Smith5963

Yes, the vertical and horizontal version are redundant. I believe Jim said at the time of making them available he wanted to do it this way so he didn't have to rotate the material. So it is the way he chooses to work and of course one shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth...

Jeff
There are at least a couple lumberjocks that have posted wood libraries

Jim Bertelson (I use Jim's)
http://lumberjocks.com/jbertelson/blog/12477

There is also this one which I haven't used
http://www.sawdustroad.com/sketchup

The benefit of this feature appears rather obvious. A person describing flexibility in software design as being a quirk says more about the person than the software.

Dave
Sorry for the terminology confusion. I was trying to distinguish between the version that runs with Sketchup and the standalone version of the software(which I also use).

It doesn't surprise me that it is on the 'to do' list due to the difficulty of graphically denoting which way the grain is running.

Thanks for confirming.

Hey Dave

Speaking of sheets goods what about controlling for grain direction? I may be just being lazy but I haven't been able to figure how to do it in the embedded version.

SeanP berating someone for questioning the underlying premise of a post is shall we say 'simply unhelpful'. Typically, when someone offers 'marketing advice' laced with jargon, I "kindly smile and decline".

Wait, so I must "identify those key differentiators and validate" them? (kindly smiling...)

Thanks for the insights on the use of layers. Trying to sort out the differences between using layers and my current organizing methods (my work process and scope sounds similar to swingman's) it may be the way I use nested components combined with the "Hide all Unselected" plugin that allows for (what I believe) is a quick way to navigate a very large and complex model (I use Sketch Up only as a quick visualization tool in my Architectural practice). However, I am always looking to improve my efficiency. In my next project I may try to use a layer organization and see how it goes. Thanks again.

Dave
I have always used the hide function (in combination with the scene function) as the way to show various options. I name the scene so that I can keep track of the various versions. It is not obvious to me what the advantage of using layers is, particularly since it is added work to create the layers. I usually do the managing of the components from the outliner. You do have to pay attention if you are nesting your components, which can cause difficulties, but that can be resolved by proper component creation. I would be interested in hearing why you prefer using layers.

Dave

There is a general discussion regarding Ruhlmann over at Tommy MacDonald's 207 forum in case you or anyone reading this is interested. The thread is available without being a member:

http://www.tchisel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1547&sid=881fb95d8dcc76b2bcb973f5c63a8aa3

I in with Dave on this one. I use the intersect command because it is quicker: triple click, selecting everything in the component and then right mouse click to get to the intersect command. A lot less fussy (no chance of selecting the wrong point) and thus less time consuming than the other methods.

If the model's geometry is parallel to 1 or more of the default axises it is sometimes helpful to set the camera to parallel projection and then use the preset views (top, front, right, left, and back) when trying to look for an out of plane line(s).

Instead of retracing the perimeter of the face that won't close, you can draw connecting line across the face to see if a portion of the face will close. Each added line (and the face it produces) allows you to confirm that those edges aren't part of the problem. Through this process of elimination you can determine which edge(s) is out of plane. This is typically a fairly quick process.

David

I always find your posts (pictures and text) worth a look.

Dave

Sorry about the redundant posting... I am guilty (once again) of looking at the pictures and not reading, lol.

It should be noted that there is a free ruby script that will draw out, in line form, a series of dovetails. Its not fully automated (as this version is) but it is a way to quickly view various dovetail spacings. You could even generate different spacings and then manually combined them to produced a set of dovetails with variable spacing.

It can be downloaded here along with brief intructions:

http://thewoodenscrew.blogspot.com/2009/06/dovetail-plugin-for-sketchup.html

Dave

I have had a little time to examine the script and it works as advertised. The only real problem I have is the non-intuitive naming conventions of the basic color palette. When I use the default colors I have to use the sampler to figure out which color is what number. I will probably develop the habit of making new materials when I add existing colors so I can use names i can recognize.

Thanks again for the help.

Dave

I completely missed your Winnie the Pooh post. This sounds like it is on point. I have now downloaded the script and will do some testing. I did attempt to search the site when I was researching the issue but failed to find it. Thanks for help.

jlsmith

My process varies due to the nature of the client and the actual project. I am an architect that also designs and builds furniture. Many of the furniture projects are directly related an architectural project (usually because the client can't find what they want or there is some custom cabinetry or built-ins as part of the design). The models typically start out rudimentary and lacking details. I typically don't introduce color right away since it is easy to get bogged down regarding color choice. But a typical process would be a basic model with gray tones, which develops into a model with some details and color without texture and finally lots of detail with colors and textures as specific as possible. What can happen is that after the model is highly developed the client decides they want to see what it would look like if the wood was changed light to dark. At this point the model typically has a vast array of components each that could be embed with more components and the material they want to change can be in various parts of the model (ie cabinets, window trim, built-ins free standing furniture). So the the quickest way to change the material is in the material editor. What I have been doing is to make a copy of the material using the new material function (to save a version of the material I am about to change so I can so I don't lose any customization of the existing material) and then editing the current material. But typically these interactions have multiple changes (one change leads to another). I would like to develop a better way of managing this process but I haven't yet.

Dave

I have considered both options you suggest and agree they aren't particularly elegant workarounds and are actually not what I want to be able to do. I involve my clients in the design proceed and as a result there many times where I am showing the Sketchup model live (in addition to using scenes), we discuss various materials option and I would like to be able to change a material in the model 'on the fly'. These substitutions don't need to be completely resolved (for example like you demonstrated in finessing the top table). They are more along the lines of the client asking 'what would it look like if the dark wood was light?'

At least now I know that the capability isn't readily available and I just can't find it... I hate when that happens.

Thanks for looking into this.

jlsmith

Dave

I know you are aware of this but for those who aren't, here are some links related to using textures in Sketchup.

A couple of members of Lumberjocks have made Sketchup Woodworking Textures libraries and posted links where you can download them:

http://lumberjocks.com/projects/5652
http://lumberjocks.com/jbertelson/blog/12477

Here is a tutorial on creating tileable textures for Sketchup (a good tileable texture won't show a repeating pattern and while this video doesn't use wood it does give someone a primer on how to avoid repeats, which is admittedly a challenge when creating wood textures)

http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-create-tileable-textures-in-imagesynth-sketchup-257043/

Also another member posted a link to software that can be used to modify textures. I haven't tried this yet but it looks like it could be useful if you don't already have an image editing program.

http://lumberjocks.com/topics/3267

I actually have a question regarding swapping out color/texture maps either wholesale or in part. Is there a way to substitute one or more texture assignments in a model. For example if I have a design that is currently using an oak texture is it possible to substitute the oak for another texture without directly editing the oak material definition in the material editing form or having to reassign the faces to another texture? Also, is it possible to substitute a particular material in the model without a direct editing of the material? For example if a design had multiple materials and I wanted to study various combinations of materials (or present various combinations to a client), does Sketchup have an easy way of doing this? If not could a ruby script be developed that could do it? (my research into this hasn't found any existing ruby scripts that do it)?

Thanks
jlsmith

Twobolt it ain't just you. The proportion of the lower side stretchers does make one curious as to how it was determined.

The design seems to suffer from a common ailment of many interpretations of a particular 'style', the urge to do 'more'. Restraint (usually enforced through the mechanism of budget) is highly desirable when attempting to work within an established style.

in....

yup

Mr. Kenny
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post.

So, according to you the dictionary isn't a reliable source for the definition of a word?

Now if I understand the rest of your post (which given your understanding of the role of a dictionary, I have my doubts) your explanation of Mr. Gilpin's design talents somehow go from 'impeccable' to 'good' and ends up as 'nice'.

OK well at this point I think what I will do is just pretend I never asked the question in the first place.

Oh and btw if laughing really does cause you to worry well you have my sympathy.

Perhaps my previous comment is in need of a little cleanup.

The post was intended to be directed towards the author of the post Mr. Kenny (I return to this post to see if he responded). I found the use of the term 'impeccable' a little pretentious (and a little humorous) and just to drive to point home consider the following:

Impeccable:
1 : not capable of sinning or liable to sin
2 : free from fault or blame : flawless

DavePanetta:
The question was who not what but regardless do you really what to claim that 'makes money at it' = good (impeccable) design?

spinnb8:
I certainly wouldn't disagree with your comment but you know what they say when we 'assume'. I am not familiar with 'Launching the Imagination' however I am aware of the importance of the imagination in the creative process. Another interesting book on this subject is 'Conceptual Blockbusting' by James Adams.

Having spent time in a similar position (trying to develop design skills in others) I understand the dearness a student can (usually does) develop for their ideas. While the three scheme technique does force students to realize that they are capable of more than one potential idea, it can have a perverse effect as well. More times than I care to remember a student has come to the conclusion that the surviving idea is the only 'good' idea they had and thus is worth defending at all costs. Consequently I believe it is important to continue impress upon all students that the a successful design process is highly dependent on process of critic which includes self-criticism.

Please ignore my previous post since it has been deemed invalid (even through it is in fact accurate).

"I used the Tape Measure tool to measure the distance between the front edge of the side component and the curve."

Given the combination of geometries it might be useful to give more detail as to how you measured this distance. The distance measured orthogonally, referenced from the side, will be larger than the distance measured radially from the arc. Given how small the actual dimensions are in this particular case the difference would be very small but still real. One needs to pay special attention when working with a combination of orthogonal and radial geometries.

wondering who decided that "Hank’s sense of design is impeccable"....

by a third

in...

Just because something can be done (in sketchup) doesn't mean it should be done....

stepping in first

I'm in.

I'm in.

I'm in.

count me in

throwing my business card in the fishbowl

boards-
I used my planer to thickness all the studs in both directions ( I clipped off each end using my miter saw to get rid of the ragged ends where most of the nail holes were ). I then cut the studs to a length that I could handle on my table saw and using a stop block I cut the studs into blocks. It took quite some time. The blocks were glued up into 5 planks just under 12" wide so I could send them back through the planer to re-level them after the glue up. However, the planer produced small amounts of tear out in the end grain, so I found a local cabinet shop with a wide belt sander and had them sand the planks flat. For the final glue up I was able to align the joints with culls and clamps. Good luck with your own version and if you have any other question just ask.

Keith

You might want to experiment with the scale tool for mirroring (the video I posted below is a good primer), while it is more cumbersome to execute than the 'flip along' command, it is completely predictable, and therefore has none of the frustrations associated with the flip command.

Tim

I wouldn't have bothered you again if you would have simply stated you weren't interested, instead of claiming there are 'other means'. I am sorry to have intruded. Btw are you always this friendly (that's rhetorical no need to answer).

Tim

My own experience is that when extracting a cutlist from a project containing multiple mirrored parts it is very useful (to me at least) for the cutlist to list how many lefts and rights or tops and bottoms there are. Since you obviously strongly disagree with my methodology (and are clearly an expert in Sketchup) could you do me the favor of explaining further what you mean by 'other means'? Thanks

As far as using the -1 scale to mirror I started to use it after I become frustrated with always seeming to pick the wrong axis to flip around, perhaps its a sort of dyslexia but the -1 scale works correctly for me first time every time and is faster than using flip twice.

for a completely different take on how to mirror (using the scale tool) take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbbuqskh0wo

Also its important to realize that if you are mirroring components you should consider making the mirrored versions into separate components (since they are in fact a reverse of the original)using the 'make unique' function in the right mouse button pop up menu. The trade off is the ease of modifying both the version at once vs accurately tracking the parts of the model.

Dave,
Thinking in terms of how a thing is made in the real world can be very useful when trying to think through how to model it in Sketchup (particularly for the inexperienced), however, this method doesn't leverage several of the advantages that exist only in the Sketchup world. For example there is no real world equivalent for how the arrow keys can lock the direction of travel parallel to one of the axises. Additonally, Sketchup's uses of inferences is very powerful and has no real world equivalent. Using inferences can dramatically reduce the number of construction lines needed and thus make model building more efficient. A good primer on inferencing is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDvwHon6-zY