@mics_54 said:
Yeah I've smelled it before...out in the bull pasture.
more bull! its only bull if you refuse to look at the other side of the story. Which the Media is not even concerned about. 1000 police officers against 2 suspects. The entire city of Boston on lock down, House to house searches, without search warrants. .....what could possibly go wrong with the official story. I hope the other suspect survives, I would like to hear the other side of the story, before I pass judgement.
Its downright embarrassing for me as a SU user to watch videos on You Tube. Where very well meaning users of software other than SU show me how to draw a simple 3d architectural house. The last example I watched was someone using C4D. The video was an hr. in length. I sat down and did the same project with more detail in under 12 minutes, using SU.
Here is my reasoning where the extra time is spent: I'll chose a simple Cube primitive as an example.
Your forever using the orthographic views, just to correctly position simple objects.
However there are many things SU can't do. Hence learning Blender is a must! Unless you have can afford to buy any of its main competitors.
my 2 cents!
If you require a great normal map maker give the following a try 
cheers!
@thomthom said:
"unnecessary exterior cube lines" - you mean like mending a set of colinear edges into a single edge? That is can do.
NO! I mean like the attached pic. The left image in xray mode shows the cubes and interior faces. the right image in xray mode shows the manual removal of the exterior edges. Naturally in this simple example the manual removal of the exterior edges automatically also deleted the interior unwanted faces. But in more complex organic meshes this is not always that simple.
@mitcorb said:
Remove Inner Faces by wikii in the Plugins Index.
Thanks! it was the first one I tried a while ago, it also did not meet the test.
I added to my list, in the event someone else is searching this subject.
@thomthom said:
Have you looked at TIGs tools?
I have, in fact I have been trying to compile a Rubies folder on this subject, which is far from complete. Here is what I have so far.
TIG solid solver
TT cleanup
Fix solid
ky delete Interior faces
wikii remove Inner Faces
none of them perform interior face removal 
Its important to revive this thread, in light of David's ruby, which is capable of removing interior faces from solids. This can become a big deal if you import 3d geometry from other programs into SU. In addition its a requirement to remove interior unwanted faces if you intend to create 3D printed output of your geometry.
For additional discussion, here is my initial inquiry about this topic:
http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=22920&start=705#p462200
cheers!
@thomthom said:
You find all of them in the Plugin Index: http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=250026 (Resources > Plugins)
Yes I included that thread also, visually I did not find anything.
@olishea said:
Have you tried Remove Inner Faces plugin?!
Where? there is no such name when searching at this forum or at the ruby library depot.
@voljanko said:
Hello,
I have checked the model it with SuSolid plugin and fixed the model with 1 button.
David
OK!..... please attach my file with you 1 button fix 
I created a simple cube greeble ruby a while ago that draws an array of cubes in xy, xz, yz, or xyz planes. My idea was to carve out cubes from these arrays to create other 3d objects, retaining the basic cube module, much like the Voxel idea. Attached is 3d object file.
I ran Cleanup on this file. but it was unable to delete the redundant interior faces.
In addition is Cleanup able to remove the unnecessary exterior cube lines while retaining the integrity of the 3d object?
I'll keep stoking the fires! How about**"Mea Maxima Culpa"**unfortunately this documentary can't be viewed outside Canada, which is a shame, and very relevant today, particularly since a bunch of criminals are going to be engaged shortly to elect the next head of a church.
If not! .....here is a link for those that still have an activist bent. 
http://www.theglobalistreport.com/top-ten-documentaries-every-activist-must-watch/
In the final analysis it all comes down to how much money you have to spend.
http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/4U/7047/SYS-7047GR-TPRF.cfm
I have noticed I get 2 errors in my Ruby console, none of the errors affect the performance or the running of my existing Rubies yet. I there something I should update or just ignore?
error #1
quietly_force_sync_mats_cb just called
error #2
calledquietly_force_sync_mats_cb just calledERROR: skpHelperClasses.rb:updateSkpMaterial, unable to find a material called: Material11
There is no Material11 in the scene, or in the Materials editor
I typically apply material to faces in Ruby using the following code:
base=entities.add_face(@pt1, @pt2, @pt3, @pt4)
base.material=Sketchup;;Color.new(163,204,204) #change RGB Color number here
base.material.alpha = 0.6 #change opacity number here
With thanks again to the 3 Ruby Amigos I will work on implementing your suggestions this weekend.
@dan rathbun said:
selection's order may not be returned in the order the user picked,) ...
That is an entire new can of worms!....I don't know how SU implements a user select all picking order. I also see different results each time I use select all If you copy and paste each of the 4 attached cubes and run the script on each of the 4 cubes separate, sometimes the script gets the reveal right, most of the time it does not.
@tig said:
@Tomot
Yes, please use your own Tomot namespace to avoid confusion with my TIG one...
TIG, I'm simply looking a your script and adding additional functonality, naturally and without question this is your script. This might turnout to be a good architectural addition and I would hope you could add it to your list of accomplished rubies
However as I already stated, while the Offset portion of the script has no problems, because the offset faces does not interfere with any adjoining face. The added "Reveal option" does have problems, because it introduces the problem of how "pushpull" can't effectively deal with push pulling shared faces. I recall there had been discussion about shared faces and pushpull but I could not find any solutions. 
@tig said:
@Tomot
Yes, please use your own Tomot namespace to avoid confusion with mt TIG one...
TIG is right, If you were working in an architectural office and did not know what a reveal was, your peers would wonder how you got the job. 
