I'm pretty sure I've tried these. I'll try it again...
Posts made by talig
-
RE: Yet another SavePanel question
-
Yet another SavePanel question
Hi everyone,
I have a savepanel question for you guys.
Is there any way to tell from the code if a savepanel was closed using "Cancel" or using "Ok"? Tried the documentation, didn't find any access to that particular thing.
Maybe you know if this sets some bit or something like that?Thanks a bundle,
- TaliG
-
RE: Setting file types in the savepanel
Thanks TIG,
I know I can set the default file name.
But I find it puzzling that the list of file types exists but it's empty and can't be filled. This isn't the case when you're trying to save a model - so it must be possible somehow, and if not - I guess it's the most trivial wishlist item...
I'll wait to see if someone knows how to do this. -
Setting file types in the savepanel
Hi again everyone,
I've got a simple one this time
I want to set the "save as type" value in the savepanel. To, let's say, *.csv. It's true that I can make the file be whatever I want it to be, but I'm thinking usability here.
So - does anyone have a clue?
Thanks,- Tali
p.s. Thanks to you guys I'm drawing near to wrapping up this project I'm working on.
-
RE: SketchUp SDK Scrambler - Problem with paths?
Scott,
You're a lifesaver! Worked like a charm. Just needed to get the plugins folder. Got it.
Thanks!- Tali
-
RE: SketchUp SDK Scrambler - Problem with paths?
Scott,
I'll give it a try. Yes, they are in a subfolder of the Plugin directory.
Frankly, even if I can get the plugin directory without hard-coding it, it will do the trick...- Tali
-
SketchUp SDK Scrambler - Problem with paths?
Hi everyone,
I've been trying to use the sdk scrambler, but it seems like File.directory(FILE) doesn't work very well in scrambled files (returns "file:///").
I tried Dir.getwd but that returns the directory the .skp file is in, and not that of the plugin script file...It's problematic because this way the icons don't display, and any web dialog that I want to open - I can't
I didn't see any notes about this phenomenon anywhere, so I'm thinking maybe I'm doing something wrong and no one has seen this problem before...
Please help,
Thanks,- Tali
-
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
AdamB,
No, the calculation that I'm doing is in the reversed direction. I do not want to raytrace the whole model and see what I hit,
I want to select a face (or a few faces) and say how much of it is lit. (i.e. out of the set of rays that should hit it, how many actually hit it first)This is working great, as already stated, for non-grouped/componented selections...
-
RE: Webdialog problem
Scott,
I'm not the one who posted the question- Tali
-
RE: Webdialog problem
Todd is right. Haven't thought of that...
If it's possible, you should debug the JS separately with the error pane in Firefox (or FireBug plugin, if you so fancy).
That will help focusing on the problem.- Tali
-
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
Fredo,
Can't I just apply the transformation and save just the transformed face?
Because that's what I thought I'd do- Tali
-
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
Yeah, I think I've tried that, though only visually.
I'm not sure they match, but visual testing counts for nothing...
I'll give it a go, we'll see what the conclusions are -
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
Thanks thomthom, but who promises that that string is a good identifier, when you run different instances of the program, possibly different files (same model saved under different names), if you have the same component twice in the model? Is it documented anywhere what that hex sequence is? (I'm guessing hash, but even so it matters what it takes into account)
-
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
thomthom - I don't know how I can check that they are the same.
I mean, I can work something out and save the array before explosion, then explode it and compare, but will the object comparison be good enough? Do I need to compare certain fields? I'll obviously need to sort them both to have them in the same order - which may also be non-trivial...
Ideas? -
RE: Fumbling Towards Timezone Frenzy
No problem, Chris.
If you have any further questions about this - feel free to message me (or post here and message me so that I'll read it for sure ) -
RE: Fumbling Towards Timezone Frenzy
To whomever this may concern later on, the solution was given to me in the Google groups.
Counter intuitively, if one wants the time of the model:Sketchup.active_model.shadow_info["ShadowTime"].gmtime
(or .utc)
and accordingly with "SunRise" and "SunDown".
I repeat, it will notreturn the time converted to UTC/GMT, it will return the time in the model's local time zone (but AS IF it were UTC. Namely, querying for the zone will return "UTC" ).I hope it helps someone else one day
- Tali
-
RE: Things we need new words for
- a bacronym. It's a backwards acronym, since people keep auditing it's last word anyways.
- Didn't quite get your intention there.
-
RE: Webdialog problem
Pout - can you post the Ruby code?
I have a webdialog with a few JS stuff and I get repeated callbacks just fine... Maybe the problem is elsewhere? -
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
Chris - that's what I said: I get the correctnumber of faces. But I make some calculation about them, and I get a different result when I use explode - though I should get the same one. Even a plain box is not working properly.
Fredo - I'm a female
About the coordinates: What you're saying is interesting. I assumed I get the absolute model coordinates in any case. That's obviously true in the exploded case, but possibly the cause of the problem in what I'm trying to do. I'll check it out. Thanks! (and thanks for the to_a tip!)I already have everything else up and running, so thanks for trying to help - but really, no call for that.
All I need is an array of faces equivalent to that of an exploded component. Nothing more, nothing less. -
RE: Iterating over the faces of a component - without exploding
Chris -
Thanks again. You are correct, but again - that is not my use case.I repeat the question:
This code SHOULD work, it's unclear why whatever calculation I'm running on it, disagrees with the result on the exploded component.
Essentially - they both provide an array of faces, and it should be the same faces in both cases, but it seems like it isn't.
Why?