Material not associated with component

My process is to create a component then assign a material to it. The material looks fine in the drawing but the material does not get associated with the component in the tray. So when I go to add that component to the drawing again, I always have to re-do associating a material to it. I’m sure there’s an easy fix I’m not seeing. . .

You are probably applying the material to component and not to the surfaces inside the component. That material then applies only to that instance of the component. Edit the component and color the faces. Leave the component itself DEFAULT color.

1 Like


But the component shows with all faces and sides with the right material. . .is it misleading me?

You can paint a component container or you can paint the faces inside. Best practice usually is to paint the faces. That means opening the component for editing before applying the texture.

1 Like

If you are doing what I think, it’s just the way it works. It has some uses. Whatever
faces inside are Default material will take on the color you apply to the component as a whole.

1 Like

Thanks guys. I’m all in for today. Will try it tomorrow.

1 Like

FWIW, if you apply the texture to the faces, you will have the ability to adjust the orientation as needed to match the alignment of the piece.

1 Like

What he said.

Also if the component is scaled the texture scaling goes off the rails when painted to component and not to surfaces.

There is a chance for confusion between materials on a component’s definition and on its instances.

If you paint an instance of a component, you affect only that one instance, not its definition. Other instances, including new ones you add later, will not get that material. Therefore the image in the component tray is not changed.

If, on the other hand, you open the component for edit and paint the faces inside it, that will affect all instances and also new ones you create later. In this case the image in the tray will show the material.

The rules are the same but the implications get more confusing when you look at a component that has nested instances of other components.

Thanks Dave. I think you know I’m trying to model an Adirondack chair. I deconstructed an old chair and have traced paper patterns for each of the pieces. I also have MDF templates for each of the pieces. I’ve attached a picture of what the pieces look like. As you can see they are almost all curves which makes it tough to measure and get into SketchUp. Is there a good way to get these pieces modeled accurately in Sketchup? I’ve finished doing it the hard way but it’s not as accurate as I’d like. IMG_0657

I don’t tend to get the MDF templates but I’ve gotten plenty of full size drawings to use in creating SketchUp models and plans. The two chairs in the foreground of the image, below, are good examples of that.

In order to work out the shapes of the curves I draw a baseline and series of parallel lines perpendicular to the baseline across the drawing at regular intervals. Then I measure from the baseline to the curve on each of those parallels. This gives me a table of offsets that I can use to construct the curves in SketchUp. A Catmull spline works nicely for drawing the non-circular curves. That’s one of the tools included in Fredo6’s Bezier Spline tool set.

Nice looking chairs by the way.

Thanks. I think I may have confused with my terminology. An MDF template is not digital, it is a physical piece made out of Medium Density Fiberboard. I was thinking there might be a way to take a digital photo of the physical piece and get it into Sketchup. I’ve watched a video on the Match New Photo functionality but that seems like it would only work well with straight lines. Maybe I’m wrong.
The process I used sounds exactly like the baseline process you suggested. It worked but was time consuming so I was looking for a more efficient way. I’m only a week into using Sketchup so lots to learn and I definitely have found that my initial way of doing things is usually not the best way. :sweat_smile:

Yes. I know what MDF is. Termite_poop. :smiley: When I get these sorts of projects to model, the client sends me a copy of their full sized drawings on paper and not their patterns if they have them.

You could, if you are very careful with the camera setup and if the lens doesn’t have any noticeable pin cushion or barrel distortion, get usable images from your MDF pattern pieces. You could also put them on a flat bed scanner and scan them in sections. Then assemble the images to create something you can trace in SketchUp.

Match Photo won’t work for what you want to do. The image needs to have some clear straight lines running off to two vanishing points on the horizon.

It can be a little time consuming but with practice, putting in the offsets isn’t that bad and drawing the curve through the points will be very fast with the Catmull spline.

Ha! Yes that’s exactly what MDF is!

Thanks for all your help. I’ll look into the Catmull spline and tool set to do it. I can see by the video in the extension warehouse that it looks like it would make much better curves that I did just using the standard tools.

Have a great day!

Instead of getting it from the Extension Warehouse, though, get it from Sketchucation to make sure you have the freshest copy. If you need a hand figuring it out, I’ll help after I go cut some dovetails for a little walnut box.