I am afraid it is a ruby bug. SU2KT users has reported similar behaviour of groups. SU sometimes treats them as instances! I am not aware of a different method to make group unique ?

Add it to RubyAPI wish list, please. I mean a bugfix

Tomasz

Thank you for such a nice compilation!
Tomasz

@unknownuser said:

Have people seen any errors from other ways that scripts mess with each other besides naming overlaps?

I've got two scripts on my black list.
1st place : Matchbox Plugin 1.1 by antantantant
Population.rb

class Array
  def * (n)
    temp = Array.new()
    i = 0
    if n.kind_of? Float
      each {|v| temp[i] = v*n
            i = i + 1}
    end
    return temp
  end
  
  def + (n)
    if n.kind_of? Array
      i = 0
      temp = Array.new()
      while i < [self.length, n.length].max
        temp.push(self[i] + n[i])
        i = i + 1
      end
    return temp
    elsif n.kind_of? Float
      each {|v| v = v + n}
    end
  end
end

Arrrrgggghhhhhhh..... !! Do NOT modify built-in Ruby methods, please!!

2nd place: Train Simulator 1.2 exporter by Paul Gausden
mstsx.rb

class Sketchup;;Color
	 def ==(c)
		 return (c.alpha==self.alpha and c.red==self.red and c.green==self.green and c.blue==self.blue)
	 end
 end

Modification of original SU method, which can : 1st - give different results than other Ruby programmers expect, 2nd - prevents != method to work correctly.

Those bugs makes my life and users of my exporter harder.

New method for a texture, very useful for exporters.
texture.alpha_channel? -> (true or false)

Hi Ton,
I can just guess, but probably recently installed plugin is playing unfair and interacting with SU2KT.
Open the Ruby Console window and perform an export of a model. It should return an error. Post it here, please.

Tomasz

Selection display bug to be fixed, please.

Hi
I have found something similar when my tool picks faces and then
tries to add them to the Sketchup.active_model.selection and display it:
Two faces has been picked from two different component instances..

selection.add face1
selection.add face2
view.invalidate

BLENDER BOY!

Excellent!

@mike lucey said:

The BIG BANG! That's an interesting theory, but what MADE the
big bang? Neil Turok's put a theory forward in his presentation
that it was caused by two parallel universes touching!

What if we could assume that the second parallel universe is a Heaven.
I mean - a spiritual world, so close to our dimension, as Neil says, at a sub-atomic distance?
Big Bang could be just a separation of those Worlds... it makes sense. Isn't it? This is our longing for the unity of those two. At least I know this feeling. That is why this spiritual(second) universe can influence our dimension and when one is aware of the existence of former can see a bigger picture!

@chango70 said:

'Free Will', just like the manifold may appear to be locally true at the individual level, you may feel you have 'Free Will' however when you look at the bigger picture it simply isn't true.

Hmm. It is interesting but I am internally not convinced.
BUT
I have recalled something that will bring all our thoughts closer together.
I have an example of what you are writing about from the Bible! I am not joking.
Actually when I am thinking about it right now there are more than just one.
For a sake of this discussion I will mention one that came to my mind first and I have already thought about it several times in the past.

Probably not all are familiar with a story of Peters denial of the Christ.
During the Last Supper, Jesus foretold that Peter, the rock of an emerging Church, would deny association with him three times that same night. Peter was determined to do this THREE times! He obviously had a free will, but ...

The thing is Chango that only someone deeply spiritual can see 'bigger picture'. Watch out Solo & Stinkie! It has to be a Prophet, a Mystic. You all agnostics are scared or just laughing when you hear those nouns. Those things happen, but you are afraid to take a note of them, because it would shake your current view of the reality.

It is same way I am 'afraid' that Chango will come up with something I will not be able to counter. In this occasion I didn't have to. I agree - in a 'bigger picture' Peters seems to be not free. The thing is that, Jesus knew all restraints Pater was bound with , just it. It is amazing to get such an info that you will do something three times what you totally don't want to.

Just to close this post - In a reminiscent scene in John's epilogue, Peter affirms three times that he loves Jesus.

It is an excellent idea. I have installed beta 0.10.
The 'controls', probably the most important example, doesn't work for me under WinXP.
It displays just a window with File, Tooltips and Panel menus, but not controls visible on wxRuby webpage.
As far as I understand this is rather an alpha? Isn't it?

Tomasz

@newone said:

The UV helper retrieves the vertex coordinates.

Hi NewOne,

I am glad to see someone here who can cast some light into my dungeon of texture coordinates.
You have mentioned about UVHelper but you are not using it in the script. I would like to learn how to use it efficiently also with nested faces and will contribute to this thread as much as I will be able to.

Thanks
Tomasz

Twisted definition Chango. Does it really have to be that complicated?
I can still understand it although it is in English and uses words I don't even use in my native language.
Let me try to simplify your definition - when I make a decision and think it is my own, it is just an option from multiple possibilities, which are limited? In your opinion, we just have an illusion of making a choice, in reality it is 'just' an option. It is what was a discussion in 'Matrix' between Neo and Architect, isn't it?

I haven't read about determinism, but from what you have written, it doesn't bother me if the options are limited or not. Still decision is mine. All right, it can be somehow evaluated. You could easily predict what my choice would be, in a certain discussion, based on what you already know about me. I doesn't matter for me and it doesn't mean your prediction would be correct. Am I reading your definition right?

Is it not a false path, trying to enclose our behavior in very rigid frames? I bet in reality they can be broken, although do not expect a prove from me.

Like in 'The Matrix' Love can escape all probabilities, in the way it was not expected by the architect.

I think, in the same way, we can just predict what is happening at a subatomic level, while the Love can make it work as it wants. Changing a water into a wine, in this light, it is just a simple trick.

@solo said:

Tomasz wrote:
@unknownuser said:

faith is truth

That's an oxymoron, just like true faith.

Sorry, my English was not precise.
What I meant is: you believe there were dinosaurs because someone has told you, but It doesn't mean you have personally touched its bone or have seen one. Your faith is true (not truth ) as they really existed.

I can believe in Love, cos I have experienced its power and if my faith would be truthful, there would be a big chance I would find a scientific proofs that the Love can heal, restore sight and so on.

I could believe that my neighbour dog is a god and he can heal. If it would be true you would hear about it in a low profile TV news.

@chango70 said:

However, faith for me is slightly problematic. Faith for me is a radical suspension of disbelief. 'Truth' for me is NOT absolute but a process of discovery and innovation in thinking and action that leads to renewed understanding based on the best evidence available. Disbelief, is a critical aspect getting to 'Truth'. In this sense I feel the two are incompatible.

Chango, I understand you. I am in a position that I have experienced something that tells me that the story about 'God=Love=Our Father' is reasonably true. I am coming now from an opposite direction. I assume it is the Truth and I am constantly questioning it to find this way a prove it is really true. ' The Immaculate Conception' doesn't bother me cos it does not influence the core of my faith and in this matter is not relevant. It would be a waste of time to argue about it although in the light of my faith I find it possible. If we can do 'in-vitro' why He couldn't have done what Christians claim.

@chango70 said:

It is ironic that the institutions that claim to represent them and their ideas are so dogmatic and repressive.

It is ironic and sad. It happens, because these institutions fail to proclaim what is a core of their teaching and they build new rules, that will bring them to the same point when Jesus had to fight against Jews who had buried one commandment of Love among hundreds of others.

@chango70 said:

I said that to hold on to old belief in light of new evidence is to exercise bad intellect and perhaps irrational. .. I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult.

Sorry for misunderstanding then but evidence that you quote doesn't prove that the core of Christianity is toxic, it just say that some branches are dangerous.

@chango70 said:

I do, however, appreciate that intellect isn't the Modus Operanti of Religions so it was more out of irrate need to clarify my own position which I felt misunderstood than intended as an insult.

Ok. I understand. In fact the faith shouldn't discard intellect. You are right it is not based on it, but cannot deny it as it would lead to a nonsense. It is what I have written in 'Religion anyone?' thread. The faith and the reason can work together - in fact - only when the faith is truth, not an illusion.

@unknownuser said:

Like Chango, I have no problem with religion or religious people, it's the religious institutions that scare me. Power and religion - that's never been the best combination. I seriously hope Rome never regains the control it once had 'round these parts.

I don't want develop it further, but If someone would like to do it in a new thread I will gladly join.
Stinkie, the transformation I am talking about wouldn't probably change the situation in the way you are talking about. I am with you, the power should stay in peoples hearts, so they will know exactly what to do and no-one will have to tell them.

If you would have the Love in your heart (this parasite Chango!) , you would be brave (fool) enough to try this 20% instead of killing a child. No-one would have to tell you what is right. You would feel it.

@chango70 said:

Catholicsm, and Islam. Maybe you should watch it again. Hearing what you want to hear seems to be your problem too. I bet you $100 if you ask Dan Dennett or Richard Dawkins they will tell you religions are like viruses. Trust me, I met the man (Both Dan and Richard at different lectures).

Ok. I got the point, but have you noticed that he is also concerned about all cultures, languages and practices that are being wiped out by 'global thinking' - he mentioned beauty contests. I wonder how would you separate a culture and practices from beliefs of a given society? They are interlinked. Dan talks with a humour about a parasitic idea of Freedom - showing New Hampshire car plate - although is probably completely serious about it. His thinking is far from what Karen Armstrong presents, where she proves that religions can serve us and bring us closer instead of dividing.

You suggested that if I intend to stay with my beliefs I will simply be a fool. I won't say same thing about you, Dan and all who share his attitude. I have got much respect for all people even if they call my religion a parasite. There is some truth in it and it is an interesting point of view, that gives me better understanding of how agnostics think.

In 2000 I was given a chance to talk to all superiors of all convents in the Polish Catholic Church. It wasn't what they wanted to hear and I wasn't 'nice'. I was talking about old thinking - redemption through acts, instead of pure faith. Catholicism needs to be transformed, but is a different topic.

@chango70 said:

As such, I have little or no problems with religious belief or religious people. It is religious dogma and its various articulations that gets on my nerves.

Thanks for clarification

@mike lucey said:

I viewed a few more talks on TED and can highly recommending listening to Karen Armstrong, ...

Thanks a lot Mike. It is probably a forum I was looking for!

Yeah, MS Vista eating 1GB of memory on a startup
and Autodesk with crawiling Autocad 2009 with all 'handy' pallets and still, same ridiculous hatches that always are getting disassociated with polyline boundaries... which are still editable only through pe command.. most un-friendly method ever.

@unknownuser said:

Seriously, why do we still bother, at this day and age, with these kind of concepts? I say we finally do away with all metaphysical horsecr*p and start, yup, seeing things as they are.

Thanks Stinkie. Now you are talking. I was just referring to Pete's post where he mentioned first time mysticism and expressed same as your attitude.

Why? Answer is quite simple. We are spiritual beings. Leaving this area undeveloped while pushing all industrial and scientific progress forward will result in degrading us to a role of a biological machine, piece of meat. This is something we should not allow. Do you see it different? I am not talking about Christianity only, but all attempts made to keep our spirits their well deserved place in this age of a machine.

Tomasz

@unknownuser said:

Ah, Sting. If there was ever a mystic who could look into the future, it's him. I'm deeply sorry, but I find it progressivily harder to take some of the, err, contributions to this thread seriously. I cannot be the only one.

Thanks for your, err, generous contribution Stinkie.
This was not a direct reference to the topic, as I have written.