If they are not geometry, why are you determined to put them in groups, which are designed for managing geometry.
I give up. There’s no persuading someone who is sure they know better.
2 Likes
Yeah, well the way round that and not grouping them is to have several layers for dimensions rather than just sticking them all on one layer. Assign the dimensions to the layer not a group that holds them. In a fashion that the dimensions intended to show for a particular scene have visibility turned on and all the other dimension layers are turned off. It’s just a matter of managing the layers.
All this is so far from the original actual topic we shouldn’t be talking about this here anyhow.
3 Likes
Components, not groups. And the reason I do that is because there is no other way of doing what I need to do in SketchUp. If you know of another method for being able to “group” certain sets of dimensions into some type of “set” that can then be turned made visible or invisible in some scenes, independent of the underlying geometry or components that said geometry is a a member of, then I’d love to hear it!
Back at you! You might want to consider applying that ad-hominem to yourself. You are dead-set on convincing me that you know better than I do what my workflow is, and what I need to do. You are trying to tell me that things don’t actually work the way they do work, and that what I need to do isn’t necessary. How could you possibly know that? I keep on explaining why this is necessary, and why it does not work. You keep on ignoring what I am saying, and instead argue for things that I am NOT saying. Why is that?
Like I said: if you have a better way of being able to somehow organize sets of dimensions into “things” that can be made visible or invisible independent of the geometry, WITHOUT losing the connection to the geometry, then I’d love to hear about that. If you don’t have any such “other” method, then what’s the point of trying to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, when you clearly don’t even understand the issue?
That’s exactly what I do, and it does not work. Yes, they do stay together with the underlying geometry, until you change that geometry, then they no longer reflect the actual dimension. That’s the issue.
Might be better if we concentrated our efforts on trying to get a piece of software that serves all our ne da rather than fight with each other. I feel as if an application I’ve used for many years is threatened.
Can you show us an example of one of your models in which you can’t achieve your goal due to broken dimensions?
I apologize for my insulting comment. So, one last try and then I’m truly out of here.
I was (and still am) frustrated by the fact that you have been told by at least 4 different experts how your actual end goal (showing and hiding sets of dimensions) can be accomplished using layers without putting them in components or groups. And how this will not break the association between the dimensions and the geometry they measure. Yet you continue to discard what they have written and insist it can’t be done.
So to reiterate what’s already been written several times: for each set of dimensions you want to control, create a layer and associate those dimensions with that layer. On each scene, make sure it is set to save the layers state, set the visibility you want, and then update the scene. The only shortcomings are that each entity can associate with only one layer and there is no concept of layer hierarchy, so if you need a dimension in two sets you need to duplicate it.
No components or groups required, and no problem with the dimensions continuing to track the entities they measure as you edit.
Is that not the actual end you are trying to accomplish?
4 Likes
I think there is an issue here of expectation vs reality. Dimensions were designed a certain way. They are designed to work with geometry when they are not put into a container. Putting them in a container causes them to no longer behave as they would if they were free from containers. This is the documented behavior.
I am kind of feeling like you want them to function differently from the way they do… I can complain that my wine glass breaks every time I try to hammer a nail into the wall, but the fact is, that was not how it was supposed to work in the first place…
4 Likes
Box Dimensions example version 8.skp (240.1 KB) (EDIT: Afterthought, Version8 file for good measure)
I’ve tried with words and that didn’t work. I’ll try again with an example. Check the scenes and the layers assigned to the dimensions. Modify all three boxes, does that work for you?
If you hadn’t grouped just the dimensions in the first place, it wouldn’t be an issue. I sincerely suggest simply accepting that there is absolutely no need to group them at all for any reason. Go ahead and place your dimensions, move them to their own layer, skip the grouping, and move on with the ability to toggle them on and off while retaining their connection with geometry even when it changes. It’s actually a simpler process for you while also being the way sketchup works. 
And your point is??? I already know that, but that’s not an acceptable way of doing things.
I repeat, for a COMPLEX model there is a NEED to group different sets of dimensions together as components, in various ways, so that they can be made visible, or not, as needed.
Really. And you know this because you have seen one of the models that I’m talking about, and can therefore state unequivocally that I do not need to do what I’m saying I need to do?
Here’s one such model, done as you say, with all the dimensions visible, and grouped along with their geometry, as components: there’s around 500 dimensions on this model, and it’s really not that complex (only about half a million faces, and maybe 8,000 or so components). Some models are a lot more complex. I just chose this one at random:
That’s what it looks like doing it they way you say I should, with all the dimensions grouped onto the layers where there geometry is located. As you can see, that’s a huge problem because you can’t actually see ANY of the dimensions, even though they are all visible. Or rather, you can’t see them BECAUSE they are all visible!
So, what I NEED to do, obviously, is to be able to make most of those invisible, while still leaving some visible INDEPENDENT OF THE LAYER WHERE THE GEOMETRY RESIDES: So I need to be able to do this:
In order to see just the dimensions associated with that part at the front of the room, and also this: To see SOME of the dimensions associated with that wall, or this:
To see a DIFFERENT set of dimensions that are also associated with the same wall, as well as this; To see yet another set of dimensions associated with that wall. And I also need to be able to do this:
In order to see the dimensions EVEN WHEN THE GEOMETRY IS INVISIBLE.
And I also need to be able to turn of ALL the dimensions using just ONE layer, to which all dimensions are assigned, as well as being assigned to their individual components so they can be made visible or not, by themselves. Like this:
I can do all of that in this model, very simply, by just grouping the dimensions into components in varying levels of detail, and assigning them to various layers. It works wonderfully. I produced each of those images in just a couple of seconds by turning on and off various layers in the model (like I said, it’s not a particularly complex model: there’s only about 650 layers in there). Except for one HUGE problem; the dimensions do not stay attached to their underlying geometry, so every time I change something in the model, I have to go to each affected dimensions individually, delete it, and create a new one in its place. It would be so much easier if SketchUp would just permanently attach each dimension to the original geometry where it was initially created (like pretty much all other design software does).
Please explain how I would be able to do any of that without grouping the dimensions into components SEPARATELY from the geometry, in order to retain the connection to the geometry.
Sure! See above. And thanks for asking! I wish I could share the actual model, but unfortunately I can’t as it is part of a project I’m working for a customer. Besides, the file is over 60MB, so probably not up-loadable anyway, and I’d have to spend so much time explaining how all the layers and scenes work, and how the components are grouped, that you’d get bored and quit even trying! Hopefully, the images above will explain it clearly.
Select those dimensions and use Entity info to put them on a layer named something like , Floor level dimensions of room 5.
You can then turn on just that layer independent of anything else and you will see those dimensions and they will still be connected to the geometry that is on a different layer.
1 Like
And how do you think I managed to do all of the above? Thanks for trying to help, but it seems you aren’t understanding the issue.
ALL of those 500 or so dimensions are assigned to one single layer, called “DIMENSIONS”, then they are ALSO assigned in other groups, such as all of the ones associated with that wall are assigned to another layer, called “DIMENSIONS: Left Wall”, they they are ALSO grouped in OTHER ways, such as some of them being assigned to yet other layers called “DIMENSIONS: Framing” and “DIMENSIONS: Sheathing”. It’s actually not hard to do that, and set up quite complex but very usable hierarchies. SketchUp is very powerful in that sense, and allows you to assign the same dimension (or geometry) to different components, which can then be assigned to different layers. It’s great from that point of view, and easy to use to set up these hierarchies of components and layers, and then have different things visible in different scenes. Very simple, and very powerful. Except that when you do that, the dimensions “disconnect” from the geometry, which isn’t logical. There should be an option to be able to “force” a dimension to always remain attached to its geometry, regardless of what component it is part of, or what layers it is on.
Don’t assign them all to one layer called Dimensions.
If you sort your layers by relevant areas you can name them in such a way that they are almost nested, Nested layers being the missing link here.
Creating a sensible hierarchy of layers allows you to turn them on and off using click shift click so that multiple groups of layers are selected so you can toggle the visibility.
When you select several dimensions, rather than make them a group, assign them a suitable layer.
4 Likes
I totally understand, trust me! My point is that by using the actual “Group” function, you’re going to break their connection. I’m suggesting that you instead “group” them on a layer instead, which not only simplifies your process, but results in the exact functionality you desire.
If you just move your dimensions to any amount of dimensions layers you desire, you’ll get the functionality you want moving forward. Right now, there is nothing wrong with SketchUp, and it is working as intended. This isn’t a bug, it’s just a different way of working, which shouldn’t be a huge shift for you if you accept the difference.
The only difference between what you’re doing and what everyone here is suggesting is that you simply do not “Group” the dimensions before assigning them to layers. You skip a step and you get what you need. Best of luck, it looks like you work on some pretty rad projects.
1 Like
You can even have multiples of the same dimensions on different layers so they can appear in different combinations of scenes.
So many verbal descriptions beg for a demo, yes? Here’s my understanding of the suggestions made:
…and the file:
Dimension Layers.skp (379.3 KB)
3 Likes
Not entirely. With groups you may be able to get away with dimensions inside the group’s container, on the same level with the geometry they measure. Each group is one of a kind.
With components you may have several instances in the model and if you only want one with its dimensions, they need to be outside the container.
In general associated dimensions are inside the container with the things they measure or in a higher level than the things they measure.
This does not conflict with what has been said in previous posts about layers and not grouping dimensions on their own.
