Just wondering what is the actual and practical implications arising from the difference between "material" and "paint".

Questions comes up as I tried to decipher why CutList wasn't working.

Turns out that I think Cutlist 4.1 misbehaves if there is some odd rounding error in the thickness of some sheet good parts. But working on getting to that conclusion left me perplexed about paint and material. From What I can tell, designating a "material" just paints with texture. How close or far off am I . . . ?

This question is about the workflow for crafting Sketchup Ruby scripts.

I have no problem installing others' scripts, or with programming. What has me at a loss is how to craft a script and make iterative changes, with intervening runs/tests.

In basic, VBA, fortran and so on, I could make an immediate run, and modify a program. But with SU2013, and the RBZ that is installed from one location into the SU Program Plugin Folder, I get tangled:
a. having to modify the folder name from Zip to RBZ, just to make edits, and back again
b. making edits of RB scripts in what I call the myProject area, to install afterwards using the SU2013 extension installation schema
c. not seeing a simple way to uninstall an extension, and then install the modified version
d. not recognizing a way to use a RB menu script to create a Toolbar and Icon which would call a script which installs or uninstalls the script being worked on

I thought there might be a way to just create a "run/install script icon", hit that button to run/install, see what happens, edit the script using notepad++, and hit the button again to test...and so on.

I haven't found a workflow URL for this process in the SU documentation at Trimble/Google, and the SU extensions I've opened provide good clues/hints for coding, but don't help with how I can make the workflow for coding/testing/coding/testing...work.

Can anyone provide some pointers to good URLs, or what you consider good sample extensions that show off what I'm trying to do?

Thanks

Dave, could you point me to the URLs for those videos?

Looking at the before & after PNGs, the change looks like
a. splitting it apart
b. chopping off the right legs/apron
c. copying the remainder and flipping it, and
d. inserting an intervening area with top

I was thinking more of a situation where I have, say for example, a breakfront/cabinet with drawers, doors and interior parts. I might want to massage it wider, and re-gauge the relative sizes of the doors and drawer fronts. Making the cabinet wider (if I am thinking this right) involves: moving the right end over; stretching all the intervening stretchers etc on the carcass and their stiles/rails; then playing with the drawers the same way. It just seems....ugly....to have to touch all that stuff.

Another example would be a plain kitchen cabinet. If I wanted to stretch it (without changing the vertical components), I have to make lots of interior adjustments, frame adjustments, and drawer adjustments. And then, if I don't like the size, or need others, I have to repeat the whole thing all over again.

Working out the workflow, or easier ways to maneuver the workflow, is my goal. I sense I am handy enough with the software, but this trick eludes me. Maybe after I look at your examples, I might catch a trick or two, new.

I'm thinking, too, that I am wanting too much from the components behavior....

TIG and Dave -- Thanks for answering. Both your comments raise some side questions.

TIG: I think I probably should have used the term "Lock", although it, too, has meaning elsewhere in Sketchup. The distortion/movement experience by the un-componentized collection of lines/faces (forming the cube and rectangle) is different from the the stickyness.

Maybe the way to describe what I was after is a un-enabled future feature, that is, one which will move the face of a component (and stretching adjacent lines) ((and stretching, with those lines, the faces bounded by those lines)), if it is "LOCKED" to an adjacent surface which moves.

Dave: What I think I read into your words: The stretching that would occur with Dynamic Components would also distort by the same factor the joinery at the To-Be-Moved ends. Is that right ?

Dave & TIG (or anyone else...):
Would it be fair to say that the best mechanism for the simple side wall slide-to-the-side, is to
a. move the side wall component
b. grab each shelf (or an instance) by an end-point un-joined (that is, not by cut-back, joined bits at the end), and
c. stretch the shelf till it sits in the corresponding joinery (eg, Dado) on the side wall
?

This maneuver becomes even more painful, and this is really the reason for this question, when my model morphs from
cube/rectangle ---> simple shelf ---> a cabinet with inset drawers, doors or other parts (ie, a cabinet....) ---> a collection of variants of cabinets for a wall system

In the last case, --everything-- has to be adjusted for width, if I merely "stretch" the whole thing wider.

The same problem comes up if I craft a living space (a house, say), and move a internal or exterior wall. If I don't use components, things might move/slide easier. If I use components for their obvious advantages, I lose the "editability of the whole"

Is my thinking landing in the right place?

This question addresses behavior of two adjacent objects when moving a common face.

If I create a simple model: a cube attached to a rectangle this way:

1. create the cube.
2. on on face of the cube, draw a square, and drag the square out to form a rectangle.
3. Now, I have a cube and rectangle, where the end of the rectangle is planted within one cubic face.

If I select the common cubic face, and move it, both entities...the cube and the rectangle, stay "glued" together, and the rectangle adjusts itself.

On the other hand, if I create this model, and make components of the cube and the rectangle, in the modeling process...

If I grab the common cubic face and move it, the rectangle does not move. What am I doing wrong? I believe I set the components' settings to include "glue"

I imagine this situation, where I have a shelf system. The side walls are components, and a shelf is a component.

I would like to slide the side wall to the side, and have the shelf stretch, and remain attached to the side wall. Instead, after moving the side wall, I have to grab the shelf's side face, and stretch it back to meet the inside face of the side wall. This can be a pain in anything more complicated than a simple shelf. Is there an easier way? Am I missing something ?