@cotty said:

I think the step "place it on ground plane" should change the orientation of the group? This step doesn't work for me... ...

(I also thought of your solution, using one of the hidden lined on the side.)

If you mean that new green and red of the rotated group should be aligned according to their previous projection on the ground plane, then you might be right, then my 'Glue to: any' component is only correct along blue. Then you need some extra marks for a final rotation about systems blue axis.
Is this restriction included?

(Even faster with a scene according to the groups local axes)
Open the group > save a scene with its local axes saved (only these axes matter).
Close group.
Select saved scene > copy model to clipboard > reset axes to systems axes,
Paste clipboard content to model again. It will be according to resetted (=systems) axes.

@cotty said:

Which would be the fastes way to rotate a group to a vertical position

A few steps but SU "thinks" for you:
Add a (circular) face on top of the group (causing z-fighting but that doesn't matter)
Right click this circular face > Align axes > Select group and circular face > Make component and! set 'Glue to: any'
Reset global axes
Select the new component and place it on ground plane > explode > delete circular face and its circumference.

@aureus said:

......As for your attitude towards plugins...I think I understand you quite well, Gerrit.
Very often mastering native SU tools can bring you more benefit than trying to figure out how certain plugin work and why you don't get a desired result.
........

Sorry, but you got me wrong. That's not at all my attitude towards plugins. And, even more, this would not do any justice to all the plugin writers who spend their valuable time and knowledge to write them.
My attitude concerning plugins was and still is (though for new users) that one needs to understand SketchUp first and only then gradually move over to also using plugins. (I didn’t touch any plugin during the first year playing with SU)
I enjoyed (and still do like) participating in discussions on how to tackle 3D modelling questions with SketchUp. As for plugins, I feel that when benefiting from using them in a professional way, I ought to pay for them or at least make a donation. My only “use” now is limited to seeing how they work and maybe some feedback to the writer. And since (for now at least) I don’t do anything other than helping out some users with their SketchUp issues, I normally stick to basic free plugins.
Plugins are a great way to level up SketchUp.

p.s. Jean’s method to apply a customized height component including plain text is simple but will do quite well.

@aureus said:

Thank you, Jean.
......since the real length of that line is 2.59 m and not 258.95 m. ....

Hi Aureus,
Actually the edge length is 2.589500m with precision set to max.

I know about, and have used the height symbol that described earlier on. Also this one that Jean presented. But whatever symbol you use, as long as you get the message accross.
Maybe you can get TIG's plugin "Add height above datum" working for you (maybe after donating to him What if you integrate its 'height text entity' into a nested prefered symbol component that you explode after placing it. Haven't tried it enough.

p.s. I don't use that many plugins (only basic ones like 'Weld'), since I basically only explain basic SketchUp tools and solutions to other users when questions arise. That's my main use of SketchUp, for answering questions. (which may sound strange )

@dutch built said:

.....member of sketchucation, is there a way to look up members to send a message?

He is one of the 169953 users (as in members)
See top right and click "Members" to find him
Or do any other relevant search. Next, maybe send him private message?

Hi Aureus,
Instead of complaining about this missing symbol+height, (by now you do know it doesn’t already exist), could you please describe extensively how you would like this extra feature to be and how to use it. Maybe as if you were writing its part of the manual. Purpose, how to use it, options, its limitations, etc.

I’m sure that if your suggestion is valuable to SketchUp, the SU developers will look into it. I'm certain they do listen to suggestions.

p.s. I’m not against such a feature but then I would like it to be some feature that could be customized by any user. Not just for where you (and I, who knows?) live, and not just for heights.

@gonashvili said:

.....The cross thingies have different size/scale, but are of the same proportion, ......
Is there a way to do so?
If I get you right, both crosses of the stretched rectangle need to fit nicely over those of the fat rectangle after scaling.
I can't get the scale tool to do this for corner grips don't seem to snap to anything.

An "ugly" way to do this is to set precision to maximum (mm and 6 digits)
Suppose the stretched rectangle crosses are A and B, distance 1, those of the fat one are C and D, distance 2.
In the first streched group measure A->B (=1) and copy this value from 'Entity Info' to some screen text.
In the second fat group select all geometry, next measure C->D and immediately type the screen text and [Enter] to resize this group. (answer yes)
This way you are accurate about 6 digits.

I hope to see some clever "scale" sequence to get it right.

@thomthom said:

I doubt that...

Héhé..... Solo IS the Creator of ............ "the new Beast".....

Ooops, new PC that is.

At least disable 'Use model extents'.
Play with 'Fit to page' enabled and zoom in enough on your model.

@jean lemire said:

..Yes, this is a bug to me. After trying a few time, it looks like if there is any non numeric characters after the integer part of a number, the rest of the Measurement Toolbar is not taken into account. This means that 210/2 will work and the circle will have a diameter of 210 and a radius of 105 but 210.6/2 will be seen as 210 and the resulting circle will have a radius of 210 and a diameter of 420.
...

For me the decimals are used in the end value of the diameter.
So / does not divide the first number (a bug) but I do get a circle with radius 210,6
Probably the difference between using a comma as decimal separator.
Could you try with the comma, Jean.

@adorno said:

When right clicking a material you can choose to 'select' it.
That way all surfaces with that material in the model/models are selected.

That's fine. But materials in components are not selected this way.
Is there a way to do this without exploding them?

Thing is that with (most?) operations, they only work in one level.
In fact you don't even select the material at all. The operation adds certain geometry in the current level to your selection, geometry that has the same material applied to it. This can either be other faces (not even edges) or groups and components in the same level with the same material.
So the answer to your question is no.

A plugin may dig trough your entire model (or a selection of it) and act upon what it is supposed to do, maybe replace the material for another material (step by step) or count the painted surface area. Once the plugin is over, you end up in one (editing) level again. You cannot be in two levels at the same time. Again, the answer is no unless with a specific operation trough a plugin.

@gonashvili said:

Would like to see textures on entities outside the edit comp mode, is there a way to turn them on?...
FAIK this isn't possible. You only get to see the shaded version of faces that are in a higher level. Nested entities further down in the editing context may be displayed as shaded with texture. But then you can consider them (these nested groups and components) to be in the editing contex, although a in lower level.

@aarhus8000 said:

Could someone try a test please??...

I tested both files in SU8 windows version and couldn't find anything wrong either.
Have you checked what happens when applying: Model Info > Statistics > Fix Problems? Any signs?

Could you please attach the model itself?

It's not quite clear to which endpoint (or invisible intersection) the right side of the 600mm dimension is associated. The red axis might be "blocking" something here that may be relevant.

@thomthom said:

@moritzh said:

it is my wish that one could lock a circle or the rotation tool to one specific axis with the arrow keys, just as it is done with lines and the move tool.

For the rotation tool: Click, hold down, move the mouse and you can control the orientation.

Note that before releasing the Lmouse button, you can press [Shift], to take the alignement to somewhere else in the model, to pick the appropriate center of rotation.
This is mentioned Gaieus's tutorial for "the "Align to object" method, but can easily been overlooked in the next "Click-drag" method. Gaieus, maybe you could add this.
So: not only click->drag->release Lmouse button
but also click->drag->press and hold [Shift]->release Lmouse button

@armiesarmy said:

...
I am using a 4 m length and scaling that to 1.4 cm . Is this simply to great a range to scale correctly?....

Dave is right in that ony one step is needed with the 'Tape Measure´ tool, to resize from 1:1 down to (approximately!) 1:300. Retyping the length will resize to that exact length.
But maybe you need to apply the comma as decimal separator instead of the decimal dot?

@unknownuser said:

.....[but i kinda feel like you're just hellbent on trying to prove me wrong or smthng without actually looking at the various situations/models being discussed.. ]
Sorry if you feel that way, for that is not the case.
Just a few misunderstandings. At one point (corresponding vertices not being lined up towards the center) I argued in your favor about John's solution. But you set that aside as not being important.
I don't much care who's right. It's all for a good second option in the 'Offset' tool, hence my little challenge. But Right now I don't think much of repairing the offset at its ends, something I supported at first
PO?,....... I hope not,........nah.

p.s. my PC is acting weird. I can hardly keep up with all the examples that are being uploaded. Loading a model (even from HD) can take upto 5 minutes where it should only be seconds.

@unknownuser said:

......I think I may have missed an example model along the way so can you permalink me to the post which contains this solution you're talking about ? johns example which I remember didn't have any accurate arc points

fwiw, chord length between segments doesn't have anything to do with accuracy of an arc. and I can show you a few examples where you'll need oddball segment length which varies over the course of an arc.. what matters is that the vertices (no matter how they're spaced) remain a true radial distance from the cpoint.

You've got the correct model as I can see in later posts.
I know that there are minor differences, maybe even due to having things separated in groups. But the idea is good. That fact that they do not exactly share the same center if you zoom way in, yes you are right. But maybe this is due to speedy modeling to get the idea across. I stick with accepting this as a good offset solution.
And come on, segments not being parallel? so what? If I say corresponding vertices do not line up, then you say 'so what'. Sorry Jeff, in most offsets you can't have both at the same time, that is with arcs being segmented!. I left the idea of vertices being in line towards the center for what it is. I'm going for: all vertices on a true circle, equal segments (number can still be altered) and points at center in the same spot.

And you can't be serious when saying that a chord doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of an arc. Not on its own, but together with the defined radius there's only one arc on either side of the point at center, all vertices on a true circle.
The chord, together with the radius, defines the angle that is covered by the arc.

How could the 'Arc' tool work if this weren't true: draw chord > specify (input) radius. Two possibilities as a result. Together one circumference of a whole circle, consisting of two arcs.

@driven said:

@wo3dan said:

Yours is for “nice looking”, not for having accurate predictable measures across, along the segmented arc.

The 'accurate predictable measure' in this example is [r1 to r2] = 1000mm, how more accurate can you get?It can be measured at the shared central 'cardinal' axis on equally segmented arcs.

For an uneven number of segments [r1 - r2] still equals 1000mm.

sorry this is accurate[quote @Jeff (mathematically).. ], any other way is for 'the look'.

Well John, you can't. I'll have to admit that. I was focussing to much on keeping the segments endpoints to where to be convenient (still on a correct true arc location). But any "repair" solution at the end of the child arc (=offset) would then be matematically incorrect. The chord isn't covering the correct angle and not in the exact location.

If I were to choose between a variety of true arc offset solutions in SU, it would be yours. The endpoints may not be located conveniently, but they are on the correct true arc, start to finish! Local measuring may require some tweaking in the number of segments in the child arc. But that doesn't change the true arc('s position)