will be smaller. Note that this is only true of components (not groups).

That said, I haven't noticed increasing file sizes from 6 to 7. Unless you're already getting into dynamic components which could carry a lot of info, I can't think of any reason the files should be larger.

-Brodie

I'm a builder and cabinet maker, use SU to design and build the kitchens, and yes, I have started using DC's recently, which makes sense re file size.

Also appreciate the tip about components versus groups.

Thank you!

KAC ...http://www.e-woodshop.net

I don't know whether it was upgrading to version 7, and afterward to Pro, but I've noticed a general increase in file sizes from version 6?

I've used a ruby script call "purge" and that seems to help, but what are some good, general practices to keep file sizes down in SU?

Thanks ...

KAC ...