"Component" for LO

Dan… Why would you infer that?..

I am not talking about functionality of LO

I am talking about commonality of the interface and commands

2D and 3D functionality can coexist just as it does in SU

It is seriously bizarre that to achieve the same functionality in both programs

we have differing interfaces and processes to action them – eg rotate and entity

Thankfully the SU team seems to being bring the two together…

2 Likes

Why would it? A viewport is a 2D element.

2 Likes

I do not dispute that “commonality” of interfaces is a good idea. It is IMO. (I personally loath LO because it’s interface is awkward and amateurish, and very much “un-SketchUppy”.)

Well I AM, and this thread’s topic IS about proposed LO functionality.

Also, this is not the first feature request thread to suggest LO component functionality. I’ve supported the idea in the past, I SUPPORT the request now, and always do whenever the idea comes up.

And, yes I am also a LO Scrapbook “hater”, and so a COMPONENT PROPONENT. (Most especially with attributes like DWG and Visio have.)

There is enough “space” however, for people to enjoy differences of opinion on implementation.

Which displays a view of a 3D object, so IMO they are 3D elements not 2D. But this is a personal opinion, it is not that important to the discussion what “species” label we put on it.

It was just a rhetorical question, meant to trigger objective thinking on the subject.

I am simply wondering aloud about possible limitations.

I am not poopoo’ing the idea at all. Ya’ll have seemed to ignore the REAL question I asked …

So I’ll restate it slightly differently …

Might there be any problems that multiple viewport reference chains would introduce into LO workflow and organization ? … and if so, how might these issues be overcome ?

Components would be for vector drawings mainly …Viewports are references
when you insert a component from scrapbook should give you an option to be embedded or a reference…If it is embedded when you modify it only affects the document if it’s a reference you need to modify the source (let’s say in scrapbook). …all this IMO should have its own window like SU components and references (viewports, Images, Tables, etc) are where they are right now.
as another request I posted, the viewports would have a “make unique” so you can re-path only that viewport if you wish and the other ones are instances.

1 Like

No. Components should be able to contain all entities, just like components in SU. I can’t see any reason to limit what a component can contain. In my view it should be an embedded LO document with all features of a LO document. Preferably even multiple pages (but you chose for each component instance which page it should show).

I think that would be very confusing and lead many users to accidentally overwrite the component library. Also merely referencing components would cripple the document portability. I think it should function identical to SketchUp, i.e. placing placing a component in a document adds it to the definition list for that document, editing it in the document edits it in that document alone but you are also given the options to save it to an external LO document and reload it from an external LO document.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.