![]() ![]() I’ve tried to explain clearly as I can but if it’s all a bit of a muddle for you, you could upload a sample SKP file to get some better information. Sorry to detract from your simple question but I saw your post and alarm bells starting going off in my head when I saw it, so I thought I’d give my thoughts on it in the hope it might help you. There are many other benefits to using components over groups including setting up the model for any shop drawings you should require, enabling constant changes without the hassle of trying to figure out if you changed all the groups in the process. ![]() The components within that are nested still have the connection throughout the model of course. Sometimes you may want this behaviour using components of course, you can right click the top level “nest” component you make to hold the assembly and choose “make unique” from the context menu to detach its connection from the other copied instances. Groups have no connection between copied instances so if you change one instance the changes will not be reflected in copied instances of that group. The only benefit of using a group in my opinion is they are created quicker and don’t get hung up in the “in model” components when deleted. I quickly saw the benefit of only using components and switched my game up immediately. It’s a long running debate the whole component/group thing but I only use components now after sound advice from forum members here. I clicked on two components and selected ‘Join’ in the Tools section but it said something about one component not being a solid object. Similar to 'snap to grid in MS Powerpoint. I’ve created the different components but am unsure how I can accurately join them all together. ![]() I’m trying to make one box out of one 8x4 sheet of OSB. I just didn’t see the benefit at the time. Hi, I’m a newbie at Sketchup but trying to learn. On the other hand when you use a component to nest the other components together, any moves/additions you make to one of these instances will be reflected in the others automatically, it makes for a much easier experience. You see if you copy this group containing components and then decide to add something to it or move components around within it, the changes won’t be reflected in the copied one and you’ll then have to make the whole group copy again and move it back into position, it becomes very tiresome and massively prone to errors. I never really stopped to think I were simply working too hard and creating problems as I did so. I wanted to make several components stay together as an assembly, so in the haste of the moment I made them a group and then carried on in that fashion making groups for a long time. ![]() I myself had the same idea as you what seems a long time ago. I have used two or three components to complete the base structure, and now I wanted to merge all in a group, The only real advantage of a Group is that you don’t have to name it. Some very experienced people here don’t even bother with Groups and make everything into Components even when they don’t repeat. That way, if you change one, they all change to suit. Anything that gets repeated, such as an element or a frame of elements (say) should be made into Components. When done, you may want to delete the original Ctrl-Copied Component you no longer need.Īs you haven’t uploaded the file or even an image of it, it is difficult to tell if you are using Groups and Components wisely. Although you may do better just to leave it as a new Component. If you want to turn into a Group, you can then explode the new combined Component, re-select it and Group it. Now you have one component comprised of the two you started with. Open the other Component and Ctrl_paste the copied Component inside it. It's a combination of having snapping off, constructing new components on the exact same plane as previous components when possible and using plenty of construction lines.If you really do mean merge two (or more) Components into a Group, here’s one way: I don't know if I'm writing this coherently enough for anyone to understand, I've tried Google in vain. If you had 12 parts of varied length, all butted to each other, then took a measurement you can get "this length is ~Xcm" (almost), not "this length is =Xcm" EXACTLY Xcm. This becomes an issue when you need a few components of exact size to come together exactly, and then make and exact measurement of them all together. And then I can't guarantee its in the right place, back to the first paragraph. Say if snapping is set to 0.1cm, I can have a component that is 0.05 cm away so I can never move it where I want it exactly, unless I turn snapping off. Yes I could turn on snapping to a degree of accuracy, but it is very easy for a part to be off by a fair margin. There is almost always some level of the components being inside each other or fractions of a distance apart. It's pretty difficult to get them resting exactly on top of, or next to each other. If I'm putting a top on a table, a roof on a house or butting two joints together. TL DR: I want my components to hit each other and stop, I don't want them to pass through each other. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |