Using Live Components

I have not really looked at Live Components before, assuming they were just an amuse-bouche ahead of releasing them as full blown replacements for DCs. But a recent email, and lack of progress on the release, encouraged me to take a look.

There seem to be quite a few models and some could be genuinely useful. It seems that they work differently to DCs in that you configure before you download. I wonder whether this gives a hint about their future? Maybe end users will never be able to create one from scratch. I guess that helps get rid of some of the big problems with 3DW (badly constructed models, large polycounts, etc).

I opened a couple, but I just get a blank screen as below. Could this be to do with using Safari as a browser?

I put your topic into the right category ( You know, there is a dedicated one… :wink: )

In SU 2021 you can do the configuration after downloading too…

Cheers. I didn’t know. But I do now!

Didn’t know that either. I’ll try it. Still a puzzle why it doesn’t work online though.

Yeah, There are a glitches sometimes with 3DWH… and I heard it’s better to use Chrome …

You can also double click on LC to configure it.

1 Like

If LCs are not going to be user constructed from scratch, or not for a while anyway, is there any mechanism for lodging requests for LC models that Trimble produces for us?


1 Like

@tickletickle, do we have a channel for requesting LCs?

curious… is it really a component? If you copy it and edit one, do they both change?

I think this demonstrates the limitations of LCs as they stand.

There is a residential panelled door and you can change a lot about it. But whatever you do, it doesn’t look like any door I have ever seen.

For example, you can change the rail width but then all rails, muntins, and stiles, are the same. In practice, the lock rail and bottom rail will always be wider. Also, panel heights are equal whereas in reality, the top panels of a four panel door will always be larger (and it gets even more complex with a 6 panel door!).

Less important is the fact that joint lines show and haven’t been hidden. Also the LC panels are plain and don’t allow for things like raising and fielding.

Having said all that, it’s OK for something generic that looks more or less like a door.

Yes, they both change. Try it!

@simoncbevans I guess is better to describe the “door problems” above on that category…

OK, who can move it there for me?

Perhaps you can leave it like this now, but next time … :innocent:

:bulb:Actually you can create a new topic there, copy you original post content to there and delete your original post from here…

At your suggestion, I have posted there and expanded on my critique. I was amazed to see that I was the only poster since the OP in October last. Is that an indictment of the LC concept, I wonder? Maybe the jadedness of those who saw DCs introduced to great fanfare but then largely ignored by regulars.

You posted in a topic where describing how to use the category… Why don’t you created a new topic in the category instead?
Category: SketchUp LabsLive Components Content
New Topic Subject: “Internal Residential Door issues”
First post: Your description with link to that specific component…


I posted there about half a year ago, but since the “repairing time” was about 4 month I decided to not do it anymore…

When I use your link, I see this:

Is that what you expected?

Yes. Push the button “+New Topic” there…

I’m getting confused. On the Live Components part of the 3DW, it asks you to post comments here: Feedback and Known Issues | SketchUp Help.

I think I’ll just leave things where I put them and see if anyone else squawks or moves them for me.

The more I try to use LCs, the more issues I see. I know it is only in beta stage still, but if Trimble want to make sure their investment so far doesn’t evaporate in the way they must have done for DCs, they need to up their game.

Here’s an example of two LCs used in conjunction, a door and a window.

The first thing to notice is what appears to be reverse faces - an elementary error. This has been noted before but apparently not corrected.

The second thing is that you would normally expect the width of the LC to correspond to the opening you are putting it in. But they don’t. And worse still, the adjustment you have to make is different for each of these. So there is a lot of mucking about to achieve something that should be almost instantaneous.

The dimension woes would be solved if we were able to stretch the LC, horizontally and vertically. But that seems to have been disabled.

The third thing is that there seems to be no consistency about the origin point. So you not only have to keep fooling around with the width and height but also with location. I would expect the origin to be consistent between models, probably at bottom left front. If we can’t have a standard origin point, then something that displays but doesn’t print should show us where it is.

@jody @ene_su