Deleting any hidden DC 'info' from a file

[pcmoor]

to give you a better insight into swap-able DCs

Condition to release more component options?

There is a workaround using generic options that have choose formula within the value section of a dropdown [Capture] count visible 2.skp (115.1 KB) However I recommend you consider a swapping technique thus keeping the components simple. Like for timber, Pine, LVL, Hardwood… separate components with their size and properties, despite having the same shape. The swapping technique that allows the object to retain a current size like “lenY” involves an extra component wrapper and to be sav…

So you can create all window, door, structural elements… DCs with this ability if required.

Please consider the instance method of labeling and notation, which means you do not use “Name” attribute nor change the header in the attribute dialog.

Can only specifically named instance of a component be made to respond to a behavior?

When adding attributes to a component where you wish to make use of the instance naming you need to saveas the original, clear and bring the DC back into the file, otherwise the attribute and option header does not update. It keeps referring to the embedded definition _name [Sketchup: Simple Dynamic Elements]

Dynamic components are the safer option, dynamic groups can be considered, but they should only be on the lowest level, and copies of groups with a scaler can be problematic

I understand Live components are likely to take over, in that they will receive the development whereas DCs will not be developed any further; so DCs require the use of ruby scripts to overcome their short comings. You need to decide if the investment is worth while. Personally I would give a go, then reconsider when live component authorizing tools are released, it maybe that there will still be a place for DCs.

I am happy to help whatever future if I can