Just taken a quick look at housetry2.skp. Looks well, but in terms of the model structure, still needs a good deal of work before you take it much further.
You’ve started to use some components, but there is still too much ‘wholly loose’ geometry in the floor. And the front (dark brown) frames, although made up of six components, are not made up of of subcomponents but should be - normally I would make each separate piece of timber into a component, and I think your should do so here, too. And I would guess that a better subdivision into components would involve having trusses for the A-shaped top, spanning the whole house, with separate uprights at the ends, rather than than the half-frame component as you currently have. Make the component structure and hierarchy of nesting them match the physical construction and assembly, as a good rule of thumb to start with.
Is the ‘kink’ in the roof slope beams deliberate? I don’t know very much about timber framed housing, but I assume that those beams (?rafters?) should be one piece of timber, and straight.
Was it in these frames that you earlier described having trouble getting them lined up exactly? It’s apparent in that the short vertical doesn’t align properly on the edge of the cross beam. You HAVE made that a component, which means it’s easy to move it up into alignment. If that were loose geometry too, like the rest of the beams in the half-frame component, you would have more trouble fixing it. And the angle at the top of the beam doesn’t exactly match the slope of the rafter. You can fix that by editing the component, select the top line at the apex, move it on the blue axis (tap up-arrow, or hold Shift key while moving on the blue axis) to match the slope of the rafter.
Similarly, all the siding seems to be loose geometry, connected to the floor - when I triple click on any floor panel, all of the floor and siding gets highlighted, which means it is all connected. Editing any part of it in future will be a nightmare - move one line, and all the connected lines will want to move too! That’s why using components is so important.
I have a small wooden framed and plank clad woodworking workshop in my garden, about 14’L x 10’W x 8’H to the ridge. When I first drew it in Sketchup i made exactly the same mistakes - I drew all of the 2x2 framing as connected loose geometry. Only later, when I learned more about how to use SU to better effect, did I redraw it as separate pieces of timber, each a component.
Whole workshop - with Makita saw.skp (1.9 MB)
You’ll see in this that I too used unnamed Groups for the framing, where I would now use components!
What I had to do, and what I think you should do, is first to open the frame component for editing (double click it), then select (left to right, so you select only what is wholly inside the selection box) each separate piece of timber in the frame component. Press shortcut G (only in lower case - g) to Make Component, and ensure that Replace selected with component is checked. Give the component a name. That way, the selection is turned into a solid component (if it was drawn as a fully enclosed shape in the first place).
I’ve had one quick go at it - here:
A-frame.skp (32.9 KB)
However, when I drew it, I found out a couple of things. First, the sloping rafter isn’t all in the same plane as the cross beam and upright - they don’t quite join up properly.
And second, they aren’t quite the right size. You have drawn them 6" wide x 4" thick. Standard US timber called 6x4 is a finished size of about 5-1/2" x 3 1/2."
I haven’t redrawn them to correct this. You would probably find it easiest to start over. and recreate the framing from scratch, at the correct size, if this is to accurately represent a real house.
If that doesn’t work easily, then use the Rectangle or Line tools, and PushPull, to draw the piece of timber again, using the existing frame component to pick the Endpoints, when it is closed (not open for editing).
You have already added good textures, but you will find it easier to draw without the textures showing. Turn them off using menu View/Face Style/Monochrome.
You’ve gone quite a good way to isolate the physical elements in the foundation piers, but have used Groups where I would have used components. I’d make one component called ‘breeze block’ 8x8x16" (and add mortar lines if you think that would be relevant), and assemble four of them to make the top half of a pier. You have a Group doing the same thing - convert it to a component, then replace all the individual Groups with copies of the component.
And your large ?concrete foundation below the blocks includes one ‘breeze block’ - remove that from the bottom large piece, and make THAT too a separate component.
Replace the loose geometry of floor panels with a pushpulled rectangle of the right size and thickness - 8’x4’x3/4"?
And your joists aren’t joining properly at the ends - they cut through the cross members instead of butting on to them.
Probably other things as well could be improved, but it will come along well if you get into the habit of making one component for each physically distinct element of the building. As drawing complexity grows, using multiple components instead of groups, and leaving NO loose geometry except while you are drawing a component, will be good habits to get into. Repeated components also usually reduce the file size of the drawing.
Great start, I still think, for this stage of your experience with SU.