I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question for
you Sketchup enthusiasts.
How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by a
welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
welded to the subassemblies.
The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
Comments? Suggestions?
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was just pointing out that Sketchup will do much more than many think it
> can do. Obviousely having a mechanical drawing back ground is helpful in
> solving some of the more complex situations when using SU. More expensive
> programs have short cuts for dealing with those common situations.
Preacher; choir. Regarding that last bit, though... I fear I'm belaboring
it, and you have to be tired already of reading it, but it still needs to be
said. The "smarts" in the 2d sketch is a generalization of the parametric
solver, not just shortcuts for hard coded special, common situations. You
nail down the things you care about, a size, or a distance, or some other
relationship to some other part. This specifies your design intent. What
isn't nailed down are implicitly the things the solver can adjust to
maintain your intent when you later move things around or resize them. SU 7
Pro added the fledgling beginnings of this capability. I don't know much
about it, since I don't have Pro to play around with, but I expect it to
remain somewhat limited, simply because SU doesn't retain all that much
history of how the parts are created. For example, it doesn't remember that
you pulled a face X distance to create the part, so it can't later adjust
that distance in its solution. We'll see how that turns out in subsequent SU
versions. That should be an interesting area to watch.
"Swingman" wrote
>
> Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
> difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.
>
Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I am
interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout included
in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.
What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns it
into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is a
presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy fartsy
kinda thing.
But for certain audiences, it will get the deal where the more technical
drawings will not. And that is the sort of thing I need to do. These kinds
of tools used to be quite common. I have used them before. Then they got
bought up and became part of big, expensive graphics packages. It will be
worth $500 to me for this capability alone.
Besides I used to do my drawings with a T square and triangle. And I sketch
constantly on graph paper. The Layout module is a nice touchy feely thing
that breaks down communication barriers for certain audiences. It will help
secure funding for a couple hard sell projects.
I know that this is NOT what you were talking about Swingman. I just
thought I would contribute this comment. Primarily because of all this
discussion, I am looking at Sketchup more closely now. And this Layout
functions looks like a winner to me.
I am really curious as to why google included this feature. I haven't seen
it for awhile. It is good to see it back.
NOT trying to stir the pot or anything. ;-)
<stir, stir>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
>> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>>
>> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by
>> a welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>>
>> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
>> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
>> welded to the subassemblies.
>>
>> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>>
>> Comments? Suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>
> I see no problems in that application.
>
> As far as accuracy, in inches you can go to .0001" or in 1/64" in
> fractions of an inch. In mm, .0001mm
>
> 3D perspective would be automatic.
>
> Just remember to draw objects/components, not line drawings.
>
How about dimensioning? I would need the lengths to be very clear.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
> wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.<victorious grin>
Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people from
taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got tired of
tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.
Aren't you lucky!
"Jack Stein" wrote
>
> Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
>
Robatoy is a self confessed tool snob. But his comments are interesting,
maybe even old school. But he does have skills. And he does let you know
what he thinks.
But Robatoy comments, whatever they may be, hardly qualifies for the
"denigrating" characterization. His comments are a refreshing
alternative/counterweight to the SU cultists. ;_)
We should be encourageing alternative perspectives in this forum. Not
"denigrating" those folks who have a different viewpoint.
"Robatoy" offered
On Mar 4, 1:32 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote
>
> > Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
>
> Robatoy is a self confessed tool snob. But his comments are interesting,
> maybe even old school. But he does have skills. And he does let you know
> what he thinks.
>
> But Robatoy comments, whatever they may be, hardly qualifies for the
> "denigrating" characterization. His comments are a refreshing
> alternative/counterweight to the SU cultists. ;_)
>
> We should be encourageing alternative perspectives in this forum. Not
> "denigrating" those folks who have a different viewpoint.
Was that a bottle of scotch or a bottle of cognac I was supposed to
send you?
=====================================
Cognac?? Dis you say COGNAC?? That brings back memories!! My dad brought
back a bottle of cognac from WWII. I drank it. I just couldn't help myself.
Mmmmm...., good. <smacks lips>
"Robatoy" told us in great detail...
On Mar 1, 1:55 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >> What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
> > I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
>
> From here it looks more like when you do find the time, Swingman makes
> you look rather unfamiliar with SU's capabilities.
>
> Not sure what you use all that fancy CAD software for that SU can't do,
> but it must be pretty technical? Don't you build counter tops?
>
Well, Jack, seeing as you show a keen interest in what it is I do,
allow me to tell you a bit about my building of countertops.
When a client orders a countertop, say a Hanstone Quartz top, and that
client wants an undermounted Franke sink, my job then includes getting
a file from the sink manufacturer and creating a toolpath for a CNC
router.
In the case of Quartz, I do not have the capability to cut that
material as I have not invested the millions it takes to do that
properly and competetively, but it is 40% of my business.
So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
(There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png
to these guys:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture10.png
who then plunge their $ 3000.00 worth of diamond bits into multiples
of thousands of dollars worth of Quartz slabs and them make it all
pretty and send it to me all finished for me and my guys to install
it.
The files I send them, also include a scribed set of complex curves
for any back-wall aberrations , the sink-file location co-ordinates
etc.
Average cost of the jobs range between $3K and $9K. Sometimes more.
I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque.
In the meantime, I now feed those sink files via my CNC into my Corian
slabs, here at my shop, and do the same things for other clients.
I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque. Again.
..are you still with me, Jack??
Is that really a job for SU? Do my clients, such as the nation-wide
chains like Rona, Home Hardware and IKEA open SU files? Jack?
But you're right. I fabricate countertops.
=================================================
Whaaaaat????
I thought you just took a hamnmer and chisel to it and carved out the sink
hole caveman style!!! LOL
There IS an advantage to being a tool snob. It allows you to do many things
that others can not. As you pointed out above. Besides, if you weren't
getting some checks (cheques) out of this, you couldn't afford to buy big,
fancy routers!
I am also a tool snob. A financially challenged tool snob, mind you. But
still a tool snob. But tool snobs do play an important role in this world
of ours.
I applaud google for putting a software tool out there that people can use
to build things for a very good price. I am concerned that it is part of
the overall effect of the world wide web dumbing things down in general. It
raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and abilities
of many as well. There are those who will do many things well with this
tool. But like anything, many will not.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Jack Stein" whined
>>> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
>>> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
>>> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
>>>
>> Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business.
>
> Apparently you have no clue what a troll might be. Being employed and
> having a job has zip, nadda, nothing to do with whether one is a troll or
> not. Besides, I probably worked longer than RoboCop's been alive.
>
>> He has actual skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this
>> newsgroup.
>
> Perhaps, but in this thread, the only contribution he's made is
> misinformation, big time.
>
>> You on the other hand whine constantly and make out Rob to be some kinda
>> villian. This is definitely troll type behavior.
>
> As far as the RoboTroll statement, it was just a response to him calling
> me SteinTroll. BTW, I have no clue what a " villian" might be... Perhaps
> RoboCop, the spell checker can help you with this stuff?
>
> If all this bothers you so much, read something else...
>
> Oh, Robocop sure doesn't need you defending him any more than Swingman
> needs me. You have something good or bad to say about SU, go ahead and
> make your day. A post that does nothing but attack me is troll like. Are
> you employed/own a business?
>
> Not sure what your post here contributes to anything, other than you
> getting your rocks off attempting to make me look like a villain, or
> troll, or whatever simple minded thing floats your boat.
>
I don't have the time and patience to respond to all this drivel.
1. I have made my comments about Sketchup. I am now considering it for a
couple projects specifically for the Stylebuilder module.
2. Whatever your problem with Robatoy is, your rampant paranoia and rabid
demonization of his remarks hardly qualifies as any kind of objective
commentary.
3. It is obvious to me that you want to provoke and perpetuate a war of
words. I am having nothing to do with this.
4. And since your remarks are remarkably devoid of any real value, I will no
longer subject myself to this form of newsgroup abuse.
5. For someone who is overly pedantic about the definition of a troll, your
behavior/comments are very troll-like.
6. Plonk.
"Swingman" wrote
>
> Magnetic declination? ... I just had the same issue when orienting the
> slab on a current residential project, which was ostensibly oriented
> specifically for solar heat/hot water. The designer, who drew up the
> original "plans" (in SketchUp, BTW), was not familiar with the difference
> between true and magnetic North ... among a myriad of other things.
>
> Amazing, the cavernous gap in education of some of these so called
> "professionals" of today.
>
That is a profound level of ignorance. Heck, I had that nailed at the age
of 11 in boy scouts. I used to reconointer with map and compass
competitively at 13. I must be an old fart. This sort of thing has been
replaced by GPS tecnology.
An aside to the above. I used to take all kinds of wilderness surivival
courses as a teenager and used to build woodcraft types of shelters at
fairs, etc. I also designed elite first aid kits and survival gear. So I
know something about this sort of thing. When asked as to the most
important peice of survival gear I would pack if I was to get very far off
the beaten track, I always answer, "A satellite phone."
"Swingman" shared this little gem with us...
>
> Damn, Jack ... little did we realize that SU is the tool of the devil! We
> better update the warning label ASAP, eh?
>
Hmmmmmmmm..., Goggle, Sketchup, tool of the devil, hmmmmmmmmm.......
Somewhere in there is the gist of a great new marketing program. ;-)
"Jack Stein" whined
>
> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
>
Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business. He has actual
skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this newsgroup.
You on the other hand whine constantly and make out Rob to be some kinda
villian. This is definitely troll type behavior.
On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> > OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
> > Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
> > I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
> > wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
> > built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you saying
> > one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all? I'm no
> > SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same as have
> > been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and w/o SU,
> > computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?
>
> Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
> with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
> device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
> 0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
looking for that sooner. I am not sure how easy/possible it is to get
a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. I'm
not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.
http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/Newest_scripts.html
Bezier Spline v1.2
At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.
So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.
-Kevin
On Mar 4, 9:33 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:c27ee83e-a3ee-43eb-80ac-856a6e7b3647@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 4, 3:22 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
> > countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
>
> > There is a free hand tool but you better be smooth. ;~)
>
> Hehehehe, well, I think we all know how smooth I am...LOL
> NOT
>
> Is the freehand tool editable? With handles and nodes and stuff? Or
> should I just go take another download/look?
No it isn't, and AFAIK you can't control the number of line segments
sketchup approximates the path with. With arcs you can't make it
default to anything above 32, but you can go in and edit it to higher
number after. But you can't set it or edit that value on the freehand
entities. They are basically useless.
If I had to try to do a kidney shaped counter top in sketchup I would
probably start with some rectangles to rough in the shape. When you
do arcs sketchup will infer that you want to make the next arc tangent
to the previous one if you do them consecutively. But it won't
maintain that if you move anything, and it won't pick up the tangency
if you do anything in between. So you can "easily" make a free
flowing curved surface, but you have to know exactly where you are
going before you start. So I would lay out rectangles on one layer
and then use the corners like control points for arcs on a different
layer. It would only take a few seconds to draw the arcs, so you
could muck around with the rectangles and then redraw the arcs. A
completely backwards way of doing it, but you'd get there
eventually.
-Kevin
On Mar 8, 7:08=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> > Reminds me of the guys that wrote C actually wrote it as a tool in
> > developing UNIX, the worlds greatest OS... again, I was impressed.
>
> Dennis still drops in on comp.lang.c from time to time.
>
> > Today, I'm obsessed with neither programing or woodwork. =A0I tend to
> > waste a lot of time just fighting with people like Robocop just for
> > kicks. =A0Not sure why I enjoy it, but I do, and have ever since the
> > FidoNet days...
>
> I think you guys may have a lot more in common than either of you will
> ever admit here. :)
>
I am smarter and better looking than Steintroll.
On Mar 7, 2:08=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
> >http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadratic/parabola/interactive-parabola.php
>
> Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?
>
> :-]
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
I scaled it so it sorta-kinda looked like 48"... LOL.. I guess that
won't do for Morris, eh?
But, hey, it's a starting point, no? (The other problem with the
trace, is that it goes up and down both sides of the line.
Hold my beer, I'm going to try something....
On Mar 7, 6:18=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
> > the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
> > Let's see if you can sell him.
>
> I quite arguing this a while back, but I will say, once again, that anyon=
e
> with a cursory familiarity with both versions will tell you that you are
> dead wrong in that supposition.
>
Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
>> http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadratic/parabola/interactive-parabola.php
>
> Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?
I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry, I could
have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for someone just itching
to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to contribute to the Sketchup
library of add-ons. Spin a cone and intersect it with a face describing the
curve, or just calculate the points and connect them. More generally, maybe
just import a list of ordinates from a spreadsheet and plot them. This would
be generally useful for lofting a canoe hull, for example. Is that getting
too far out of the realm of woodworking?
On Mar 3, 10:13=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nothing wrong with that. =A0Still, I've installed a number of sinks,
> cutting out the sink hole perfectly with nothing more than a tape,
> pencil and saw... No fancy or non-fancy CAD program needed. =A0
Undermounted sink? Quartz countertop? 30 mm thick? The edge of the cut-
out matching the beveled edge of a $1000.00 sink? Perfectly?
Tape, pencil, saw.
Right.
I have been lurking on this thread and just wanted to let you know
(particularly Swingman) that I really appreciate u turning me on to SU. I've
fussed with it enuf to get that it will do exactly what I want, i.e. to
design WW projects without a lot of constraints, but end up with a usable
plan to build it. Thanks
On Mar 4, 6:45=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" offered
>
> On Mar 4, 1:32 pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Jack Stein" wrote
>
> > > Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
>
> > Robatoy is a self confessed tool snob. But his comments are interesting=
,
> > maybe even old school. But he does have skills. And he does let you kno=
w
> > what he thinks.
>
> > But Robatoy comments, whatever they may be, hardly qualifies for the
> > "denigrating" characterization. His comments are a refreshing
> > alternative/counterweight to the SU cultists. ;_)
>
> > We should be encourageing alternative perspectives in this forum. Not
> > "denigrating" those folks who have a different viewpoint.
>
> Was that a bottle of scotch or a bottle of cognac I was supposed to
> send you?
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Cognac?? =A0Dis you say COGNAC?? =A0That brings back memories!! =A0My dad=
brought
> back a bottle of cognac from WWII. =A0I drank it. I just couldn't help my=
self.
> Mmmmm...., good. =A0<smacks lips>
Oh yes indeed... I like a 50-year old Calvados even more. I think that
was the that stuff coined the phrase: "like baby Jesus peeing through
velvet pants."
On Mar 5, 11:30=A0am, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> > Morris Dovey wrote:
> >> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> >>>>> It raises the abilities of many. =A0But also degrades expectations
> >>>>> and abilities of many as well. =A0
>
> >>> That makes no sense to me?
>
> >> It does to me. It either limits design solutions to those using only
> >> straight lines or circular/elliptical arcs, and doesn't "understand"
> >> solids (which it deals with only as closed collections of surfaces).
>
> > Still don't understand the point? =A0 SU allows woodworkers to draw up =
2d
> > and 3d drawings of stuff they wish to build, it does it cheaply (free)
> > and does it well. =A0I think it meets the needs and expectations of mos=
t
> > woodworkers. =A0Certainly not every wood worker, perhaps not one that u=
ses
> > a CNC machine that interfaces with perhaps AUTOCAD that costs thousands
> > and probably is used by people designing billion dollar launch pads for
> > NASA, and went to school for x years learning how to use the software.
>
> This is a BS response - comparable to saying that a table saw and a set
> of hole saws is a complete and adequate set of cutting tools.
>
> I'm not sure what your hang-up on CNC tooling is, unless you have some
> kind of anti-precision prejudice. I have two CNC routers, and the more
> precise - seehttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/- was shop built
> (mostly of wood!) and contains less than $1000 worth of materials. It
> interfaces with free-for-the-downloading control software. Your
> references to AutoCAD, billion dollar projects, and years of training
> are just plain silly.
>
> >> I'll agree that it may be a great tool for drawing up boxes, but I
> >> also recognize that it discourages people from thinking beyond boxes
> >> (and/or aggregates of boxes) and circular arcs.
>
> > Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
> > curves. =A0SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool =
for
> > most woodworkers.
>
> Only if there is no need to move forward from the toolset provided by
> Euclid of Alexandria more than 2000 years ago.
>
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the world has moved on. A
> software package that gives woodworkers access only to what was known
> two thousand years ago, however conveniently and prettily, is sadly
> outdated.
>
> >> It makes me a bit uncomfortable to say it right out loud, and I assure
> >> you that no offense is intended - but if what you're saying is that
> >> nothing more is needed, then you've proved the point you say didn't
> >> make sense to you. :-/
>
> > No offense taken, but while I never said that nothing more is needed, I
> > heard someone else say they don't need to draw all the details of thing=
s
> > they build. =A0I agree, and more over, when I was building stuff at a
> > furious pace, I hardly needed more than a few pencil lines with numbers
> > on =A0them to build most anything, often not even that.
>
> Agreed - if your project is sufficiently simple, a pencil can be an
> adequate solution. Now consider one of my projects
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
>
> How would you tackle that with a pencil? And before you talk about that
> being too "far out" to matter to woodworkers, I'll mention that that
> project's web pages have been visited by woodworkers from 46 countries
> so far this month (according to the server report generated at 3:04 this
> morning).
>
> My inescapable conclusion is that there are a lot of woodworkers whose
> woodworking interests go considerably beyond what can be done with 2300
> year old geometry.
>
> > I still don't really need SU, and certainly nothing more than SU to
> > build stuff, It is really good for looking at exactly how a new design
> > might look before you build it.
>
> > I can tell you for sure, as a hobbyist wood worker I absolutely,
> > positively would not spend much (any) money on a cad program when I can
> > spend a few minutes with a pencil drawing up an entire kitchen, or work
> > bench, or lamp, or chair, or desk, or end table, or door or shed and
> > build it just fine.
>
> Goody for you. That sounds a lot like "I got what /I/ need..."
>
> > =A0I KNOW this because I've done it. =A0So, from my
> > prospective, and I bet a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite
> > of what was said, it actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that
> > would normally never spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or
> > any other CAD program.
>
> AND they can save money on pencils, too... :)
>
> I still see it as "dumbing down".
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
There is this thing called LayOut, Morris, that has a few neat
features. I think it comes with SUPro. (As opposed to SUPdoc?)
LayOut does allow beziers and Dynamic Components makes designing
Mission tables fun.
Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool. Fun
is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*
On Mar 10, 9:57=A0am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
>
> Shit disturber! You really like to wallow in it don't you? =A0:)
Say wot? Flame finials are works of art. Those are hard to make, even
for an a-axis indexing lathe on a CNC.
I like the brass ones, with the flame going a bit sideways in a
mythical breeze.
To carve those free-hand out of wood takes a deft hand...hell even a
minwax hand!
I ain't stirring shit! You must have me confused with someone else.
On Feb 27, 4:05=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 27, 2:07 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:50 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Exactly, to say that you can use SU to build a house does therefore
> not validate the software but the builder, who can use anything if he
> knows how to build a house in the first place.
> I have 20 years and thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in my
> software, yet I cannot design, much less build a boat. The software is
> very capable as a tool to a boat builder, but *I* cannot design/build
> a boat. Owning software with capability means dick.
> If my problems are such that my selection of software DOES solve them,
> then I am a happy camper. And I am.
>
> You may be in luck with that boat, There are hundreds of design drawings =
of
> boats/ships for Sketchup. =A0:~)
>
> Snip
>
> So yes, one can build a house with SU, but will it be a better house?
>
> Not necessirilly better or worse as the same goes for AutoCAD or the like
> software.
> The more in tune with the software you are the better the results of the
> plans.
>
> I think the point to designing suitable plans for building a house using
> Sketchup is simply that Sketchup is quite capable of fulfilling this need=
.
> More expensive programs that will do the same are simply more expensive
> programs that do the same.
When it comes to house-building, you're right.
On Feb 26, 5:41=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ddb08e43-5e21-40c6-9f39-83e0d7818b1c@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 1:56 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Here's a partial look of =A0the tool kit. Those modules live on another
> monitor, but I have dragged them over here to give you some
> indication. The pull-down in the centre are all tools/commands missing
> in SU...http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview&cu=
rrent=3D...
>
> Ok, but I am talking from a ww project point of view. =A0I do realize tha=
t CAD
> programs have lots more tools, I'v been using a bunch since 1997 myself.
> ;~)
>
> Keep in mind, that most single tool icons can/will launch a dialog
> box, something like this base cabinet parametric. Those exist for just
> about any kind of cabinets and commercial/office furniture.http://s123.ph=
otobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3D...
>
> Another example of a parametric. One of several dozen different stair
> designs.http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview&cu=
rrent=3D...
>
> Take a poke here,http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/en_sectio=
ns.htmlther are a
> bunch of plug ins that make Sketch up more fashonable. =A0;~) =A0there ar=
e
> several "stair" plug ins.
>
> ..and then there is the rendering aka pretty picturesit will create if
> called upon. (By a customer who can't decide what wood grain to go
> with in her kitchen.)
>
> Sketch can do that with the correct chosen material.
>
> I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
>
> Understood
>
> r
Oh.. then there is the interface to this program for my router:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPi=
cture6.png
On Mar 3, 2:40=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Leon wrote:
>
> >> Or it could be buyers remorse.
>
> > But probably isn't. If all of my software went "poof!", I would probabl=
y
> > re-download and install SU - right after I finished ordering a CAD pack=
age
> > that filled /more/ of my needs.
>
> Precicely, but this is a recreational woodworking news group. =A0There ar=
e
> some that only have a need for this type drawing and are using the more
> expensive software, take me for instance. =A0While I am a bit past
> recreational, my tools have more than pay for themselves time and again, =
I
> am tired of the Autodesk policy of having to upgrade every 4 or so years =
or
> loose the ability to upgrade at a reduced price. =A0Because my latest ver=
sion
> is 2004 if I want to upgrade now I will have to pay full price and that i=
s
> crouding $1K. =A0For my purpose I get very detailed drawing that are more
> presentable to customers in much less time using SU.
>
Hey, I heard that. I went through that whole 'upgrade' bullshit a year-
or-so ago. At that time I was prepared to go to a competitive lateral
upgrade till I found out that the solid modelling component did not
include a proper 2D environment. So they had me by the short-'n-
curlies. I dropped the money for the upgrade and I'm now glad I did. I
did not have to relearn anything, but it still irks the piss out of me
that those bastards KNOW that and I hate being led around by the nose
like that. Good thing those upgrades are an expense and a 100% write-
off.
We may have this discussion one day in the future after Google has
developed a large and dependable customer base and they start offering
the essentials, such as import/export features only to those who pay
for them. SU is not free because Google likes Leon, okay?
What are the differences between Pro and the Freebie now?
On Mar 1, 6:14=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3d351cd7-b353-4602-ae4e-d4c7734b13b7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
> (There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)http://s123.photobucket.c=
om/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3D...
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> SU users can look forward to a few hours of misery, frustration, and
> uncertainty trying to sketch that sink outline. Start to finish was 8
> minutes using SolidWorks, all the tangents faired, dimensioned, fully
> contrained, with the selected controlling dimensions distinguishable from
> driven dimensions.
8 minutes, eh? Not too shabby. *tips hat*
The dimensions are mostly illustrative, The 'meat' is in the .dxf file
itself, that is the one that drives all the toys.
As you know, when dimensioning anything with curvature, the beginning
and end of a curve can be a difficult to grab accurately.
In most cases I strip the dimensioning layer off before sending the
actual file off.
>
> There is some ambiguity in the drawing, but maybe nothing major. It is ov=
er
> defined, and the resulting shape is different depending on which dimensio=
ns
> you take as defining, and which are reference.
Call them a rough guide. The actual .dxf file will dimension more
accurately. (The architects are a different crowd than CNC Mill
operators <G>)
r----> who has heard good things about Solidworks.
On Mar 1, 1:55=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> >> =A0 What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup=
?
> > I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
>
> =A0From here it looks more like when you do find the time, Swingman makes
> you look rather unfamiliar with SU's capabilities.
>
> Not sure what you use all that fancy CAD software for that SU can't do,
> but it must be pretty technical? =A0Don't you build counter tops?
>
Well, Jack, seeing as you show a keen interest in what it is I do,
allow me to tell you a bit about my building of countertops.
When a client orders a countertop, say a Hanstone Quartz top, and that
client wants an undermounted Franke sink, my job then includes getting
a file from the sink manufacturer and creating a toolpath for a CNC
router.
In the case of Quartz, I do not have the capability to cut that
material as I have not invested the millions it takes to do that
properly and competetively, but it is 40% of my business.
So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
(There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPi=
cture9.png
to these guys:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPi=
cture10.png
who then plunge their $ 3000.00 worth of diamond bits into multiples
of thousands of dollars worth of Quartz slabs and them make it all
pretty and send it to me all finished for me and my guys to install
it.
The files I send them, also include a scribed set of complex curves
for any back-wall aberrations , the sink-file location co-ordinates
etc.
Average cost of the jobs range between $3K and $9K. Sometimes more.
I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque.
In the meantime, I now feed those sink files via my CNC into my Corian
slabs, here at my shop, and do the same things for other clients.
I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque. Again.
..are you still with me, Jack??
Is that really a job for SU? Do my clients, such as the nation-wide
chains like Rona, Home Hardware and IKEA open SU files? Jack?
But you're right. I fabricate countertops.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So yes, one can build a house with SU, but will it be a better house?
>
> Not necessirilly better or worse as the same goes for AutoCAD or the like
> software.
> The more in tune with the software you are the better the results of the
> plans.
Ultimately, it's you not the pencil that creates the design, but the better
pencil has to fit into that cycle somewhere. If it help shorten or hone each
creative iteration more finely, it's a better pencil.
>
> I think the point to designing suitable plans for building a house using
> Sketchup is simply that Sketchup is quite capable of fulfilling this need.
Ironically, I find SU best for the other end of the work. Start with a blank
"sheet", slap in the topography from Google Earth, and have at it. Or start
with the bare, empty room, and block in the new cabinet. It isn't until you
get down to detailing out your ideas that you run into its, ummm,
limitations.
> More expensive programs that will do the same are simply more expensive
> programs that do the same.
Depends on which other program, of course. With some, you do get something
for the extra money. But none are as friendly as SU for the quick blocking
in and massing studies. We'll just have to agree to disagree on its
usefulness on its suitability for detailing.
On Mar 5, 11:41=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" =A0wrote
>
> > I still see it as "dumbing down".
>
> I feel the same way. =A0If you need a better pencil, then SU is a good to=
ol.
> And it goes way beyond a pencil in terms of its capabilities. =A0But ther=
e are
> a range of tools and capabilities out there. =A0And to brag about rejecti=
ng
> them and glorify a minimalist approach is essentially rejecting anything
> beyond your present tools and skills.
>
> I get in over my head all the time on my projects. If I had some more too=
ls
> and skills (and/or money), my life would be much simpler.
>=A0It depends not
> only on what you do, but what makes you happy. =A0
BINGO! Give the man a prize! How about a free filling for your air-
mattress? Anything off the top shelf? A free foot-journey to Gary
Indiana?
It is all about being happy. I didn't buy that CNC for it to make me
lots of money, I bought it because it was clear that it had a huge fun-
factor built right in. I go out of my way to enjoy what it is I am
doing. Every day. I enjoy putting a nice finish on a Corian
countertop. (Suuuure, I have to go through lot of mundane crap to get
there, but hey, you have to stab an animal if you want steak, right?)
As Leon, and others, will attest, it is almost FUN to sand with a
Festool sander. After that, all other sanders suck... at least to me.
I'm not even sure there is a snob-factor here. A good tool, is a good
tool, and it is usually those who aren't willing to make the sacrifice
to buy a good tool, who call guys like me a snobs. Could it be "Tool
Envy??" Is it any wonder that there is a tool out there called Freud?
The art of living with a grin on my face, a grin on my Angela's face,
a grin on the faces of those who enjoy their lives. Make a few million
along the way. All you get is one life.
I am happy with my Makita corded drill. (Came free with my Makita
mitre saw). I would never, in a million years spend the money for a
Festool drill. That's just nuts. But nobody makes a better sander. (I
really like the Milwaukee routers...no way am I spending Festool
money ..) See, I own Festool sanders because they're the
best...they're not the best /because/ I own them. That's a point that
Stein seems to be missing. That is not making him happy. I feel bad
now that I own Festool products, but I wonder why the colour scheme of
Festool includes 'envy-green' ? Ooooweeee. the plot thickens.... Those
Fein Multi-Tools are kinda phallic shaped..and they vibrate...
dammit... they sure did their research...
> Or in the case of some
> toolphobes, what makes them unhappy.
Unhappy is not a good thing, Lee.
Ask not what your tool can do for you, but ask what you can do for
your tool. (Say wot?)
Anyway, I finished my lunch...back to work....
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip
>
> Also, the free SU allows you to Import 3D models and 2D graphics in many
> formats (DWG, DXF, 3DS, DEM, DDF and a range of image formats) I have no
> clue what any of those are, but didn't know you could import anything
> other than standard graphics like jpg's. I've imported jpg's in an effort
> to figure out how to design something from a photo, but never got very
> far. Tutorial looks OK but a little out there for my current interest
> level.
At least one of them is a CAD program format, AutoCAD, DWG.
>
> Also, not particularly clear is that SUfree can export a jpg of whatever
> you are designing/building. If you wanted to do a chalk drawing, or other
> artsy/fartsy stuff someone mentioned, you could use your favorite graphics
> program to do whatever to the exported jpg, assuming you have a fancy
> graphics program.
If you down load and install Bullzip PDF you can export/print in BPM, ESP,
JPEG, PCX, PDF, PNG and TIFF formats.
The program is free and you can down load it from here,
http://www.bullzip.com/
Even if you don't use it for Sketchup it is worth installing and using.
It installs as an extra printer and when you choose print if you select the
Bullzip PDF printer as the printer to create a file in the above mentioned
formats.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> There IS an advantage to being a tool snob. It allows you to do many things
> that others can not. As you pointed out above. Besides, if you weren't
> getting some checks (cheques) out of this, you couldn't afford to buy big,
> fancy routers!
>
> I am also a tool snob. A financially challenged tool snob, mind you. But
> still a tool snob. But tool snobs do play an important role in this world
> of ours.
>
> I applaud google for putting a software tool out there that people can use
> to build things for a very good price. I am concerned that it is part of
> the overall effect of the world wide web dumbing things down in general. It
> raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and abilities
> of many as well. There are those who will do many things well with this
> tool. But like anything, many will not.
A happy thought for tool snobs: SketchUp is a tool available for the
downloading and, among other things, can itself be a tool for
imagineering and building tools that either one cannot afford to
purchase - and/or that no one else has yet imagined.
And sometimes it's even necessary to come up with new tools in order to
produce a never-before-seen new tool...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Jack Stein wrote:
>>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and
>>> abilities of many as well.
>
> That makes no sense to me?
It does to me. It either limits design solutions to those using only
straight lines or circular/elliptical arcs, and doesn't "understand"
solids (which it deals with only as closed collections of surfaces).
I'll agree that it may be a great tool for drawing up boxes, but I also
recognize that it discourages people from thinking beyond boxes (and/or
aggregates of boxes) and circular arcs.
It makes me a bit uncomfortable to say it right out loud, and I assure
you that no offense is intended - but if what you're saying is that
nothing more is needed, then you've proved the point you say didn't make
sense to you. :-/
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Markem wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:37:10 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I *respond* to anything that gives me entertainment.
>
> True troll sign there.
It may be true all trolls are entertained posting on Usenet, but all
those so entertained are not trolls.
What are your motivations?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:37:10 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I *respond* to anything that gives me entertainment.
True troll sign there.
Mark
Leon wrote:
> Or it could be buyers remorse.
But probably isn't. If all of my software went "poof!", I would probably
re-download and install SU - right after I finished ordering a CAD
package that filled /more/ of my needs.
FWIW, the CAD package that I'm using today cost me /less/ than the pro
version of SU (and I haven't even bothered to re-install my full-blown
AutoCAD since my old computer died last spring).
If SU floats your boat, then more power to you - but it doesn't do what
I need for the projects I care most about.
What it does do is allow me to admire Swing's cabinet design models. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Jack Stein wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>
>>>>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations
>>>>> and abilities of many as well.
>>>
>>> That makes no sense to me?
>>
>> It does to me. It either limits design solutions to those using only
>> straight lines or circular/elliptical arcs, and doesn't "understand"
>> solids (which it deals with only as closed collections of surfaces).
>
> Still don't understand the point? SU allows woodworkers to draw up 2d
> and 3d drawings of stuff they wish to build, it does it cheaply (free)
> and does it well. I think it meets the needs and expectations of most
> woodworkers. Certainly not every wood worker, perhaps not one that uses
> a CNC machine that interfaces with perhaps AUTOCAD that costs thousands
> and probably is used by people designing billion dollar launch pads for
> NASA, and went to school for x years learning how to use the software.
This is a BS response - comparable to saying that a table saw and a set
of hole saws is a complete and adequate set of cutting tools.
I'm not sure what your hang-up on CNC tooling is, unless you have some
kind of anti-precision prejudice. I have two CNC routers, and the more
precise - see http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/ - was shop built
(mostly of wood!) and contains less than $1000 worth of materials. It
interfaces with free-for-the-downloading control software. Your
references to AutoCAD, billion dollar projects, and years of training
are just plain silly.
>> I'll agree that it may be a great tool for drawing up boxes, but I
>> also recognize that it discourages people from thinking beyond boxes
>> (and/or aggregates of boxes) and circular arcs.
>
> Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
> curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool for
> most woodworkers.
Only if there is no need to move forward from the toolset provided by
Euclid of Alexandria more than 2000 years ago.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the world has moved on. A
software package that gives woodworkers access only to what was known
two thousand years ago, however conveniently and prettily, is sadly
outdated.
>> It makes me a bit uncomfortable to say it right out loud, and I assure
>> you that no offense is intended - but if what you're saying is that
>> nothing more is needed, then you've proved the point you say didn't
>> make sense to you. :-/
>
> No offense taken, but while I never said that nothing more is needed, I
> heard someone else say they don't need to draw all the details of things
> they build. I agree, and more over, when I was building stuff at a
> furious pace, I hardly needed more than a few pencil lines with numbers
> on them to build most anything, often not even that.
Agreed - if your project is sufficiently simple, a pencil can be an
adequate solution. Now consider one of my projects
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
How would you tackle that with a pencil? And before you talk about that
being too "far out" to matter to woodworkers, I'll mention that that
project's web pages have been visited by woodworkers from 46 countries
so far this month (according to the server report generated at 3:04 this
morning).
My inescapable conclusion is that there are a lot of woodworkers whose
woodworking interests go considerably beyond what can be done with 2300
year old geometry.
> I still don't really need SU, and certainly nothing more than SU to
> build stuff, It is really good for looking at exactly how a new design
> might look before you build it.
>
> I can tell you for sure, as a hobbyist wood worker I absolutely,
> positively would not spend much (any) money on a cad program when I can
> spend a few minutes with a pencil drawing up an entire kitchen, or work
> bench, or lamp, or chair, or desk, or end table, or door or shed and
> build it just fine.
Goody for you. That sounds a lot like "I got what /I/ need..."
> I KNOW this because I've done it. So, from my
> prospective, and I bet a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite
> of what was said, it actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that
> would normally never spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or
> any other CAD program.
AND they can save money on pencils, too... :)
I still see it as "dumbing down".
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
"Morris Dovey" wrote
>
> I still see it as "dumbing down".
>
I feel the same way. If you need a better pencil, then SU is a good tool.
And it goes way beyond a pencil in terms of its capabilities. But there are
a range of tools and capabilities out there. And to brag about rejecting
them and glorify a minimalist approach is essentially rejecting anything
beyond your present tools and skills.
I get in over my head all the time on my projects. If I had some more tools
and skills (and/or money), my life would be much simpler. It depends not
only on what you do, but what makes you happy. Or in the case of some
toolphobes, what makes them unhappy.
Jack Stein wrote:
> OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
> Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
> I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
> wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
> built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you saying
> one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all? I'm no
> SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same as have
> been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and w/o SU,
> computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?
Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
points needed).
The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
9601 points for the full width.
FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
first used was capable of handling the job.
A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
use a /very/ sharp pencil.
You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be used?
I hear you wanting to make a distinction between commercial activity and
hobby activity, so let me respond to that by saying that my immediate
interest doesn't fall neatly into either category. It's simply a
woodworker's attempt to produce a real solution to a real problem, with
the knowledge that a good solution can make a /lot/ of lives better.
>> My inescapable conclusion is that there are a lot of woodworkers whose
>> woodworking interests go considerably beyond what can be done with
>> 2300 year old geometry.
>
> I'm pretty sure SU uses a lot of techniques not available 2300 years ago
> and a ton not even available free to wood workers ever before in the
> history of mankind. Your point is unclear to say the least.
Then let me clarify: 2300 years ago Euclid worked only with straight
lines and circular arcs; today SketchUp works only with straight lines
and circular arcs. The only difference is that the SketchUp user doesn't
need (and almost certainly doesn't have) anything approaching Euclid's
understanding of geometry.
A lot has happened since Euclid's time. His work in geometry led others
to use symbols to represent frequently-used values, and that developed
into algebra - which when applied back to Euclid's work resulted in
trigonometry and what we now call analytical geometry - which eventually
motivated calculus so that we could apply all of the above to non
steady-state processes.
>> I still see it as "dumbing down".
>
> And I still don't see how a wood worker that normally would not use any
> CAD program would be "dumbing down" by learning to use a free design
> tool. About the only problem I see is they might end up having more fun
> designing stuff than actually building it. This actually happened to
> me. I got into computing so I could use it to draw up stuff I was
> building. This was in the early 1980's and I got a copy of design cad,
> and I spent about 100 times longer figuring out how to use the program
> than I would have just using a pencil and paper for a shed I was
> building. I ended up becoming obsessed with computers and programing.
> Prior to that, I was obsessed with wood working. I found computing met
> most of my "creative" needs, I could "build" programs that did all sorts
> of things, mistakes along the way cost nothing, no lost material, no
> lost fingers and so on. Wood working slipped into the background, and is
> still there for the most part...
I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
than I do about function.
"Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
job - and although you seem
determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that stuff.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
>> with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
>> device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
>> 0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
>
> Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
> looking for that sooner. I am not sure how easy/possible it is to get
> a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
> the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. I'm
> not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
> but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.
>
> http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/Newest_scripts.html
>
> Bezier Spline v1.2
>
> At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
> commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
> click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.
>
> So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.
Of course it can, and it could be approximated closely with enough
bezier splines. It'd still be necessary to calculate the positions of
the end (and probably center) points, so I'd guess that it'd be more
practical to just connect all 4801 of those points with straight line
segments. :-p
I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby, but the version 1
design got finished while all this discussion was going on, and I just
got a call from the manufacturer of the fin-tube component letting me
know that it's on its way - so I'll probably do the usual and just make
photos of the prototype. I figure there's not much time or effort saved
if I have to go off and learn yet another programming/scripting language.
The fin-tube stuff is kinda pretty in a geekish way. I'll post a photo
of a sample in case anyone's interested in weird hardware. See
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/FintubeCutaway-1.jpg
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Robatoy wrote:
> Make sure you add some relief valves to this thing...valves with lots
> of flow capacity.
> The planet needs you.
Well, if she don't make power, then she'll sure brew a cup of coffee in
a hurry.
Hold my beer - I'm gonna try sump'en...
:o)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Jack Stein wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
>> points needed).
>
> Don't know what that means. When I draw a curve, I usually just use 3
> points and a metal yard stick or string for the radius. What's 4801
> points all about?
Well, this thing is "sorta" like an inside-out lens, except that instead
of using refraction to bend light rays to a focus, it uses reflection.
Because I don't need to focus to a super-tiny area, it doesn't need to
be quite as precise as a camera lens - but it does need to be about as
exact as woodworking tools can possibly manage.
Because the curve changes continually over its entire length, it can't
be built up of straight line segments long enough to be seen as such.
Ideally, it would be a smooth curve but straight line segments will work
if they're not much longer than 0.010" and the endpoints of each segment
are within 0.001" of that smooth curve. It take 4801 pairs of (x,y)
coordinates to locate the endpoints of all those straight line segments.
I also can't see well enough to do handwork within 1/000", so this is
where computer control of the cutter's path makes everything possible.
My ShopBot can handle that kind of tolerance, so I just sit and drink
coffee while it does what I cannot - and when it's done I have parts
that aren't perfect, but are good enough for a /near/ perfect mirror. :)
>> The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
>> mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
>> 9601 points for the full width.
>
> Way beyond my knowledge of wood working. What is a Point, and why do I
> need 9601 of them?
Well, the length of the curve is 96", and I need 100 pairs of (x,y)
coordinates per inch, which give me 9600 points - plus one more at the
end of the curve - which adds up to 9601 points total.
>> FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
>> first used was capable of handling the job.
>
> I used Design Cad with primitive MS-DOS. Spent 40 days teaching my self
> what it could do before deciding it was interesting, but not needed for
> most of the wood working I did. Here, 25 years or so later I find SU, a
> free drawing program did everything I need and then some...
Then for you it's a terrific deal - and I really don't have difficulty
understanding that, and I really wish the free version covered my needs
as well as it does yours. (I suspect that eventually it will, but would
be afraid to guess at /when/.)
>> A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
>> of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
>> use a /very/ sharp pencil.
>
> Doesn't matter, my eyes don't do +/- .001", far as I know.
Mine too. :(
>> You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
>> bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
>> since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
>> It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be
>> used?
>
> No argument there. In fact, SU doesn't work well w/o a computer. Based
> on using your computer "as well as it can be used"... I have to
> disagree. The best cad program *I* know about is AutoCad. It is huge,
> expensive and you could go to school learning just a tad of what all it
> can do. Honestly, some guy I know wanted to GIVE me a copy of AutoCad, I
> declined because I didn't think I needed it, even for free. I doubt
> many wood workers need it. I think most wood workers would do just fine
> with SU, it is easy to use once you learn it, and you sure don't need to
> go to school to learn to use it, and the price is right. To me, THAT is
> using technology well.
A client bought AutoCAD for me because he wanted me to be able to work
with his drawings, else I wouldn't have it. I do most of my work with
DesignCAD 2000 and like SketchUp's human interface much better. I'd
already have switched to SketchUp if it were suited to the work I (and
the folks I'm working with) are doing. Meanwhile, I'll squawk about what
I see as inadequate capability and hope that the noise stimulates the
SketchUp crew to add extend the package.
>> I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
>> I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
>> appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
>> constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
>> than I do about function.
>
> Well to some extent you may be right, as I do wood work purely for it's
> FUN value. I seldom make stuff I couldn't buy, so I sure don't need
> wood working per se. There are a bunch of people, Swingman is a local
> example, that has found SU useful for commercial applications.
Yuppers - he's probably a particularly good example. My problem (and I
don't have difficulty owning the problem) is that I keep wanting to make
stuff /because/ it can't be bought. Stupid, huh? :-p
>
>> "Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
>> job - and although you seem
>> determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
>> years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that
>> stuff.
>
> You can think that, and I can think that free pisses off people that
> spent good money on something SU does free. Let me point out again that
> I could have had one of the most comprehensive CAD programs for FREE,
> but turned it down because I knew I didn't need all that, so FREE is not
> my only motivation. FREE is interesting to me because SU is so damned
> good at what it does, it is hard to believe it is FREE.
For that matter, we all like free - and (in case you haven't noticed)
I'm in the business of selling furnaces that deliver free heat, and if I
can get this @#$!% solar engine running, folks all across the south will
be able to buy solar air conditioners that deliver free cold.
> It's like a company decided to give free cars away, and you go down and
> turns out it's a FREE Honda. It works perfect, gets good mileage, and
> is rather dependable. Robocop says it sucks, even though he never drove
<snipped>
It would help a lot if you understood more about the sandbox Rob plays
in - and it always helps to remember that he only makes an effort to be
diplomatic when /he/ thinks it's worth the effort. In the context of his
particular operations, and of his interests, SU /isn't/ a good tool. My
suggestion is that when he rubs your fur the wrong way, pause for a
10-count and then ask him why he said what he did. There's usually a
reason. :)
> PS, I really liked your home made CNC machine... Very nice work.
Thanks - it's about 10x more precise than my half-ton store-bought
machine. :)
> I hesitate to say this, but I bet one could draw it up in detail with SU
> and share it with the world, if they wanted... another nice thing about
> free, everyone can afford to get it, and share...
Thanks again - when the design was finalized, I posted the drawings to
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking for everyone to have; and as I built
the machine I put a photo of the most recent step on the web page so
that anyone who wanted to follow along could see how I handled each
step. What's there now amounts to a summary of all that - but there's
enough to allow anyone who's interested to do their own.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
>>> http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadratic/parabola/interactive-parabola.php
>>
>> Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?
>
> I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry, I
> could have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for someone
> just itching to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to contribute to
> the Sketchup library of add-ons. Spin a cone and intersect it with a
> face describing the curve, or just calculate the points and connect
> them. More generally, maybe just import a list of ordinates from a
> spreadsheet and plot them. This would be generally useful for lofting a
> canoe hull, for example. Is that getting too far out of the realm of
> woodworking?
If woodworking is "making something out of wood", then the realm can
become awesomely wide as soon as "design" becomes part of the picture.
As far as the length of curve problem is concerned, there are at least
three ways to approach the problem:
[1] Set up a relation L = f(a), where L is the curve length, a is the
focal length, and f(a) is a definite integral representing the length of
the curve between limits - and work "backward" to produce the relation a
= g(L). Once a is known, all the rest is "duck soup".
[2] You can also set it up as a limit problem, but that's really just a
way to sneak up on the integration method without getting your hands
dirty with calculus.
[3] You can also "cook" the geometry (locate the vertex at the origin,
choose a convenient value for the focal length, etc) and compute the sum
of the lengths of segments of some tiny constant value (say, a millionth
of a unit). Then use the ratio of that (cooked) length to the desired
length to arrive at the focal length of the parabola you want to
produce. This method requires a certain measure of care in avoiding
cumulative computational error, but would probably be easiest for folks
who aren't comfortable with integral calculus or limit theory.
I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one programming
language for which I implemented/published/sold a compiler). I browsed
the Ruby programming pages and decided that the benefits just wouldn't
provide an adequate return on my time/energy investment; and I attached
a higher priority to completion of the solar engine project than to
adding yet another "wart" to SketchUp.
Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house? :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
MikeWhy wrote:
> Which language?
PL/C (Programming Language for Compilers) was based on and extended BNF
to include output, external references, and inlining of other code. It
was a tool that could be used to produce interpreters and translators
(from any langage to any other language, including spoken languages);
and was written up in the March '84 issue of DDJ.
> AutoLisp put the bread on my table the entire latter
> half of the 80's. Since then, I've more or less stuck with C++. Dr.
> Geisel would be pleased, I think, with just how nicely that language can
> read when written in iambic pentameter. Not in CAD systems, though.
> They're just part of a multitude of hobbies. I build financial data
> systems by day.
I've done a bit with financial systems. If you're interested you're
welcome to peruse a (somewhat sketchy) resume at
http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_res1.html
It never occurred to me to write code in a poetic form. :)
Of the languages I've used, I've liked C and APL best.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
J. Clarke wrote:
> Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a
> commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at least
> the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.
There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which hundreds
of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming literate"
which most of the computer literate folks aren't...
...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.
Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big deal
- but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of
understanding of what it's all about.
A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is
just baggage to be carried from success to failure.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Jack Stein wrote:
> Reminds me of the guys that wrote C actually wrote it as a tool in
> developing UNIX, the worlds greatest OS... again, I was impressed.
Dennis still drops in on comp.lang.c from time to time.
> Today, I'm obsessed with neither programing or woodwork. I tend to
> waste a lot of time just fighting with people like Robocop just for
> kicks. Not sure why I enjoy it, but I do, and have ever since the
> FidoNet days...
I think you guys may have a lot more in common than either of you will
ever admit here. :)
> When I was a kid of around 10 or 12, my brother who was 17 built a
> canoe out of orange crates. This was in the early 50's, and the
> canoe is still hanging in our garage, and it is a perfect wood canoe
> with canvas wrap. Orange crates were made of 1/4 wood slats in those
> days. I'll get a picture of it one of these days, it is really
> impressive.
Take /lots/ of pictures. Please don't forget - I'd like to see it.
> People used to laugh when you would tell them you made a canoe out of
> orange crates, until they saw it.. Anyway, the neat thing is he used
> a neighbors band saw to do some of the curved cuts, and when I got
> married, I bought the neighbors bandsaw, and all of his other
> Rockwell/Delta tools which I still use to this day... They sure made
> nice tools in those days.
They did - I've regretted that I couldn't bring myself to spring for
their commercial-duty lathe and shaper. These days I don't miss the
shaper, but I still wish I'd bought the lathe.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
On Feb 27, 12:31=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>
> news:fcad8e8a-8f71-47be-808a-a12c8e419551@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:25 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Leon" wrote
>
> >> > programs. For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 1=
2
> >> > years and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in =
3D
> >> > perspective.
>
> >> Damn, I never thought I'd see you switch from AutoCAD LT to anything
> >> else!
>
> >> Just reaffirms my long held contention that SU is an excellent, cost
> >> effective, woodworker's tool providing you're not so closed minded as =
to
> >> let
> >> preconceived notions/bias get in the way.
>
> > Oh, for fuck sakes. Just because people are putting the obvious SU
> > limitations out there for all to see, does not make them closed
> > minded.
> > You have made it clear that it works for you. Great.
> > But I have a company to run, in which SU has no place due to its
> > limitations.
> > I also know you weren't referring specifically to me personally as you
> > fully realize my mind is wide open and always eager to find newer,
> > better software solutions... especially when low cost/free.
> > But to suggest that one can build a 300K house with SU is misleading
> > as you fail to include the fact that YOUR ability to do so includes
> > your vast and well-developed skill-set. Your skill-set can build that
> > house without SU, IOW, what you got there is a sharper, better pencil.
> > Period.
>
> Never miss an opportunity to slobber in the public trough, eh Bubba?
>
> It's a crying damn shame that no one here can't discuss something they fi=
nd
> useful without your constant, denigrating snide, input on the subject.
>
> Kiss my ass ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
You DARE to call other people closed-minded.
You don't like to get called on your bullshit much, eh? :-)
r
On Mar 3, 11:03=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> =A0Of course there should be things a simple,
> >> free, sketching program cannot do, but those limitations are pretty mo=
ot
> >> to most woodworkers.
> =A0 Robatoy wrote:
> > I wonder how many kids will never learn how to play a real guitar
> > because they now have Guitar Hero.
> > That does not mean it is not a form of entertainment, it certainly is.
>
> Don't know what Guitar Hero is, and I find SU rather entertaining in
> itself, =A0that certainly in no way diminishes it's usefulness to wood
> workers.
>
> > You see, Jack, what pisses me off, is that some guys have been too
> > cheap or too poor to buy CAD software a long time ago, unable to learn
> > the various disciplines relating to CAD and now suddenly they find a
> > piece of software which uses a simple and toy-like metaphor and now
> > they're fucking experts.
>
> Yes, this comes through in your constant negativity towards a free
> software tool that woodworkers should find amazingly helpful in their
> wood working interests.
>
And you come across, along with others, like my buddy's uncle. He
walked funny because his shoes were too tight. But he kept walking in
them, showing them off: "real leather", but, dammit, they were free.
So many people get so caught up in 'The Deal' that they are willing to
forgive any and all shortcomings of 'The Deal'.
But that's okay. Your Timex probably keeps better time than my Rolex,
but guess what?
If anyone thinks that I defend the use of my proven, powerful and
familiar software out of buyers' remorse is nuts.
Go ahead, enjoy your freebie. Too bad you'll never know what it is
like to wear shoes that fit.
*smirk*
r
"Robatoy" wrote
> On Mar 7, 1:51 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>>
>> > Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
>> > from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got
>> > tired
>> > of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de
>> > jour.
>> > Aren't you lucky!
>>
>> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I'm not surprised you'd be in Stein's corner. He kisses your ass,
> while I won't.
LOL ... seems Jack's sauce on your tail is itching you a bit, eh Rob. No
damn wonder, looks like he's got your BS pegged down pretty tight from here.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:10:43 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Not sure what your post here contributes to anything, other than you
>getting your rocks off attempting to make me look like a villain, or
>troll, or whatever simple minded thing floats your boat.
You are both fricken trolls. NOW both of you to your bridges and
STFU!
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
Markem wrote:
> You are both fricken trolls. NOW both of you to your bridges and
> STFU!
Mark, thanks for slapping me awake, I was just sitting here under my
bridge, starting to doze off...
Really, I find it interesting (not) how many people participate in
threads they don't like, are bored with or have no interest in...
Myself, and I admit I'm easily entertained, I don't participate in stuff
that doesn't entertain/interest me. For example, I don't participate in
the what is this number 527 threads... I don't tell other people to
STFU because I'm not interested or find it boring, I just skip over it.
Really, how dumb is it to state you don't have time for this nonsense
and will not participate in this nonsense (Lee's words) and in that very
post are wasting time and participating in the nonsense? How can one
NOT laugh, or cringe or something?
If you think I'm a Troll fine. If I am a troll, you can best make me go
away by ignoring me completely. If I'm not a troll, and I'm not, the
best way to get me to STFU in this thread is to STFU yourself... get it?
If you don't get it, hurry up, cause I'm starting to lose interest...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
On Feb 27, 6:03=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ironically, I find SU best for the other end of the work. Start with a bl=
ank
> "sheet", slap in the topography from Google Earth, and have at it.
Right now I'm trying to get the site plan drawing, prepared by the
engineer to agree with Google Earth in Sketchup. The engineer has the
North arrow off by almost ten degrees (ummm, hey buddy, we're going
solar with this thing!), the buildings are in the right locations but
the edge of the lake is off by a fair bit, and that affects setbacks,
lot area and all sorts of other stuff.
It's amazing to so easily compare and correct such specific
information. Before Google bought Sketchup it was just a dream. Now
it's almost free.
R
On Feb 26, 12:57=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. =A0I got a questi=
on
> > for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>
> > How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated b=
y a
> > welding shop? =A0Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>
> > Their would need to be detailed information. =A0This would include some=
odd
> > angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachmen=
ts
> > welded to the subassemblies.
>
> > The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>
> > Comments? =A0Suggestions?
>
> It's not a drafting tool. You'll bend over backwards to make it produce
> working drawings. Sketchup is more a modeling and visualization tool that
> happens to place a few dimensions and notes, sometimes usefully, sometime=
s
> not. It doesn't do angular dimensions, for example.
Egggggzactly. NOT a drafting tool.
On Mar 6, 2:34=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
> > but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
>
> Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
> "wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.
>
> > The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.
>
> Seriously? =A0You know this how?
Because I played with it.
>
> > Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*
>
> Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
> pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.
I can see that you'd never need SUPro. You're not likely to do
anything interesting enough.
> But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
> about SU free or pro,
We can't really talk about Pro as you don't own it. (Psssst, I did
download it and looked at it intently, I commented elsewhere that I
thought LayOut was quite usable.
> I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
> Pro. Here's what he said:
>
> "As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
> whatsoever between the free and pro version."
I have no problem taking Swing's word for anything, it's your words I
have a problem with. You just whine and whine away, baying at the
moon. But what you should do, is take a look at Google's own SketchUp
site and look at the comparison table that GOOGLE publishes, showing
the differences between Free and Pro. You'll find there is a clear
mention of import/export differences, one of which (.dxf) that I
cannot live without.
So, if FreeSU cannot export any of my work so I can use it, then WHY-
THE-HELL should I bother looking at anything else that it might or
might not do?
You know what, jack? I think you are too stupid to understand what
'wasting time' really means. Trying to talk some sense into you
certainly qualifies as 'wasting time'.
Ahhh fukkit...
<plonk>
On Mar 7, 1:51=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>
> > Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
> > from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. =A0I assume that he got t=
ired
> > of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jou=
r.
> > Aren't you lucky!
>
> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I'm not surprised you'd be in Stein's corner. He kisses your ass,
while I won't.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2e3fb167-8e27-422d-8fb9-184224c20f59@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 5:41 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh.. then there is the interface to this program for my router:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture6.png
Router Shmouter! Sketchup interfaces my PRINTER!!! ;~)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:51:51 -0600, "MikeWhy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> ...will it scale a drawing from one reference? Like, say, I draw a
>> cabinet and then set the dimension of one of the rails? I fiddled
>> with the tutorial the other nite and was surprised at the
>> accessability...if can set the deminsion of my first piece and the
>> program will scale the remainder, well, I'm in!
>
>Yes. Use the tape measure tool to measure known distance. Immediately type
>the value it should be. Voila.
...I would say just the word "dude!"...hey, maybe that *is* good
enough. I'll give you guys an update in a couple of months...LOL...
cg
>
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> You see, Jack, what pisses me off, is that some guys have been too
>> cheap or too poor to buy CAD software a long time ago, unable to learn
>> the various disciplines relating to CAD and now suddenly they find a
>> piece of software which uses a simple and toy-like metaphor and now
>> they're fucking experts.
>
> Yes, this comes through in your constant negativity towards a free
> software tool that woodworkers should find amazingly helpful in their wood
> working interests.
Or it could be buyers remorse. For example, many years ago I got into
satelite TV through Dish Network. At the time you bought all of the
equipment and paid some one to install it or install it yourself. I
installed mine, my dad's and my BIL's. As Dish Network upgraded their
service our equipment became obsolete. At this time new customers were
being offered free equipment with a 1 year obligation. Would they offer me
a free unit, noooo, I was an old customer. so basically I suffered buyers
remorse. I switched to DirecTV and got the equipment and installation for
free. Better equipment, better service and no additional expense out of my
pocket. No more buyers remorse from me. I learned my lesson then so the
pill of giving up on my expensive CAD software for SU was not such a hard
one to take.
On Mar 4, 2:35=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped the usual.]
>=A0So, from my
> prospective, and I bet a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite
> of what was said, it actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that
> would normally never spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or
> any other CAD program.
>
Opens doors. That's all it does? Like a stepping stone to real
software? Is that is what is in your prospective? The anticipation to
expand your limitations? Or did you mean perspective? It is really
hard to understand you sometimes, Jack.
Regardless, I have had enough of this thread, and as usual, I have
learned a few things. (Least of which is that the price of my CNC went
up overnight...cool !!)
*yawns*
r
On Mar 3, 12:58=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:13 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Nothing wrong with that. =A0Still, I've installed a number of sinks,
> >> cutting out the sink hole perfectly with nothing more than a tape,
> >> pencil and saw... No fancy or non-fancy CAD program needed. =A0
>
> > Undermounted sink?
>
> Nope!
>
> Quartz countertop? 30 mm thick? The edge of the cut-
>
> > out matching the beveled edge of a $1000.00 sink? Perfectly?
>
> Nope! =A0But I thought you sent the Quartz tops out for cutting?
>
> > Tape, pencil, saw.
>
> > Right.
>
> Nope, wrong. If I were doing Quartz, I would send it out same as you.
> If I were doing granite, I'd let the granite guys do it. Everyday, run
> of the mill sinks, tape, pencil, saw has always worked fine for me.
> Don't think I would need Autocad, Turbocad, SketchUp or go to school for
> drafting, design, anything like that for any of them. =A0My guess is a
> bazillion sinks have been installed perfectly without computer aided
> anything.
>
> More importantly, if I were designing a kitchen, and building all the
> cabinets myself, which I have also done w/o any computer aided anything,
> I would certainly use SketchUp rather than just the pencil and paper
> I've used in the past. =A0I would recommend anyone interested in designin=
g
> stuff on a computer before building it, give SU a look, it is damned
> good. =A0For those of you, like Kevin, that go to the wood shop to get
> away from the computer, you certainly don't need SU or any CAD program
> to build damned near anything.
>
> If I had a million dollar counter top business I might buy a $30,000 CNC
> machine and use whatever worked with it, but for sure, I would not slam
> a piece of free software that so many people find a treat, particularly
> if I were not interested in learning what all it could do.
>
> So, to summarize, I don't blame you for using all that expensive
> schooling and software you already have, but I do find you denigrating
> something you admit to not wanting to "waste time" learning quite
> stupid, even for you. Perhaps your time would be better "wasted"
> checking everyones spelling and grammar?
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server:http://Motzarella.orghttp://jbstein.com
I don't 'check' your grammar, Jack. Your errors are glaring.
I also don't denigrate SU users. I applaud them. I have no reason to
switch to SU as I am happy with what I have.
I also own an ultra-sonic thickness meter, just to find out how thick
your skull and how thin your skin is.
Does that interest you at all?
And why WOULD I waste my time learning an unfamiliar, inadequate piece
of software? Free or not?
What is your point, Jack?
On Mar 10, 1:33=A0am, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Nope, and it expressly, and unequivocally, doesn't pretend to be...
> > something seemingly hard to grasp.
>
> > BTW, the FWW guys are a couple of woodworkers who are professed SU
> > amateurs and simply sharing what they've learned as it pertains to
> > woodworking, and mostly they do things the hard way ... go to the Googl=
e
> > SU forums where the big boys play and you'll see that real quickly.
>
> I stated it more strongly than it needed to be. Probably. All the same, t=
he
> ignoramus finger pointing needed to stop. (Yesterday evening didn't go so
> well for me, and I came in this morning with a chip on my shoulder. Maybe
> seething, even. It was a "simple" flame finial. Would you care to guess t=
he
> rest? ;)
NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
"Leon" wrote
> If you down load and install Bullzip PDF you can export/print in BPM, ESP,
> JPEG, PCX, PDF, PNG and TIFF formats.
> The program is free and you can down load it from here,
> http://www.bullzip.com/
> Even if you don't use it for Sketchup it is worth installing and using.
> It installs as an extra printer and when you choose print if you select
> the Bullzip PDF printer as the printer to create a file in the above
> mentioned formats.
Great little utility program! Actually, I like Bullzip better than SketchUp.
:)
Since you turned me onto it a couple of months back I use it many times
daily. All the individual construction files, bids, invoices, plans,
inspection sheets, insurance certs, etc, are all scanned into pdf files and
stored on the "cloud" for safe keeping offsite. BullZip allows me to do the
same with stuff generated in house without having to print it first.
Adobe was always too proud of their software for my budget.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mar 1, 5:40=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
> > BTW, there is no need for you to defend Swingman, he's perfectly
> > capable of contributing intellectual repartee by telling people to
> > kiss his ass... *S*
>
> LOL ... it ain't like you never heard it before. =A0:)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Actually...? No.
On Mar 10, 1:03=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:23c2f749-9ee7-400e-b083-2ec18236ef0d@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 9:57 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
>
> > Shit disturber! You really like to wallow in it don't you? :)
>
> Say wot? Flame finials are works of art. Those are hard to make, even
> for an a-axis indexing lathe on a CNC.
> I like the brass ones, with the flame going a bit sideways in a
> mythical breeze.
> To carve those free-hand out of wood takes a deft hand...hell even a
> minwax hand!
> I ain't stirring shit! You must have me confused with someone else.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Cursed Fine Woodworking back issues. I was rearranging some bookcases, an=
d
> grabbed out a small handful to browse. "This doesn't look difficult at al=
l"
> is the old man's equivalent of "Hold my beer."
I wonder if a flame finial on top of a newell post would pass code in
today's Nanny World.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
>>> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>>>
>>> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by
>>> a welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>>>
>>> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some
>>> odd angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and
>>> attachments welded to the subassemblies.
>>>
>>> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>>>
>>> Comments? Suggestions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see no problems in that application.
>>
>> As far as accuracy, in inches you can go to .0001" or in 1/64" in
>> fractions of an inch. In mm, .0001mm
>>
>> 3D perspective would be automatic.
>>
>> Just remember to draw objects/components, not line drawings.
>>
> How about dimensioning? I would need the lengths to be very clear.
Not a problem, Sketchup has semi-automatic dimensioning. You point out the
constraints Sketchup fills in the measurements. Pick a line and Sketchup
will dimension that line. Pick two points and Sketchup will determine the
distance between those points.
As mentioned in my other thread you can modify dimension results to outside
the extension lines if the results will not fit between them. You can also
modify the size of the font used.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:YQDpl.8216$%[email protected]...
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
>>
>> Where to start? Working drawing sets. Bills of Material. Parametric
>> configurations. Multiple parts configurations. Editable feature history.
>> Weldments. Sheet metal. Mate constraints. ... SU is a minimal set for
>> defining and manipulating simple, static surface models. It is what it
>> is, and it's good for what it is, but it helps sometimes to keep in
>> perspective what it is not. What you sketch is what you get, sometimes
>> less. Circles are pie wedges; curves are straightline segments. When you
>> change a dimension, the dimension text changes, not the underlying
>> object. You glue things together, or set them next to each other, they
>> don't move to maintain the relationship. You sweep a shape, and that's
>> the shape it will ever and always be; editing the shape that defined the
>> sweep doesn't change anything. Is any of that a condemnation? I don't
>> think so. "Minimum" usable subset is still a pretty high bar for getting
>> useful things done.
>
> Well this being a ww group I was thinking more in lines with wood working
> projects. So yes I agree a CAD program absolutely does more outside this
> area.
First, understand that I'm not interested in selling you a bigger CAD
system. I'm doing the opposite, in fact. I'm working toward weaning myself
onto SU alone. Just answering your question directly about what's in the
other systems.
> As for as abilities, I have not checked all the plugins and scripst that
> are available however there is a dimension plug-in called Driving
> Dimensions that let you edit the dimension and that also changes the
> length of object that it deminsions.
I'll believe it when I see it. It has less to do with cleverness than having
the information on hand, after the fact in SU, to parameterize the part. I'm
speaking of SolidWorks and Inventor. They maintain the history of how the
features were made. If you extruded a profile 100", you can change that
later to something else, or edit the sketch that defines the profile.
How to answer that? Just yesterday I tried explaining why components in SU
are useful abstractions. There are different levels of understanding and
need.
> I am not sure what you are talking about concerning glueing things or
> setting them next to each other and not maintaining the relationship. If
> you make them into components and make the components into a group they
> stay together until you edit or explode them. I may be way off base here.
It comes up all the time. All the time. The bottom of this drawer sits on
the top face of that cleat, and this face of its side is parallel to that
face on that side panel. The back rail of the Morris chair rests on its
tangent point with that peg; the peg's axis is concentric with this bored
hole. The drawer face has a 1/16" gap from the face frame. When I resize or
move things about, the objects size and relocate themselves to maintain
those constraints.
Do you need it? SU isn't SW or Inventor. I'm still just trying to answer
your question.
>
>
>> So, about those angle dimensions. How?
>
> Search for the script/plugin " dim_angle.rb ". Copy it into the Plug-in's
> folder and the next time you reload Sketchup 7 ;ppl imder "Tools" and you
> will find a new command called Angular Dimension. Choose that command,
> pick 3 points, and you will get a angular dimension typical of what you
> might expect.
> Keep in mind however that on this particular dimention that if you chang
> eht angle of the object you will also have todo the angular dimension
> command.
>
> Scroll down the page a bit until you see the file I mentione above. Click
> the file name and it will open a page of script. Right click that page
> and "Save page As", and save it in the plug ins folder. Besure to add the
> .rb extension to the name if it does not do so automatically.
> http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/em_arc_page.htm
>
> There are literally hundreds of scripts and plug ins that make Sketchup
> act more like a CAD program.
Thanks. And just how hard is that to do natively? There are big things
missing, the stuff I mentioned above. That's cool; implementing them is
magnitudes more complex than what SU is meant to be. But there are niggling
little things, like the angle dimensions, that can be but aren't. Still, you
have to understand that I'm not criticizing SU, and not asking you to be its
apologist. It is what it is.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:23c2f749-9ee7-400e-b083-2ec18236ef0d@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 10, 9:57 am, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
>
> Shit disturber! You really like to wallow in it don't you? :)
Say wot? Flame finials are works of art. Those are hard to make, even
for an a-axis indexing lathe on a CNC.
I like the brass ones, with the flame going a bit sideways in a
mythical breeze.
To carve those free-hand out of wood takes a deft hand...hell even a
minwax hand!
I ain't stirring shit! You must have me confused with someone else.
========
Cursed Fine Woodworking back issues. I was rearranging some bookcases, and
grabbed out a small handful to browse. "This doesn't look difficult at all"
is the old man's equivalent of "Hold my beer."
"Robatoy" wrote in message
news:fcad8e8a-8f71-47be-808a-a12c8e419551@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 11:25 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Leon" wrote
>>
>> > programs. For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 12
>> > years and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in 3D
>> > perspective.
>>
>> Damn, I never thought I'd see you switch from AutoCAD LT to anything
>> else!
>>
>> Just reaffirms my long held contention that SU is an excellent, cost
>> effective, woodworker's tool providing you're not so closed minded as to
>> let
>> preconceived notions/bias get in the way.
>>
> Oh, for fuck sakes. Just because people are putting the obvious SU
> limitations out there for all to see, does not make them closed
> minded.
> You have made it clear that it works for you. Great.
> But I have a company to run, in which SU has no place due to its
> limitations.
> I also know you weren't referring specifically to me personally as you
> fully realize my mind is wide open and always eager to find newer,
> better software solutions... especially when low cost/free.
> But to suggest that one can build a 300K house with SU is misleading
> as you fail to include the fact that YOUR ability to do so includes
> your vast and well-developed skill-set. Your skill-set can build that
> house without SU, IOW, what you got there is a sharper, better pencil.
> Period.
Never miss an opportunity to slobber in the public trough, eh Bubba?
It's a crying damn shame that no one here can't discuss something they find
useful without your constant, denigrating snide, input on the subject.
Kiss my ass ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>
> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by a
> welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>
> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
> welded to the subassemblies.
>
> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
It's not a drafting tool. You'll bend over backwards to make it produce
working drawings. Sketchup is more a modeling and visualization tool that
happens to place a few dimensions and notes, sometimes usefully, sometimes
not. It doesn't do angular dimensions, for example.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>>
>> Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
>> curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool for
>> most woodworkers.
>
>
> Here is where I will explain it's short comings a bit more concerning the
> "curves" that you mentioned above. SU will easily draw the appearance of
> circles and portions of a circle/an ark. this depends on how many line
> segments the circle has. Unless there is a plug in some where and please
> tell me where if there is, you can not draw a relatively smooth irregular
> curve like a CAD program will. For instance with AutoCAD you can draw a
> flexible curved through a series of points that are not in a line or
> quickly draw an ellipse.
>
> Something like an ellipse would be difficult with SU although you can draw
> one with a bow compass and could on SU at a particular angle but you would
> be limited. A typical isometric ellipse can be drawn with 4 arcs with 2
> different radius.
In the spirit of propping up SU with work arounds, you could intersect a
cylinder with a plane and extract the ellipse. More generally, use a cone to
generate the ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3d351cd7-b353-4602-ae4e-d4c7734b13b7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
(There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png
===========
SU users can look forward to a few hours of misery, frustration, and
uncertainty trying to sketch that sink outline. Start to finish was 8
minutes using SolidWorks, all the tangents faired, dimensioned, fully
contrained, with the selected controlling dimensions distinguishable from
driven dimensions.
There is some ambiguity in the drawing, but maybe nothing major. It is over
defined, and the resulting shape is different depending on which dimensions
you take as defining, and which are reference. For example, the 576 1/2 came
out to 576.41 by choosing the radius and 128 1/2 dimension as controlling.
Overall, by prefering radius and tangency to the specified dimensions,
*most* center locations came out to less than 0.1 mm off the conflicting
dimensions, easily within the implied tolerance. There are some notable
exceptions. One was the 209 dimension. It becomes 204.83 if you let the 373
dimension drive it. Using the 209 as the driving dimension, the 373 becomes
372.95. The largest difference was the 110 1/2. It came to 122.64, a half
inch difference, if I let the other dimensions drive it.
What's the relevance to SU? For that matter, what is your comfort level with
ACAD LT or TurboCAD for something like this? Simply that there is a
difference between SU and the full CAD systems. One of the major differences
is specifying design intent. What is the relationship between on object to
the other, one arc to the next? One part to another? It doesn't matter much
for the block shapes we typically work with. But there is a difference.
"Jack Stein" wrote
> *yawn*
Damn, Jack ... little did we realize that SU is the tool of the devil! We
better update the warning label ASAP, eh?
Before use, ask your doctor if SU is right for you!
"CAUTION: Use of SU may cause loss of all technological advance through
"dumbing down"; Repeated use of SU may cause accusations of being a "fucking
expert"; Use of SU may cause CAD confusion, CNC confusion, Curve confusion
and loss of pencil sharpness, Do not use SU while driving and operating
machinery when sleeping or unconscious; Use of SU upside down may cause
vertigo; SU should not be used if you are pregnant, or have plans to cause
pregnancy; If you have a prolonged erection while using SU that last for for
more than four hours, see your wife/girlfriend immediately; Use of alcohol
with this product may cause you to wake up with buzzard breath."
(Updated version pending kibitzer's further fits of wisdom)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c27ee83e-a3ee-43eb-80ac-856a6e7b3647@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 3:22 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
There is a free hand tool but you better be smooth. ;~)
MikeWhy wrote:
>
> Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth with the 3d
> buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason it exists,
> and why Google gives it away. Combined with a 3dconnexion mouse, the
> view was simply stunningly, the experience absolutely jaw dropping.
You should see it from an airplane... You do the entire loop around 900
feet up.
Here's an example:
<http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/images/flying/hudson-apr2005/>
It's even better at night!
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:371b375d-fcb0-4dc1-b762-b0f028740511@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>
Hey, I heard that. I went through that whole 'upgrade' bullshit a year-
or-so ago. At that time I was prepared to go to a competitive lateral
upgrade till I found out that the solid modelling component did not
include a proper 2D environment. So they had me by the short-'n-
curlies. I dropped the money for the upgrade and I'm now glad I did. I
did not have to relearn anything, but it still irks the piss out of me
that those bastards KNOW that and I hate being led around by the nose
like that. Good thing those upgrades are an expense and a 100% write-
off.
========
Alibre? I thought it was pretty similar to SW, or growing in that direction,
when I looked at it a few years ago.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:db96488b-e847-4452-8779-6c51ce49453c@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 8:07 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c27ee83e-a3ee-43eb-80ac-856a6e7b3647@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 3:22 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
> countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
>
> There is a free hand tool but you better be smooth. ;~)
Hehehehe, well, I think we all know how smooth I am...LOL
NOT
Is the freehand tool editable? With handles and nodes and stuff? Or
should I just go take another download/look?
YES! The freehand tool is editable.
You simply complete the freehand line, select it, explode it, and then
divide it with constraint points. Then you can select sections and move
them which will result in changing the shape of the freehand line. That
may not be enough for you but yes it is editable.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
> parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house? :)
The two thoughts were unrelated. Thinking of a generalized import solution,
with the hull profiles as a further example beyond just the parabola.
Which language? AutoLisp put the bread on my table the entire latter half of
the 80's. Since then, I've more or less stuck with C++. Dr. Geisel would be
pleased, I think, with just how nicely that language can read when written
in iambic pentameter. Not in CAD systems, though. They're just part of a
multitude of hobbies. I build financial data systems by day.
"Lee Michaels" wrote
> Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
> from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got tired
> of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.
> Aren't you lucky!
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'm sick enough to think this was a fun way to spend the afternoon. It's
> nothing against SU or ACAD. SW is a different class of tool, made
> specifically to excel at this sort of thing. You can see the progression
> in CAD capabilities in the evolution in car body shapes, from flat sided
> boxes in the 80's to the faired, used bar of soap shapes we have today.
> Your 20 minutes is rather impressive. I wouldn't even try this in SU.
Geez, Mike where do you live that the afternoon is 44 minutes long, the
South Pole? LOL
I was just pointing out that Sketchup will do much more than many think it
can do. Obviousely having a mechanical drawing back ground is helpful in
solving some of the more complex situations when using SU. More expensive
programs have short cuts for dealing with those common situations.
>
> (It didn't take the *whole* afternoon. I helped a friend buy a used
> bandsaw and cart it home in between.)
oooh !
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3ac91c75-3d3a-47e2-9e57-dfdfecd2746d@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 1, 6:14 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3d351cd7-b353-4602-ae4e-d4c7734b13b7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
> (There are now hundreds of these kinds of
> sinks)http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=...
>
> ===========
> SU users can look forward to a few hours of misery, frustration, and
> uncertainty trying to sketch that sink outline. Start to finish was 8
> minutes using SolidWorks, all the tangents faired, dimensioned, fully
> contrained, with the selected controlling dimensions distinguishable from
> driven dimensions.
8 minutes, eh? Not too shabby. *tips hat*
=========
SW makes it easy. Toss on the tangent arcs, one after the other, and *then*
nail them down with dimensions. They're color coded blue until you place
enough dimensions to fully define them. The solver moves and resizes things
as you do this. It beats blazes out of going the other way, the familiar
drafting room way of finding the centers and tangent points and then drawing
the arcs.
It certainly wasn't skill on my part; SW did all the work. It's been a few
weeks since I even used it. To bring this around full circle, I've been
using SU almost exclusively in that time. ;)
"MikeWhy" wrote
> it's not a tool. As you look through Swing's fount of knowledge, the FWW
> design-click-build blog, ask yourself just what is it that they're doing.
> Are they showcasing SU's slick interface and capabilities? Or are they,
> like everyone else, struggling at every step to trick it into doing what
> they want?
> Just randomly: a 12 minute video on stretching a dovetailed drawer. What
> is that? Is that useful work? Would you think so if you even thought there
> were better solutions? Could it be a non-issue given a "real" tool?
Damn, wish I'd had a couple hundred of those "12 minute videos", on ANY
topic, when first learning my way around AutoCAD years ago. :)
> Here's another one, offsetting a curved surface, with a plugin.
>
> How about, "Doin' the Twist"? Is that a productive use of your time?
> Having invested the time and effort, how do you feel about going back and
> modifying the twist when, as it turned out, the constant rate twist looked
> like crap?
>
IMO, pretty damn unfair characterization, Mike. To be fair, there has always
been a lot of initial "struggling at every step" with all CAD and Design
software ... learning curves have traditionally been steep in the genre (SU
is somewhat of an exception because its lack of depth as CAD tends to make
the path easier), AAMOF, that is precisely what makes Rob's AutoCAD
certification impressive and worthy of respect.
> The simple fact is, these are all simple operations with a CAD system. SU
> is not a general purpose CAD tool.
Nope, and it expressly, and unequivocally, doesn't pretend to be...
something seemingly hard to grasp.
BTW, the FWW guys are a couple of woodworkers who are professed SU amateurs
and simply sharing what they've learned as it pertains to woodworking, and
mostly they do things the hard way ... go to the Google SU forums where the
big boys play and you'll see that real quickly.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ddb08e43-5e21-40c6-9f39-83e0d7818b1c@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 1:56 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
Here's a partial look of the tool kit. Those modules live on another
monitor, but I have dragged them over here to give you some
indication. The pull-down in the centre are all tools/commands missing
in SU...
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Palettes.jpg
Ok, but I am talking from a ww project point of view. I do realize that CAD
programs have lots more tools, I'v been using a bunch since 1997 myself.
;~)
Keep in mind, that most single tool icons can/will launch a dialog
box, something like this base cabinet parametric. Those exist for just
about any kind of cabinets and commercial/office furniture.
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture4.png
Another example of a parametric. One of several dozen different stair
designs.
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture5.png
Take a poke here,
http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/en_sections.html ther are a
bunch of plug ins that make Sketch up more fashonable. ;~) there are
several "stair" plug ins.
..and then there is the rendering aka pretty picturesit will create if
called upon. (By a customer who can't decide what wood grain to go
with in her kitchen.)
Sketch can do that with the correct chosen material.
I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
Understood
r
"Jack Stein" wrote
> I think it's interesting that a professional builder would use SU to
> design a $300,000 house.
On that note, framing crew boss has been in the construction trailer four
times already this morning saying "Can I see that again?" ... talking about
a 2D roof plan on my laptop, which can be orbited to 3D for viewing a 'field
change' that needs to be made to a complicated truss layout.
Looks like I *sold* another copy of SU for Google before lunch. ")
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Jack Stein" wrote
>>
>>> *yawn*
>>
>> Damn, Jack ... little did we realize that SU is the tool of the devil! We
>> better update the warning label ASAP, eh?
>>
>> Before use, ask your doctor if SU is right for you!
>>
>> "CAUTION: Use of SU may cause loss of all technological advance through
>> "dumbing down"; Repeated use of SU may cause accusations of being a
>> "fucking expert"; Use of SU may cause CAD confusion, CNC confusion, Curve
>> confusion and loss of pencil sharpness, Do not use SU while driving and
>> operating machinery when sleeping or unconscious; Use of SU upside down
>> may cause vertigo; SU should not be used if you are pregnant, or have
>> plans to cause pregnancy; If you have a prolonged erection while using SU
>> that last for for more than four hours, see your wife/girlfriend
>> immediately; Use of alcohol with this product may cause you to wake up
>> with buzzard breath."
>>
>> (Updated version pending kibitzer's further fits of wisdom)
>
> Pardon the typos, as I am dictating this to wife (Hi! <Joann waves>) to
> send on my behalf. I ground off my fingertips to bloody stumps so they
> wouldn't write something hurtful. I have only this to add: "SU is a great
> product. I hope it brings you as much happiness as it has brought me."
> However, blaming it for your buzzard breath and toe warts is unwarranted.
> You should perhaps amend your statement thusly: "Myopia and a few, very
> few, other pre-existing shortcomings do not respond to Sketchup therapy."
ROTFL ... hope your fingers feel better.
<Hi Joann!!>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" wrote
>
>> programs. For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 12
>> years and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in 3D
>> perspective.
>
> Damn, I never thought I'd see you switch from AutoCAD LT to anything else!
>
> Just reaffirms my long held contention that SU is an excellent, cost
> effective, woodworker's tool providing you're not so closed minded as to
> let preconceived notions/bias get in the way.
>
> Then again, the first three times I downloaded SU, then wiped it, I never
> thought in my wildest dreams I'd be using it, and it alone, to build a
> $300K budget house. That house is now well on it's way and the foundation,
> framing, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC were all bid from, and will be
> built, based solely on SU 2D and 3D drawings.
I did the install and remove a few time my self. IMHO the program was a bit
too cartoonist in the earlier versions. Version 6 was the one that
seriously kept my interest and Version 7 seems to have addressed several
behind the scenes problems.
Yeah, I think AutoCAD LT has out grown its usefulness, price wise, for me.
While the CAD programs do indeed have more tool commands and icons I feel
the Sketchup has pretty much simplified those commands into a far smaller
group that pretty much accomplish the same thing 99% of the time. I would
like to see a few more dimension commands and or options to tweak the a bit
more.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack Stein" wrote
>
>> I think it's interesting that a professional builder would use SU to
>> design a $300,000 house.
>
> On that note, framing crew boss has been in the construction trailer four
> times already this morning saying "Can I see that again?" ... talking
> about a 2D roof plan on my laptop, which can be orbited to 3D for viewing
> a 'field change' that needs to be made to a complicated truss layout.
>
> Looks like I *sold* another copy of SU for Google before lunch. ")
LOL, I think the biggest ob-stakle is that many have tried it, like you and
I, and did not like it, like you and I. The difference is that you, me, and
others have given it another chance a few more times and with the latest
upgrades find that it is quite capable of performing in the same league as
more expensive pieces of software when it concerns wood working of most any
type. I think the biggest ob-stakle is learning how to think about
designing and drawing in a totally different way and knowing that many
solutions are accomplished with down loading free plug-ins. The more
expensive programs have the plug-ins built in but you pay for them in the
package.
BTY I finally mastered the problem of fitting a board between the posts
diagonally, even if the posts are not parallel.
ob-stakle : Something to over come, as used in "O'brother Where Art
Thou" '~)
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nope, and it expressly, and unequivocally, doesn't pretend to be...
> something seemingly hard to grasp.
>
> BTW, the FWW guys are a couple of woodworkers who are professed SU
> amateurs and simply sharing what they've learned as it pertains to
> woodworking, and mostly they do things the hard way ... go to the Google
> SU forums where the big boys play and you'll see that real quickly.
I stated it more strongly than it needed to be. Probably. All the same, the
ignoramus finger pointing needed to stop. (Yesterday evening didn't go so
well for me, and I came in this morning with a chip on my shoulder. Maybe
seething, even. It was a "simple" flame finial. Would you care to guess the
rest? ;)
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> ...will it scale a drawing from one reference? Like, say, I draw a
> cabinet and then set the dimension of one of the rails? I fiddled
> with the tutorial the other nite and was surprised at the
> accessability...if can set the deminsion of my first piece and the
> program will scale the remainder, well, I'm in!
If I am not mistaken there are scripts that will do that.. Swingman?
Otherwise, if you draw your rail first and make it into a component and then
copy that component over to another component to eventually form a cabinet,
you can change all of the rail at the same time later on. If you want to
make several different sized rails for other cabinets you make the already
copied and completed rails "unique" so that they will no longer change when
you modify the other component rails.
Over and over I mention components, they are a very useful way to put your
cabinets together. One rail can be the basis for all rails in the drawings
regardless of size or number of sizes. Until you make a component "unique"
it will change with every modification to "like/same rail edits. Editing
one component will modify all "same copiy" components.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" wrote
>>
>> Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
>> difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.
>>
> Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I
> am interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout
> included in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.
>
> What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns
> it into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
> chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
> and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is
> a presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy
> fartsy kinda thing.
Actually you can do that with the free version which does not include
Layout. You take a drawing and choose a different Style.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 12:57 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Egggggzactly. NOT a drafting tool.
>
>
> What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
Where to start? Working drawing sets. Bills of Material. Parametric
configurations. Multiple parts configurations. Editable feature history.
Weldments. Sheet metal. Mate constraints. ... SU is a minimal set for
defining and manipulating simple, static surface models. It is what it is,
and it's good for what it is, but it helps sometimes to keep in perspective
what it is not. What you sketch is what you get, sometimes less. Circles are
pie wedges; curves are straightline segments. When you change a dimension,
the dimension text changes, not the underlying object. You glue things
together, or set them next to each other, they don't move to maintain the
relationship. You sweep a shape, and that's the shape it will ever and
always be; editing the shape that defined the sweep doesn't change anything.
Is any of that a condemnation? I don't think so. "Minimum" usable subset is
still a pretty high bar for getting useful things done.
So, about those angle dimensions. How?
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:57e0def5-4ff1-4b88-9fbc-2698ad94c2f8@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
And you come across, along with others, like my buddy's uncle. He
walked funny because his shoes were too tight. But he kept walking in
them, showing them off: "real leather", but, dammit, they were free.
;~) LOL, no doubt that you probably need something more advanced than SU,
if you were in a cutting edge CAD news group you may look like the guy using
cheap software. ;~)
As for the shoes, I know people that are going to wear those shoes after
their feet have grown again because that paid too much to just set them
aside.
So many people get so caught up in 'The Deal' that they are willing to
forgive any and all shortcomings of 'The Deal'.
But that's okay. Your Timex probably keeps better time than my Rolex,
but guess what?
If anyone thinks that I defend the use of my proven, powerful and
familiar software out of buyers' remorse is nuts.
Not you in particualr, just those that actually do have more software than
they need.
Go ahead, enjoy your freebie. Too bad you'll never know what it is
like to wear shoes that fit.
Actually, I have had the more expensive software, for this medium,
woodworking, it is no longer worth the price.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> Yah. Done that. Made that podunk midwest cow town look insignificant;
>> second city my hairy behind. Really, though. Try Manhattan in Google
>> Earth with a 3dConnexion mouse. Get right in on top of Penn Station and
>> the nearby penthouses.
>
> I've looked down at Penn Station (MSG) from the 86th floor of the Empire
> State Building. <G>
Looked better than from the airplane, didn't it? Well... it's time to let
this one die. I think we done beat it to death. Or I did anyway. :D
"Leon" wrote
> programs. For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 12
> years and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in 3D
> perspective.
Damn, I never thought I'd see you switch from AutoCAD LT to anything else!
Just reaffirms my long held contention that SU is an excellent, cost
effective, woodworker's tool providing you're not so closed minded as to let
preconceived notions/bias get in the way.
Then again, the first three times I downloaded SU, then wiped it, I never
thought in my wildest dreams I'd be using it, and it alone, to build a $300K
budget house. That house is now well on it's way and the foundation,
framing, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC were all bid from, and will be
built, based solely on SU 2D and 3D drawings.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:YQDpl.8216$%[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
>
> Where to start? Working drawing sets. Bills of Material. Parametric
> configurations. Multiple parts configurations. Editable feature history.
> Weldments. Sheet metal. Mate constraints. ... SU is a minimal set for
> defining and manipulating simple, static surface models. It is what it is,
> and it's good for what it is, but it helps sometimes to keep in
> perspective what it is not. What you sketch is what you get, sometimes
> less. Circles are pie wedges; curves are straightline segments. When you
> change a dimension, the dimension text changes, not the underlying object.
> You glue things together, or set them next to each other, they don't move
> to maintain the relationship. You sweep a shape, and that's the shape it
> will ever and always be; editing the shape that defined the sweep doesn't
> change anything. Is any of that a condemnation? I don't think so.
> "Minimum" usable subset is still a pretty high bar for getting useful
> things done.
Well this being a ww group I was thinking more in lines with wood working
projects. So yes I agree a CAD program absolutely does more outside this
area.
As for as abilities, I have not checked all the plugins and scripst that are
available however there is a dimension plug-in called Driving Dimensions
that let you edit the dimension and that also changes the length of object
that it deminsions.
I am not sure what you are talking about concerning glueing things or
setting them next to each other and not maintaining the relationship. If
you make them into components and make the components into a group they
stay together until you edit or explode them. I may be way off base here.
> So, about those angle dimensions. How?
Search for the script/plugin " dim_angle.rb ". Copy it into the Plug-in's
folder and the next time you reload Sketchup 7 ;ppl imder "Tools" and you
will find a new command called Angular Dimension. Choose that command, pick
3 points, and you will get a angular dimension typical of what you might
expect.
Keep in mind however that on this particular dimention that if you chang eht
angle of the object you will also have todo the angular dimension command.
Scroll down the page a bit until you see the file I mentione above. Click
the file name and it will open a page of script. Right click that page and
"Save page As", and save it in the plug ins folder. Besure to add the .rb
extension to the name if it does not do so automatically.
http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/em_arc_page.htm
There are literally hundreds of scripts and plug ins that make Sketchup act
more like a CAD program.
J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a
>>> commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at
>>> least the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.
>>
>> There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which
>> hundreds of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming
>> literate" which most of the computer literate folks aren't...
>>
>> ...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
>> workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.
>
> Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was
> a cheap good full featured interpreter for it.
>
>> Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big
>> deal - but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of
>> understanding of what it's all about.
>>
>> A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is
>> just baggage to be carried from success to failure.
>
> Well, actually it does make one an expert. Writing compilers is not
> simple--a lot of students in courses with textbooks and being pretty
> much stepped through it have trouble with them. Pride may be baggage,
> but so is excessive humility.
>
> You're selling yourself short--it doesn't matter how you developed the
> skill, you've got a lot more than you think you have.
I never thought this topic would come up (at least not to this degree)
in a woodworking forum, but while we're at it, I was the author of IBM's
X86 macro assembler for OS/2, short-lived though it was. It was called
"ALP", and we (95% *I*) wrote it to replace Microsoft's "MASM" when they
split from IBM in the early nineties to focus on Windows, taking all
their compilers with them... I also worked closely with IBM's C/C++
compiler lab in Toronto and the debugger lab in Lexington to make sure
all the tools played well together. I also have some code in IBM
Toronto's version of Microsoft's original linker (ILINK), mainly in
support of building the OS/2 version of the Mozilla browser with GCC.
Apart from perhaps CAD programs, compilers and linkers are some of the
most complex software tools out there. Morris certainly has my respect.
:-)
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
"Robatoy" wrote
> Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I upgraded to the Pro versions for two
reasons only:
~ The added import/export features in the Pro version of the program.
~ The included Layout "presentation" program, which allows me to develop and
print industry standard construction documents, based on the models created
in the base program, for both and bidding and building purposes.
The ability to create dynamic components with the Pro version was an added
plus for the kitchen/cabinet design part of my business, but was not
considered in the justification for expenditure to upgrade from free to Pro,
which was based _solely_ on import/export/presentation capabilities in the
Pro version.
AAMOF, *ALL* the modeling work in the current construction project was done
with the free version, the Layout program used only to import, layout, and
print the actual construction documents.
Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.
http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c27ee83e-a3ee-43eb-80ac-856a6e7b3647@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>
That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
========
No NURBS, therefore no splines of any kind, 2D or otherwise. You could
approximate the shape with connected arcs, but changing it after the fact
will be a miserable exercise. (Maybe draw it in ACAD and import the DXF? Or
scratch one out in Photoshop and trace over it.) On the positive side, it's
remarkable what they manage to do with the minimalist feature set. You
could, for example, apply a one time edge treatment, such as a cove or ogee,
over the shape. Keeping in mind what it isn't helps keep the frustration
level down. My dogs don't do square roots, so I ask the wife instead when I
need the positive root of a binomial expression. Or something like that.
On Mar 1, 2:33=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Of course there should be things a simple,
> free, sketching program cannot do, but those limitations are pretty moot
> to most woodworkers.
>
I wonder how many kids will never learn how to play a real guitar
because they now have Guitar Hero.
That does not mean it is not a form of entertainment, it certainly is.
You see, Jack, what pisses me off, is that some guys have been too
cheap or too poor to buy CAD software a long time ago, unable to learn
the various disciplines relating to CAD and now suddenly they find a
piece of software which uses a simple and toy-like metaphor and now
they're fucking experts.
Is SU good enough for the guy to cobble together a book-shelf?
Absolutely. Can it be stretched to do a house? Apparently so.
Can they draw their way out of a real design challenge? I don't think
so.
Do I want to waste time 'discovering the Shangri-La of SketchUp'?
Naaa, I will stick to what I know and what works for me and my circle
of business contacts.
BTW, there is no need for you to defend Swingman, he's perfectly
capable of contributing intellectual repartee by telling people to
kiss his ass... *S*
On Mar 3, 6:47=A0pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:371b375d-fcb0-4dc1-b762-b0f028740511@r34g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey, I heard that. I went through that whole 'upgrade' bullshit a year-
> or-so ago. At that time I was prepared to go to a competitive lateral
> upgrade till I found out that the solid modelling component did not
> include a proper 2D environment. So they had me by the short-'n-
> curlies. I dropped the money for the upgrade and I'm now glad I did. I
> did not have to relearn anything, but it still irks the piss out of me
> that those bastards KNOW that and I hate being led around by the nose
> like that. Good thing those upgrades are an expense and a 100% write-
> off.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Alibre? I thought it was pretty similar to SW, or growing in that directi=
on,
> when I looked at it a few years ago.
Vectorworks. Available for Mac & PC.
http://www.nemetschek.net/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 26, 12:57 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
Egggggzactly. NOT a drafting tool.
What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
On Mar 4, 2:54=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Leon wrote:
>
> >> I heare you. =A0;~)
>
> > For any Robotic Spell Cops haunting the rec, Leon's brain probably wasn=
't
> > sure if he meant here or hear, so compromised with heare. =A0All 3 soun=
d
> > exactly the same, even if you can't figure out what was meant.
>
> > Or, it could have just been a typo... Whatever, I'm certain you will ge=
t
> > to the bottom of it...
>
> LOL!! =A0 =A0Outlook Express Spell Checker. =A0It runs all the time but j=
ust add
> some text in the middle of existing text and there is a 50/50 chance it w=
ill
> return an "all correctly spelled" indication. =A0That'n probably would'a =
gone
> through any way. =A0Then I'll use the excuse that I am using a new key bo=
ard
> with slightly tighter keys that my stout fingers don't particularly work
> well with.
I cannot remember ever poking fun at obvious typos made by anybody in
here... unless somebody talks about ordering two pickets to Titsburg..
(although that is technically a Spoonerism... but if you then say that
you paid for those tickets with nipples and dimes, then I have to
speak up.)
But those who get into a flap when somebody ribs them a little about a
spelling error, then they have become fair game. Those who shrug it
off, and laugh at themselves are my kind of people. <G>
I also think it is hilarious when I have word-substitution turned on
in my Crackberry, and it comes up with some pretty weird shirt. I
don't know what the fuchsia that is all about.
On Feb 27, 9:50=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But to suggest that one can build a 300K house with SU is misleading
> as you fail to include the fact that YOUR ability to do so includes
> your vast and well-developed skill-set. Your skill-set can build that
> house without SU, IOW, what you got there is a sharper, better pencil.
> Period.
You make sharper, better pencils sound like a bad thing. That's all
anybody is ever looking for - a better, sharper pencil (tool/thing/
whatever). I don't expect the pencil to be my only tool, and neither
would I expect any one program to get things done.
Someone could use almost any program to build a house. I could design
a house and do the design drawings in Photoshop.
SketchUp can be made to sit, stay and speak if someone wants to invest
the time. From the stuff you've posted it seems that you have found
something that works for you. We should all be so lucky.
R
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:42:42 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"MikeWhy" wrote
>
>> I grew up in Chicago. It wasn't until primary flight training in Seattle
>> that I came to understand the difference can become rather significant and
>> of more than academic interest.
>
>Know the feeling ... in my case, calling in artillery fire, in earnest, was
>indeed of more than academic interest. :)
...bunch of black-hat pilot types were lounging next to a 155 battery
once...we were ready when the guy yelled "fire" the first time...and
the second soon after...but, brother, when they went into "fire for
effect"...heh...*that* was bitchin'! 'Course, if you were calling it
in you got to see the results...or be a part of them!
cg
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
Snip
>
> Thanks. And just how hard is that to do natively? There are big things
> missing, the stuff I mentioned above. That's cool; implementing them is
> magnitudes more complex than what SU is meant to be. But there are
> niggling little things, like the angle dimensions, that can be but aren't.
> Still, you have to understand that I'm not criticizing SU, and not asking
> you to be its apologist. It is what it is.
>
>
I look at Sketch up as more of a "Kit", modify to your likes and needs
programs. For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 12 years
and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in 3D
perspective.
On Feb 27, 2:07=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:50=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But to suggest that one can build a 300K house with SU is misleading
> > as you fail to include the fact that YOUR ability to do so includes
> > your vast and well-developed skill-set. Your skill-set can build that
> > house without SU, IOW, what you got there is a sharper, better pencil.
> > Period.
>
> You make sharper, better pencils sound like a bad thing. =A0That's all
> anybody is ever looking for - a better, sharper pencil (tool/thing/
> whatever). =A0I don't expect the pencil to be my only tool, and neither
> would I expect any one program to get things done.
I certainly don't mean to imply that it is a bad thing and I don't
think I did.
>
> Someone could use almost any program to build a house. =A0I could design
> a house and do the design drawings in Photoshop.
Exactly, to say that you can use SU to build a house does therefore
not validate the software but the builder, who can use anything if he
knows how to build a house in the first place.
I have 20 years and thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in my
software, yet I cannot design, much less build a boat. The software is
very capable as a tool to a boat builder, but *I* cannot design/build
a boat. Owning software with capability means dick.
If my problems are such that my selection of software DOES solve them,
then I am a happy camper. And I am.
> SketchUp can be made to sit, stay and speak if someone wants to invest
> the time.
SU is inadequate for my needs. That doesn't make me a bad person
*plinks away a tear*
>=A0From the stuff you've posted it seems that you have found
> something that works for you. =A0We should all be so lucky.
Luck didn't have much to do with it. Tenacity, hard work and some
college courses in how to interface with the rest of the planet in
terms of drawing/blueprint standards. On paper and in digital
formats. I got into a proper discipline and stayed with it. Then when
software that I could afford and could handle Non Uniform Rational
Basis Splines came on the scene I was feeling pretty damn lucky then.
Bolted onto a real rendering engine, again, the format exchange was
crucial... and now the CNC is on line, even more so.
So yes, one can build a house with SU, but will it be a better house?
"Lee Michaels" wrote
>
> "Swingman" wrote
>>
>> Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
>> difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.
>>
> Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I
> am interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout
> included in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.
>
> What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns
> it into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
> chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
> and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is
> a presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy
> fartsy kinda thing.
You are talking about "Style Builder", not "Layout":
http://sketchup.google.com/product/stylebuilder.html
It indeed is a standalone "program" included with the Pro version that
allows you to create custom styles than can be **applied to** a model drawn
in the base program (actually removes detail from a drawing to give it a
customized "sketchy edge" ).
You're correct, it is not something I've much need for as a woodworker or
builder. Style Builder no way alters the statement made above as to
functional difference in the drawing of 3D/2D models.
It is important for users to understand that the tools for the actual
drawing/modeling are the same in both versions. The difference being in
Export, Import and Presentation capabilities.
Once again and simply put, and for all practical purposes, if you do not
need these added capabilities which have nothing to do with the actual
drawing of models themselves, you do NOT need the Pro version.
Look at the chart carefully ...
http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mar 7, 2:55=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 1:51 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Lee Michaels" wrote
>
> >> > Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep peo=
ple
> >> > from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got
> >> > tired
> >> > of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de
> >> > jour.
> >> > Aren't you lucky!
>
> >> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...
>
> >> --www.e-woodshop.net
> >> Last update: 10/22/08
> >> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> > I'm not surprised you'd be in Stein's corner. He kisses your ass,
> > while I won't.
>
> LOL ... seems Jack's sauce on your tail is itching you a bit, eh Rob. No
> damn wonder, looks like he's got your BS pegged down pretty tight from he=
re.
>
> =A0--www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
<G> You're both pretty easy.
Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
Let's see if you can sell him.
Tell you what. Let's take up the subject of CAD again when you get one
of these:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DAu=
toCADLevel3D.jpg
BTW, the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0.
The last one 3.87. That one was tough. No SU support.
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Or it could be buyers remorse.
>
> But probably isn't. If all of my software went "poof!", I would probably
> re-download and install SU - right after I finished ordering a CAD package
> that filled /more/ of my needs.
Precicely, but this is a recreational woodworking news group. There are
some that only have a need for this type drawing and are using the more
expensive software, take me for instance. While I am a bit past
recreational, my tools have more than pay for themselves time and again, I
am tired of the Autodesk policy of having to upgrade every 4 or so years or
loose the ability to upgrade at a reduced price. Because my latest version
is 2004 if I want to upgrade now I will have to pay full price and that is
crouding $1K. For my purpose I get very detailed drawing that are more
presentable to customers in much less time using SU.
>
> FWIW, the CAD package that I'm using today cost me /less/ than the pro
> version of SU (and I haven't even bothered to re-install my full-blown
> AutoCAD since my old computer died last spring).
I heare you. ;~)
>
> If SU floats your boat, then more power to you - but it doesn't do what I
> need for the projects I care most about.
No doubt but your needs go beyond the typical wood workers.
>
> What it does do is allow me to admire Swing's cabinet design models. :)
LOL. and there is that.
On Mar 8, 3:34=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" =A0wrote
>
> > Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?
>
> Can't speak for anyone else, but I upgraded to the Pro versions for two
> reasons only:
>
> ~ The added import/export features in the Pro version of the program.
>
> ~ The included Layout "presentation" program, which allows me to develop =
and
> print industry standard construction documents, based on the models creat=
ed
> in the base program, for both and bidding and building purposes.
>
IOW:
The interface with the real world and the ability to create 'pretty
pictures' makes SUPro look like a good deal then.
The Freebee completely useless..................to me.
Now was that so hard?
<g.d &r>
On Mar 6, 4:42 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby,
I took a quick look at Ruby. It looks a helluva lot more fun than
autolisp, which I had to learn many moons ago but have happily
forgetten, except that I just about wore the ()'s off the keyboard.
That was a miserable experience. I don't particularly want to learn
it, but if I was starting from zero it doesn't look like a bad
environment to work with.
-Kevin
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:41:56 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>> ...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
>> workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.
>
> Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was
> a cheap good full featured interpreter for it.
Have you looked at A+ <www.aplusdev.org>?
I'm not an APLIsta, but it looks like a reasonable alternative (as far as
'reasonable' applies to APL...)
On Mar 4, 3:22=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>
>
> > Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
> > curves. =A0SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool =
for
> > most woodworkers.
>
> Here is where I will explain it's short comings a bit more concerning the
> "curves" that you mentioned above. =A0SU will easily draw the appearance =
of
> circles and portions of a circle/an ark. =A0this depends on how many line
> segments the circle has. =A0Unless there is a plug in some where and plea=
se
> tell me where if there is, you can not draw a relatively smooth irregular
> curve like a CAD program will. =A0For instance with AutoCAD you can draw =
a
> flexible curved through a series of points that are not in a line or quic=
kly
> draw an ellipse.
>
> Something like an ellipse would be difficult with SU although you can dra=
w
> one with a bow compass and could on SU at a particular angle but you woul=
d
> be limited. =A0A typical isometric ellipse can be drawn with 4 arcs with =
2
> different radius.
That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
On Mar 6, 11:34=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>=A0I ended up becoming obsessed with computers and programing.
> Prior to that, I was obsessed with wood working. =A0I found computing met
> most of my "creative" needs,
I do that all the time. I doodle a lot. Very relaxing. It is my
version of a 'game'
I get to make silly doodles too like: (Notice that it is a true
solid?)
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DCh=
erryToffee.jpg
When I looked at SU, I asked several questions.
Will it do this? Will it do that? When the answers came up negative, I
decided not to waste my time.
Somehow, you decided that my decision of not wasting my time
disqualified me from making a judgement whether or not SU filled my
needs.
It didn't do what I wanted it to do. No need to look further. "This is
a pretty good band, but all they do is play Cat Stevens songs."
I discovered SU's limitations by investigating its capabilities. It
seems that Google also figured out that it came up short for many
others. They padded the project with LayOut, for a price. That covered
some of my needs, but still there was no reason to drop any amount of
money on capabilities I already owned and learned.
Why are you having such a problem with that, Jack? Or are you just an
asshole?
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3d351cd7-b353-4602-ae4e-d4c7734b13b7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
> (There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
> http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png
>
> ===========
> SU users can look forward to a few hours of misery, frustration, and
> uncertainty trying to sketch that sink outline. Start to finish was 8
> minutes using SolidWorks, all the tangents faired, dimensioned, fully
> contrained, with the selected controlling dimensions distinguishable from
> driven dimensions.
Ok, I'll admit that this if the first time I have really tried doing this
much with SU, using arcs and circles but it took me 44 minutes to draw the
sink cut out diagram. I made a couple of silly mistakes that wasted time,
I spent 20 minutes trying to draw the whole thing rather than 1/2 and
mirroring the other half. But there was absolutely no misery or
frustration. 8 minutes is certainly faster but I did it with a program that
I have not been using very long and I have no investment in the software.
Agreed, a beginner with no drafting experience may indeed take a while doing
this same drawing but I doubt that I could have done it any faster using
AutoCAD LT.
On Mar 5, 11:06=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped the usual drivel]
You just ooooze envy, Jack.
On Mar 4, 1:32=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Jack Stein" =A0wrote
>
> > Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
>
> Robatoy is a self confessed tool snob. =A0But his comments are interestin=
g,
> maybe even old school. =A0But he does have skills. =A0And he does let you=
know
> what he thinks.
>
> But Robatoy comments, whatever they may be, hardly qualifies for the
> "denigrating" characterization. His comments are a refreshing
> alternative/counterweight to the SU cultists. =A0;_)
>
> We should be encourageing alternative perspectives in this forum. Not
> "denigrating" those folks who have a different viewpoint.
Was that a bottle of scotch or a bottle of cognac I was supposed to
send you?
=3D0)
On Mar 4, 8:07=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c27ee83e-a3ee-43eb-80ac-856a6e7b3647@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 3:22 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> That would limit me up a bit when designing a free-flow kidney-shaped
> countertop for an island then? (I'm serious here....)
>
> There is a free hand tool but you better be smooth. =A0;~)
Hehehehe, well, I think we all know how smooth I am...LOL
NOT
Is the freehand tool editable? With handles and nodes and stuff? Or
should I just go take another download/look?
On Feb 26, 1:56=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 12:57 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> Egggggzactly. NOT a drafting tool.
>
> =A0 What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
Here's a partial look of the tool kit. Those modules live on another
monitor, but I have dragged them over here to give you some
indication. The pull-down in the centre are all tools/commands missing
in SU...
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPa=
lettes.jpg
Keep in mind, that most single tool icons can/will launch a dialog
box, something like this base cabinet parametric. Those exist for just
about any kind of cabinets and commercial/office furniture.
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPi=
cture4.png
Another example of a parametric. One of several dozen different stair
designs.
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=3Dview¤t=3DPi=
cture5.png
..and then there is the rendering aka pretty picturesit will create if
called upon. (By a customer who can't decide what wood grain to go
with in her kitchen.)
I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
r
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Jack Stein" wrote
>>
>>> *yawn*
>>
>
> Pardon the typos, as I am dictating this to wife (Hi! <Joann waves>) to
> send on my behalf. I ground off my fingertips to bloody stumps so they
> wouldn't write something hurtful. I have only this to add: "SU is a great
> product. I hope it brings you as much happiness as it has brought me."
> However, blaming it for your buzzard breath and toe warts is unwarranted.
> You should perhaps amend your statement thusly: "Myopia and a few, very
> few, other pre-existing shortcomings do not respond to Sketchup therapy."
>
At least it does not have a warning about possible "loose stool" like those
potatoe chips did a few years back. LOL
>
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> The interface with the real world and the ability to create 'pretty
>> pictures' makes SUPro look like a good deal then.
>> The Freebee completely useless..................to me.
>>
>> Now was that so hard?
>
> Not particularly hard, just a far cry from:
>
> > Opens doors. That's all it does?
> or
>> Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
> or
>> all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
>
> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
Don't forget the part where he called you ignorant. You remember that, don't
you, Jack? He termed your views ignorant. As you turn out the light at the
end of the day, do you pat yourself on the back, congratulating yourself on
how you showed that Canuck a thing or two? Or do you lay in the dark, your
eyes still open and staring at the ceiling you don't see, wondering what it
is he thinks you don't know? Is that why you're still masturbating here
about how right you are? Maybe, if you can convince yourself that he's wrong
about SU, he must also be wrong about your ignorance?
The fact of the matter is, Rob was exactly right. Your views are founded in
your ignorance of CAD systems. A tool should simplify the task you're trying
to do. If you have to struggle with it, trick it into doing useful work,
it's not a tool. As you look through Swing's fount of knowledge, the FWW
design-click-build blog, ask yourself just what is it that they're doing.
Are they showcasing SU's slick interface and capabilities? Or are they, like
everyone else, struggling at every step to trick it into doing what they
want?
Just randomly: a 12 minute video on stretching a dovetailed drawer. What is
that? Is that useful work? Would you think so if you even thought there were
better solutions? Could it be a non-issue given a "real" tool?
Here's another one, offsetting a curved surface, with a plugin.
How about, "Doin' the Twist"? Is that a productive use of your time? Having
invested the time and effort, how do you feel about going back and modifying
the twist when, as it turned out, the constant rate twist looked like crap?
The simple fact is, these are all simple operations with a CAD system. SU is
not a general purpose CAD tool. This is what Rob meant when he called you
ignorant. Your ignorance not only just shows, it shines like a beacon. Do
you think it brings me pleasure to point this out to you? It's just the
opposite; it's a perfect waste of my time, and you'll prove it to us by
purposely misunderstanding what was said.
On Mar 6, 4:42=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" a=
nd
> >> with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
> >> device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
> >> 0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
>
I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadratic/parabola/interactive-parabola.php
On Mar 6, 4:42=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" a=
nd
> >> with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
> >> device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
> >> 0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
>
> > Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
> > looking for that sooner. =A0I am not sure how easy/possible it is to ge=
t
> > a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
> > the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. =A0I'm
> > not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
> > but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.
>
> >http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibraryDepot/Ruby/Newest_scripts.html
>
> > Bezier Spline v1.2
>
> > At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
> > commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
> > click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.
>
> > So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.
>
> Of course it can, and it could be approximated closely with enough
> bezier splines. It'd still be necessary to calculate the positions of
> the end (and probably center) points, so I'd guess that it'd be more
> practical to just connect all 4801 of those points with straight line
> segments. :-p
>
> I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby, but the version 1
> design got finished while all this discussion was going on, and I just
> got a call from the manufacturer of the fin-tube component letting me
> know that it's on its way - so I'll probably do the usual and just make
> photos of the prototype. I figure there's not much time or effort saved
> if I have to go off and learn yet another programming/scripting language.
>
> The fin-tube stuff is kinda pretty in a geekish way. I'll post a photo
> of a sample in case anyone's interested in weird hardware. See
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/FintubeCutaway-1.jpg
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Make sure you add some relief valves to this thing...valves with lots
of flow capacity.
The planet needs you.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
Shit disturber! You really like to wallow in it don't you? :)
On Mar 2, 3:13=A0pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>
> > Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth with the 3d
> > buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason it exists,
> > and why Google gives it away. Combined with a 3dconnexion mouse, the
> > view was simply stunningly, the experience absolutely jaw dropping.
>
> You should see it from an airplane... =A0You do the entire loop around 90=
0
> feet up.
>
> Here's an example:
> <http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/images/flying/hudson-apr2005/>
>
> It's even better at night!
Can you still do that?
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Also, the free SU allows you to Import 3D models and 2D graphics in many
> formats (DWG, DXF, 3DS, DEM, DDF and a range of image formats) I have no
> clue what any of those are,
What are they? They're CAD model and 3d data files. DWG are AutoCAD
drawings; DXF are AutoCAD's interchange files; 3DS are StudioMax 3d models,
a graphics and animation package. ...
Here's an example of what SU did with a relatively compact and efficient 3ds
file:
11/30/2001 12:07 AM 1,940,906 f5e_05.3ds
03/09/2009 03:07 PM 22,902,677 f5e_05_3ds.skp
It started as a fully built out model of a Northrop F-5E, with working gear
and control surfaces. Imported into SU, it's a static surface model, bloated
to 20 times its original size and minus its camouflage textures.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack Stein" wrote
>
>> *yawn*
>
> Damn, Jack ... little did we realize that SU is the tool of the devil! We
> better update the warning label ASAP, eh?
>
> Before use, ask your doctor if SU is right for you!
>
> "CAUTION: Use of SU may cause loss of all technological advance through
> "dumbing down"; Repeated use of SU may cause accusations of being a
> "fucking expert"; Use of SU may cause CAD confusion, CNC confusion, Curve
> confusion and loss of pencil sharpness, Do not use SU while driving and
> operating machinery when sleeping or unconscious; Use of SU upside down
> may cause vertigo; SU should not be used if you are pregnant, or have
> plans to cause pregnancy; If you have a prolonged erection while using SU
> that last for for more than four hours, see your wife/girlfriend
> immediately; Use of alcohol with this product may cause you to wake up
> with buzzard breath."
>
> (Updated version pending kibitzer's further fits of wisdom)
Pardon the typos, as I am dictating this to wife (Hi! <Joann waves>) to send
on my behalf. I ground off my fingertips to bloody stumps so they wouldn't
write something hurtful. I have only this to add: "SU is a great product. I
hope it brings you as much happiness as it has brought me." However, blaming
it for your buzzard breath and toe warts is unwarranted. You should perhaps
amend your statement thusly: "Myopia and a few, very few, other pre-existing
shortcomings do not respond to Sketchup therapy."
On Feb 26, 11:25=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" =A0wrote
>
> > programs. =A0For me, it does 99.9% of what AutoCAD LT did in the last 1=
2
> > years and adds the ability to assemble and disassemble a project in 3D
> > perspective.
>
> Damn, I never thought I'd see you switch from AutoCAD LT to anything else=
!
>
> Just reaffirms my long held contention that SU is an excellent, cost
> effective, woodworker's tool providing you're not so closed minded as to =
let
> preconceived notions/bias get in the way.
>
Oh, for fuck sakes. Just because people are putting the obvious SU
limitations out there for all to see, does not make them closed
minded.
You have made it clear that it works for you. Great.
But I have a company to run, in which SU has no place due to its
limitations.
I also know you weren't referring specifically to me personally as you
fully realize my mind is wide open and always eager to find newer,
better software solutions... especially when low cost/free.
But to suggest that one can build a 300K house with SU is misleading
as you fail to include the fact that YOUR ability to do so includes
your vast and well-developed skill-set. Your skill-set can build that
house without SU, IOW, what you got there is a sharper, better pencil.
Period.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:3d351cd7-b353-4602-ae4e-d4c7734b13b7@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
>> (There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
>> http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png
>>
>> ===========
>> SU users can look forward to a few hours of misery, frustration, and
>> uncertainty trying to sketch that sink outline. Start to finish was 8
>> minutes using SolidWorks, all the tangents faired, dimensioned, fully
>> contrained, with the selected controlling dimensions distinguishable from
>> driven dimensions.
>
>
> Ok, I'll admit that this if the first time I have really tried doing this
> much with SU, using arcs and circles but it took me 44 minutes to draw the
> sink cut out diagram. I made a couple of silly mistakes that wasted time,
> I spent 20 minutes trying to draw the whole thing rather than 1/2 and
> mirroring the other half. But there was absolutely no misery or
> frustration. 8 minutes is certainly faster but I did it with a program
> that I have not been using very long and I have no investment in the
> software.
>
> Agreed, a beginner with no drafting experience may indeed take a while
> doing this same drawing but I doubt that I could have done it any faster
> using AutoCAD LT.
I'm sick enough to think this was a fun way to spend the afternoon. It's
nothing against SU or ACAD. SW is a different class of tool, made
specifically to excel at this sort of thing. You can see the progression in
CAD capabilities in the evolution in car body shapes, from flat sided boxes
in the 80's to the faired, used bar of soap shapes we have today. Your 20
minutes is rather impressive. I wouldn't even try this in SU.
(It didn't take the *whole* afternoon. I helped a friend buy a used bandsaw
and cart it home in between.)
Lee Michaels wrote:
> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question for
> you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>
> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by a
> welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>
> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
> welded to the subassemblies.
>
> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
>
>
>
Ask question at rec.crafts.metalworking.
Robatoy wrote:
>> What is it you can do on a CAD program that you cannot on Sketchup?
> I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
From here it looks more like when you do find the time, Swingman makes
you look rather unfamiliar with SU's capabilities.
Not sure what you use all that fancy CAD software for that SU can't do,
but it must be pretty technical? Don't you build counter tops?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> I certainly don't mean to imply that it is a bad thing and I don't
> think I did.
No, but you never miss an opportunity to point out it's limitations, and
most of the time, in spite of pointing out SU is not supposed to be a
heavy duty CAD program, someone, usually Swingman, shows you SU can do
what you said it can't. Of course there should be things a simple,
free, sketching program cannot do, but those limitations are pretty moot
to most woodworkers.
> Exactly, to say that you can use SU to build a house does therefore
> not validate the software but the builder, who can use anything if he
> knows how to build a house in the first place.
I don't know of any software that can build a house? Swing used SU to
design a house he is building. That means SU can be used to design a
house. I guess if you have no clue how to build a house, SU probably
will not help you design one either.
> I have 20 years and thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in my
> software, yet I cannot design, much less build a boat. The software is
> very capable as a tool to a boat builder, but *I* cannot design/build
> a boat. Owning software with capability means dick.
Yes, but seems we are talking about the softwares abilities and
limitations, personal abilities, other than ability to use SU, aside.
> SU is inadequate for my needs. That doesn't make me a bad person
> *plinks away a tear*
I doubt SU is adequate for many things, perhaps designing a NASA launch
pad, but for most woodworkers in small shops it is more than adequate.
>> From the stuff you've posted it seems that you have found
>> something that works for you. We should all be so lucky.
>
> Luck didn't have much to do with it. Tenacity, hard work and some
> college courses in how to interface with the rest of the planet in
> terms of drawing/blueprint standards.
Not sure, but seems much of the planet is starting to interface with SU,
probably because of it's enormous popularity. The fact Swingman was
able to draw up something and send it to a fabricator to make with out a
problem is rather telling. Still, not something a lot of woodworkers
care about.
On paper and in digital
> formats. I got into a proper discipline and stayed with it. Then when
> software that I could afford and could handle Non Uniform Rational
> Basis Splines came on the scene I was feeling pretty damn lucky then.
> Bolted onto a real rendering engine, again, the format exchange was
> crucial... and now the CNC is on line, even more so.
So, your pissed off you spent all that time and money and now people are
getting most of the capability free and free tutorials to boot? That's
how it sounds, true or not...
> So yes, one can build a house with SU, but will it be a better house?
No more than it will help you build a better boat.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> I could be more specific, but I don't have that kind of time.
>> From here it looks more like when you do find the time, Swingman makes
>> you look rather unfamiliar with SU's capabilities.
>>
>> Not sure what you use all that fancy CAD software for that SU can't do,
>> but it must be pretty technical? Don't you build counter tops?
> Well, Jack, seeing as you show a keen interest in what it is I do,
> allow me to tell you a bit about my building of countertops.
No interest other than how cutting holes in counter tops requires much
in a CAD program, if anything. I've cut perfect holes for sinks using
just a tape measure and saw?
> When a client orders a countertop, say a Hanstone Quartz top, and that
> client wants an undermounted Franke sink, my job then includes getting
> a file from the sink manufacturer and creating a toolpath for a CNC
> router.
I can understand needing fancy CAD stuff with a CNC interface if you are
doing this, but as has been said over and over, SU is not a fancy CAD
program. I would imagine the sink companies have all the stuff
available for the $million CNC guys to use or plug into their fancy CNC
machines.
> In the case of Quartz, I do not have the capability to cut that
> material as I have not invested the millions it takes to do that
> properly and competetively, but it is 40% of my business.
> So I send a file (pictured, as I doubt you could open the actual file)
> (There are now hundreds of these kinds of sinks)
> http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture9.png
The picture looks easy enough to draw up with SU. I wouldn't be
surprised that SU drawings are not available now. I know I stumbled over
tons of company drawings of all sorts of stuff for use in SU.
> to these guys:
> http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=Picture10.png
> who then plunge their $ 3000.00 worth of diamond bits into multiples
> of thousands of dollars worth of Quartz slabs and them make it all
> pretty and send it to me all finished for me and my guys to install
> it.
Again, I would think the sink companies have this stuff available to
plug into the software used on most CNC equipment? I would guess the
standard CAD software is AUTOCAD, and just about everything should work
with autocad. I don't see many woodworkers buying autocad though, just
to draw up some cabinets or book shelves, or even figuring out how to
cut out a sink hole in a counter top.
> Average cost of the jobs range between $3K and $9K. Sometimes more.
I doubt the cost of the job means much to SU. Swingmans $300,000.00
house plans in SU for example. Interfacing with your $30,000 cnc
machine might be an issue, but for most woodworkers, SU is not only
perfect, if anything, it's over kill.
> I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
> presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque.
Nothing wrong with that. Still, I've installed a number of sinks,
cutting out the sink hole perfectly with nothing more than a tape,
pencil and saw... No fancy or non-fancy CAD program needed. As a matter
of fact, the only time I had a problem with a sink hole is when a
cabinet company measured for the counter top, and the counter top
company cut the hole and it was off by an inch. Not sure which guy made
the mistake, but probably the one using the expensive CAD program:-(
> In the meantime, I now feed those sink files via my CNC into my Corian
> slabs, here at my shop, and do the same things for other clients.
This is certainly a reason not to use SU I guess. On the other hand
I've never used a fancy CNC machine, but my first thought is it comes
with software to plug in simple design parameters, and for tricky stuff,
like a fancy sink, the sink company would have files for that purpose.
Does your CNC machine have proprietary software or does it interface
with standard CAD stuff like AUTOCAD? I would think most large
companies that make stuff that use CNC machines would have files that
could be easily plugged in so the client wouldn't need to draw up much
of anything?
> I then install the sink(s) under the very accurately cut hole and
> presto, happy customer, Rob gets big cheque. Again.
>
> ..are you still with me, Jack??
Sure.
> Is that really a job for SU? Do my clients, such as the nation-wide
> chains like Rona, Home Hardware and IKEA open SU files? Jack?
Don't know, probably will soon if they don't. I've seen lots of SU
stuff from large companies when perusing for SU info.
> But you're right. I fabricate countertops.
That's what I thought. Just seemed odd to me that a counter top company
would need all that fancy stuff. I do get the CNC stuff, but that is
still a little unusual for the typical woodworker. I'm pretty sure you
just bought one yourself, so until the recent past, you didn't have to
plug numbers into a computer to build a counter top, right?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
> "Lee Michaels" wrote in message
>> I applaud google for putting a software tool out there that people can
>> use to build things for a very good price.
Yes, FREE is about as good a price as there is...
>> I am concerned that it is
>> part of the overall effect of the world wide web dumbing things down
>> in general.
I think it's just the opposite. I think it gives many people, like
woodworkers, the opportunity to learn to use computer software to do
stuff that the normally would not do. The bad thing I see is hobbyist
woodworkers end up wasting lots of time on the computer instead of the shop.
>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades
>> expectations and abilities of many as well.
That makes no sense to me?
There are those who will
>> do many things well with this tool. But like anything, many will not.
Hard to argue with that...
>MikeWhy wrote:
> Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth with the 3d
> buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason it exists,
> and why Google gives it away.
I couldn't figure out why Google gives something this nice away for
free? If what you say is true, I find it interesting that I like it
for drawing up cabinets and don't even have the slightest clue what I'd
use it and Google earth for? I know what I use Google earth for, and SU
for, but have a tough time connecting the two? I guess if you were
building a house and wanted to orient it with Google earth, but even
then, what is in it for Google? Google earth is free, SU is free? I've
always gone by the idea that if something seems too good to be true
(other than some free GNU stuff), it probably isn't. I'm still
wondering about SU, but so far, so good...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
>> Of course there should be things a simple,
>> free, sketching program cannot do, but those limitations are pretty moot
>> to most woodworkers.
Robatoy wrote:
> I wonder how many kids will never learn how to play a real guitar
> because they now have Guitar Hero.
> That does not mean it is not a form of entertainment, it certainly is.
Don't know what Guitar Hero is, and I find SU rather entertaining in
itself, that certainly in no way diminishes it's usefulness to wood
workers.
> You see, Jack, what pisses me off, is that some guys have been too
> cheap or too poor to buy CAD software a long time ago, unable to learn
> the various disciplines relating to CAD and now suddenly they find a
> piece of software which uses a simple and toy-like metaphor and now
> they're fucking experts.
Yes, this comes through in your constant negativity towards a free
software tool that woodworkers should find amazingly helpful in their
wood working interests.
> Is SU good enough for the guy to cobble together a book-shelf?
> Absolutely. Can it be stretched to do a house? Apparently so.
> Can they draw their way out of a real design challenge? I don't think
> so.
Well, the design challenges you've posted seem very doable in SU?
Not saying there are not things SU can't do, but so far, you've not done
much to challenge the likes of Swingman.
> Do I want to waste time 'discovering the Shangri-La of SketchUp'?
> Naaa, I will stick to what I know and what works for me and my circle
> of business contacts.
That's fine, and understandable. However, you trying to denigrate a
great piece of free software because you have special needs (CNC
perhaps) or worse, a prior investment that precludes you personally
'wasting time' learning something most of us should find perfect for our
needs doesn't work.
I would not in your life tell you Turbo Cads limitations when I am not
totally familiar with Turbo Cad. You trying to expose SU weaknesses
when you are not totally familiar with it is why you keep getting
knocked off your high horse by Swingman, and others.
> BTW, there is no need for you to defend Swingman, he's perfectly
> capable of contributing intellectual repartee by telling people to
> kiss his ass... *S*
I'm not trying to defend Swingman. He has wasted a good bit of time in
the past showing you examples of things SU can do when you say it can't.
I think it's interesting that a professional builder would use SU to
design a $300,000 house. I find it interesting a professional cabinet
maker would use SU to design a kitchen for a customer. I'm not
surprised in the least, after seeing first hand some of SU's capabilities.
For me, I know that to this point, all of SU's limitations have not been
SU's limitations, but mine. By that I mean when I try to do something
and can't, it's been because I didn't know how, and not that SU can't.
How easy it is to use... well, it's pretty damned powerful, and there is
a significant learning curve. If *you* are not willing to "waste your
time" learning what it can do, fine, but then blabbering about it's
limitations is pretty damned silly, even for you.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:13 am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Nothing wrong with that. Still, I've installed a number of sinks,
>> cutting out the sink hole perfectly with nothing more than a tape,
>> pencil and saw... No fancy or non-fancy CAD program needed.
>
> Undermounted sink?
Nope!
Quartz countertop? 30 mm thick? The edge of the cut-
> out matching the beveled edge of a $1000.00 sink? Perfectly?
Nope! But I thought you sent the Quartz tops out for cutting?
> Tape, pencil, saw.
>
> Right.
Nope, wrong. If I were doing Quartz, I would send it out same as you.
If I were doing granite, I'd let the granite guys do it. Everyday, run
of the mill sinks, tape, pencil, saw has always worked fine for me.
Don't think I would need Autocad, Turbocad, SketchUp or go to school for
drafting, design, anything like that for any of them. My guess is a
bazillion sinks have been installed perfectly without computer aided
anything.
More importantly, if I were designing a kitchen, and building all the
cabinets myself, which I have also done w/o any computer aided anything,
I would certainly use SketchUp rather than just the pencil and paper
I've used in the past. I would recommend anyone interested in designing
stuff on a computer before building it, give SU a look, it is damned
good. For those of you, like Kevin, that go to the wood shop to get
away from the computer, you certainly don't need SU or any CAD program
to build damned near anything.
If I had a million dollar counter top business I might buy a $30,000 CNC
machine and use whatever worked with it, but for sure, I would not slam
a piece of free software that so many people find a treat, particularly
if I were not interested in learning what all it could do.
So, to summarize, I don't blame you for using all that expensive
schooling and software you already have, but I do find you denigrating
something you admit to not wanting to "waste time" learning quite
stupid, even for you. Perhaps your time would be better "wasted"
checking everyones spelling and grammar?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Swingman wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote
>
>> I think it's interesting that a professional builder would use SU to
>> design a $300,000 house.
>
> On that note, framing crew boss has been in the construction trailer four
> times already this morning saying "Can I see that again?" ... talking about
> a 2D roof plan on my laptop, which can be orbited to 3D for viewing a 'field
> change' that needs to be made to a complicated truss layout.
>
> Looks like I *sold* another copy of SU for Google before lunch. ")
>
Yeah, but does his feet hurt?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Leon wrote:
> I heare you. ;~)
For any Robotic Spell Cops haunting the rec, Leon's brain probably
wasn't sure if he meant here or hear, so compromised with heare. All 3
sound exactly the same, even if you can't figure out what was meant.
Or, it could have just been a typo... Whatever, I'm certain you will get
to the bottom of it...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:58 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, to summarize, I don't blame you for using all that expensive
>> schooling and software you already have, but I do find you denigrating
>> something you admit to not wanting to "waste time" learning quite
>> stupid, even for you. Perhaps your time would be better "wasted"
>> checking everyones spelling and grammar?
>
> I don't 'check' your grammar, Jack. Your errors are glaring.
OK, let me rephrase... Perhaps your time would be better wasted pointing
out blatant spelling errors on usenet.
> I also don't denigrate SU users.
Didn't say you did or didn't. You do denigrate SU, never missing an
opportunity to point out things it (SU) can't do, whilst admitting not
wanting to "waste time" learning it. This generally ends up with
Swingman wasting his time pointing out that SU does do what you say it
won't.
> I applaud them. I have no reason to
> switch to SU as I am happy with what I have.
Good for you!
> I also own an ultra-sonic thickness meter, just to find out how thick
> your skull and how thin your skin is.
> Does that interest you at all?
Only to see how wrong you can be, even with fancy gadgets!
> And why WOULD I waste my time learning an unfamiliar, inadequate piece
> of software? Free or not?
> What is your point, Jack?
My point is you have to be dumb as dirt to point out the inadequacies of
something to which you state you are unfamiliar. It keeps getting worse
as Swingman, and others, often point out how little you seem to know
about the application.
So, as I have already said, the fact you are familiar with some
expensive software, spent cash at school to learn all about CAD is fine,
and good for you. Brag about it, complain about it all you want.
Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Leon wrote:
> LOL, I think the biggest ob-stakle is that many have tried it, like you and
> I, and did not like it, like you and I. The difference is that you, me, and
> others have given it another chance a few more times and with the latest
> upgrades find that it is quite capable of performing in the same league as
> more expensive pieces of software when it concerns wood working of most any
> type.
Yes, and one of, no, the main reason I kept trying it was Swingman
touting the benefits of SU. It may not interface with my $50,000 CNC
machine, but then again, I really don't have a $50,000 CNC machine...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> Looks like I *sold* another copy of SU for Google before lunch. ")
>>
>
> Yeah, but does his feet hurt?
>
Which of you started the grammar/spelling war, before I comment on this?
:-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and
>>>> abilities of many as well.
>>
>> That makes no sense to me?
>
> It does to me. It either limits design solutions to those using only
> straight lines or circular/elliptical arcs, and doesn't "understand"
> solids (which it deals with only as closed collections of surfaces).
Still don't understand the point? SU allows woodworkers to draw up 2d
and 3d drawings of stuff they wish to build, it does it cheaply (free)
and does it well. I think it meets the needs and expectations of most
woodworkers. Certainly not every wood worker, perhaps not one that uses
a CNC machine that interfaces with perhaps AUTOCAD that costs thousands
and probably is used by people designing billion dollar launch pads for
NASA, and went to school for x years learning how to use the software.
> I'll agree that it may be a great tool for drawing up boxes, but I also
> recognize that it discourages people from thinking beyond boxes (and/or
> aggregates of boxes) and circular arcs.
Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool for
most woodworkers.
> It makes me a bit uncomfortable to say it right out loud, and I assure
> you that no offense is intended - but if what you're saying is that
> nothing more is needed, then you've proved the point you say didn't make
> sense to you. :-/
No offense taken, but while I never said that nothing more is needed, I
heard someone else say they don't need to draw all the details of things
they build. I agree, and more over, when I was building stuff at a
furious pace, I hardly needed more than a few pencil lines with numbers
on them to build most anything, often not even that.
I still don't really need SU, and certainly nothing more than SU to
build stuff, It is really good for looking at exactly how a new design
might look before you build it.
I can tell you for sure, as a hobbyist wood worker I absolutely,
positively would not spend much (any) money on a cad program when I can
spend a few minutes with a pencil drawing up an entire kitchen, or work
bench, or lamp, or chair, or desk, or end table, or door or shed and
build it just fine. I KNOW this because I've done it. So, from my
prospective, and I bet a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite
of what was said, it actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that
would normally never spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or
any other CAD program.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Leon wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>> Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
>> curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool for
>> most woodworkers.
>
>
> Here is where I will explain it's short comings a bit more concerning the
> "curves" that you mentioned above. SU will easily draw the appearance of
> circles and portions of a circle/an ark. this depends on how many line
> segments the circle has.
Yes, and you can type in the number of segments you want. It defaults
to 24, which looks smooth enough for any woodworking I've done, but I
guess it depends on your monitor. Not sure if there is a limitation of
the number of segments, but I would think you could enter the number of
pixels on your monitor and it would draw as smooth as your monitor
allows. I'm no SU expert by any means, so someone else might actually know.
Unless there is a plug in some where and please
> tell me where if there is, you can not draw a relatively smooth irregular
> curve like a CAD program will. For instance with AutoCAD you can draw a
> flexible curved through a series of points that are not in a line or quickly
> draw an ellipse.
I know you can draw this stuff smooth enough for *my* needs, and here is
a tutorial on arcs and circles:
http://sketchup.google.com/training/videos/new_to_gsu.html
You probably are talking beyond this, but for any general wood workers
that might be thinking SU doesn't draw smooth circles or arcs, this link
will show you how SU handles this sort of thing.
> Something like an ellipse would be difficult with SU although you can draw
> one with a bow compass and could on SU at a particular angle but you would
> be limited. A typical isometric ellipse can be drawn with 4 arcs with 2
> different radius.
Not sure, I have enough trouble just drawing up a work bench with all
straight lines. The tutorial above shows all sorts of curves being
drawn. Beyond that, not sure what I would do with them. All my work
with circles I got by with a compass, a flexible metal ruler, a coffee
can, or segments on graph paper by connecting the dots and tracing an
outline. SU does at least as well from the looks of what the tutorial
shows.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:35 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped the usual.]
>> So, from my
>> prospective, and I bet a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite
>> of what was said, it actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that
>> would normally never spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or
>> any other CAD program.
> Opens doors. That's all it does?
That's not ALL it does, it easily draws 3d and 2d drawings that most
woodworkers can use in their shops. If a woodworker suddenly feels the
need to spend mega dollars on Autocad so they can build something, then
I guess you could say it would open doors to Autocad.
Like a stepping stone to real software?
SU is very real, you make little sense...
Oh, sorry, you were just, in you're tired old way, denigrating SU.
*yawn*
Is that is what is in your prospective? The anticipation to
> expand your limitations? Or did you mean perspective? It is really
> hard to understand you sometimes, Jack.
Sorry to confuse you, I meant perspective.
> Regardless, I have had enough of this thread, and as usual, I have
> learned a few things. (Least of which is that the price of my CNC went
> up overnight...cool !!)
When did that happen? Last I heard you bragging about it, it cost $30
grand, how much is your CNC worth now? My guess is much less since it's
used? I'd bet though there are CNC machines that cost a lot more than
yours, and may even make yours look like a toy, with limited
capabilities, like a "stepping stone" to a "REAL" CNC machine... do ya
think?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote
>> Denigrating a hunk of software you are unfamiliar with is just dumb.
>>
> Robatoy is a self confessed tool snob. But his comments are interesting,
> maybe even old school. But he does have skills. And he does let you know
> what he thinks.
No problem with that. I have no problem telling people what I think
either. Few participating in any news group have a problem telling you
what they think.
> But Robatoy comments, whatever they may be, hardly qualifies for the
> "denigrating" characterization.
I've yet to hear him say much good about SU. Once you figure out he
never "wasted any time" learning it, it starts to becomes less
interesting, more amusing.
Denigrate:
to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle;
disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.
There could be a better word for this but for someone like myself, that
doesn't know the difference between "hall" and "haul", I believe I done
good.
His comments are a refreshing alternative/counterweight to the SU
cultists. ;_)
That's ok for you to feel that way. My feeling is when someone never
misses an opportunity to point out self perceived faults with something
he admittedly knows little about, it is not really refreshing, unless
you are easily amused as I am. As far as "SU cultists go, I find that
almost as amusing as alternative views from those unfamiliar.
> We should be encourageing alternative perspectives in this forum. Not
> "denigrating" those folks who have a different viewpoint.
That's one perspective. My perspective is blandly encouraging
alternative viewpoints would boring. I guess one mans entertainment is
another man's pablum. That's why I don't read every message thread, nor
reply to every messenger.
I'm glad I encouraged your alternative juices...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>>>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations
>>>>>> and abilities of many as well.
>>>>>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>> That makes no sense to me?
>>> It does to me. It either limits design solutions to those using only
>>> straight lines or circular/elliptical arcs, and doesn't "understand"
>>> solids (which it deals with only as closed collections of surfaces).
>> Still don't understand the point? SU allows woodworkers to draw up
>> 2d and 3d drawings of stuff they wish to build, it does it cheaply
>> (free) and does it well. I think it meets the needs and expectations
>> of most woodworkers. Certainly not every wood worker, perhaps not one
>> that uses a CNC machine that interfaces with perhaps AUTOCAD that
>> costs thousands and probably is used by people designing billion
>> dollar launch pads for NASA, and went to school for x years learning
>> how to use the software.
> This is a BS response - comparable to saying that a table saw and a set
> of hole saws is a complete and adequate set of cutting tools.
Hardly! Unless what you are saying is comparable to saying buying a
table saw is a waste of time because it is not a complete wood shop, and
it only cuts straight lines like they used 1000's of years ago.
> I'm not sure what your hang-up on CNC tooling is, unless you have some
> kind of anti-precision prejudice. I have two CNC routers, and the more
> precise - see http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/JBot/ - was shop built
> (mostly of wood!) and contains less than $1000 worth of materials.
I have no problem at all with CNC tooling. But, I could care less if SU
interfaces with Robotoys $30,000 CNC router.
> It interfaces with free-for-the-downloading control software. Your
> references to AutoCAD, billion dollar projects, and years of training
> are just plain silly.
No more silly than disparaging a piece of free software because it
doesn't interface with a $30,000 CNC router.
>>> I'll agree that it may be a great tool for drawing up boxes, but I
>>> also recognize that it discourages people from thinking beyond boxes
>>> (and/or aggregates of boxes) and circular arcs.
>> Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
>> curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool
>> for most woodworkers.
>
> Only if there is no need to move forward from the toolset provided by
> Euclid of Alexandria more than 2000 years ago.
Talk about silly?
> At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the world has moved on. A
> software package that gives woodworkers access only to what was known
> two thousand years ago, however conveniently and prettily, is sadly
> outdated.
And yet only a short time ago woodworkers had no access to a free 3D
drawing program as capable as SU that they could use to draw up projects
that have been made by wood workers for hundreds and even thousands of
years.
>>> It makes me a bit uncomfortable to say it right out loud, and I
>>> assure you that no offense is intended - but if what you're saying is
>>> that nothing more is needed, then you've proved the point you say
>>> didn't make sense to you. :-/
>> No offense taken, but while I never said that nothing more is needed,
>> I heard someone else say they don't need to draw all the details of
>> things they build. I agree, and more over, when I was building stuff
>> at a furious pace, I hardly needed more than a few pencil lines with
>> numbers on them to build most anything, often not even that.
> Agreed - if your project is sufficiently simple, a pencil can be an
> adequate solution. Now consider one of my projects
No need for me to look up your specific project. Not one person has
ever said SU is the perfect tool for every one, or every project. I've
built enough stuff, and looked at enough stuff others have made, to know
SU is more than adequate if not over kill for most of the stuff I make,
and most of the stuff I see others make. Swingman found it good enough
to design kitchens he's built, and $200,000 home he is building. The
internet is plastered with all sorts of stuff SU was used for designing,
much of it pretty dammed complex.
> How would you tackle that with a pencil? And before you talk about that
> being too "far out" to matter to woodworkers, I'll mention that that
> project's web pages have been visited by woodworkers from 46 countries
> so far this month (according to the server report generated at 3:04 this
> morning).
OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you saying
one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all? I'm no
SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same as have
been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and w/o SU,
computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?
> My inescapable conclusion is that there are a lot of woodworkers whose
> woodworking interests go considerably beyond what can be done with 2300
> year old geometry.
I'm pretty sure SU uses a lot of techniques not available 2300 years ago
and a ton not even available free to wood workers ever before in the
history of mankind. Your point is unclear to say the least.
>> I still don't really need SU, and certainly nothing more than SU to
>> build stuff, It is really good for looking at exactly how a new design
>> might look before you build it.
>> I can tell you for sure, as a hobbyist wood worker I absolutely,
>> positively would not spend much (any) money on a cad program when I
>> can spend a few minutes with a pencil drawing up an entire kitchen, or
>> work bench, or lamp, or chair, or desk, or end table, or door or shed
>> and build it just fine.
> Goody for you. That sounds a lot like "I got what /I/ need..."
Yes, exactly. Also that SU meets and exceeds the needs of most hobbyist
and small shop woodworkers most of the time. Goody for all of us.
>> I KNOW this because I've done it. So, from my prospective, and I bet
>> a lot of woodworkers, SU does just the opposite of what was said, it
>> actually opens doors to CAD for woodworkers that would normally never
>> spend a dime on AUTOCAD, TURBOCAD, DESIGN CAD or any other CAD program.
> AND they can save money on pencils, too... :)
> I still see it as "dumbing down".
And I still don't see how a wood worker that normally would not use any
CAD program would be "dumbing down" by learning to use a free design
tool. About the only problem I see is they might end up having more fun
designing stuff than actually building it. This actually happened to
me. I got into computing so I could use it to draw up stuff I was
building. This was in the early 1980's and I got a copy of design cad,
and I spent about 100 times longer figuring out how to use the program
than I would have just using a pencil and paper for a shed I was
building. I ended up becoming obsessed with computers and programing.
Prior to that, I was obsessed with wood working. I found computing met
most of my "creative" needs, I could "build" programs that did all sorts
of things, mistakes along the way cost nothing, no lost material, no
lost fingers and so on. Wood working slipped into the background, and is
still there for the most part...
For those that use SU as a "stepping stone" to expensive CAD programs, I
hope they don't get pissed off if they find SU met most of their needs
as it was. For those that learn SU and find it is not suitable for all
their needs, I hope they are not so dumb as to think SU is the end all,
be all in CAD programing, particularly when EVERYONE has said it is not,
and not meant to be a fancy expensive CAD program that interfaces with
$100,000 CNC machines, yet, it still is the perfect design tool for most
wood workers with a hankering for computer design.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
> but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
"wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.
> The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.
Seriously? You know this how?
> Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*
Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.
But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
about SU free or pro, I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
Pro. Here's what he said:
"As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
whatsoever between the free and pro version."
I would suggest anyone thinking of trying out SU, or has given it a
cursory look, ignore your ramblings based on hot air, and listen to
those that actually "wasted" some time learning how good the free
version really is.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> When I looked at SU, I asked several questions.
> Will it do this? Will it do that? When the answers came up negative, I
> decided not to waste my time.
> Somehow, you decided that my decision of not wasting my time
> disqualified me from making a judgement whether or not SU filled my
> needs.
What made me decide you were posting drivel with regards to SU was you
saying SU doesn't to X and Swingman would explain that it would do x or
post links that showed it would do X.
> It didn't do what I wanted it to do. No need to look further.
Again, I have no problem with SU not doing what you want. Some people
think using SU will degrade expectations and abilities of many. I think
your constant complaining about it's perceived limitations might
discourage some from learning it.
"This is
> a pretty good band, but all they do is play Cat Stevens songs."
Even though I only heard them once on the radio...
> I discovered SU's limitations by investigating its capabilities.
Perhaps, but most of it's limitations you noted where shot down by those
that actually wasted time learning what all it can do.
> It seems that Google also figured out that it came up short for many
> others. They padded the project with LayOut, for a price. That covered
> some of my needs, but still there was no reason to drop any amount of
> money on capabilities I already owned and learned.
No one ever said anything about you dropping what works for you.
Everyone has said SU is not, nor claiming to be, a full blown CAD
program. If I needed a full blown CAD program I guess I would spend a
ton and a half of money on AUTOCAD... Few common woodworkers need
AUTOCAD, or anything near autocad.
> Why are you having such a problem with that, Jack? Or are you just an
> asshole?
Well I am an asshole but that's not the problem I have with you trotting
around bashing SU. I'm one, like so many others that tried SU, thought
it a toy, tried it again, thought it was screwed up. Tried it again, and
found it was much much better than I first thought, and decided to put
in some time to really learn what it could do for me. Happily, I found
it did about everything most hobbyists and small shop owners would need,
and then some.
What made me keep pushing on with SU was not some dick that never
"wasted" his time learning what it could do, instead, it was some guy
who actually did "waste his time learning it", who's opinion I had come
to respect (Swing) touting it's abilities.
Now, if you think that's a problem I have, tough cookies. I admit I
enjoy the banter back and forth, and considering it's a subject that
also interests me a good bit, I see no "problem" with my participation
in the thread even though it is getting a bit long in tooth,
particularly since it's likely to erupt again, next time you say
something silly about SU.
So, let me ask you: Why are you having such a problem with that, or are
*you* just an asshole?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
>> Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
>> I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
>> wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
>> built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you
>> saying one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all?
>> I'm no SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same
>> as have been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and
>> w/o SU, computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?
>
> Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
> with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
> device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
> 0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".
Already you are way past what I would ever do in my shop. I work in +/-
1/16th" increments. If I really sharpen my pencil, I can get to 1/32 at
best, but then my eyes have all they can handle with 1/16th of an inch.
I have tapes that show 1/32 increments but my eyes give me the finger
if I try to use those little lines.
I often wonder how deep a pore in a hunk of red oak is? Seriously, one
guy was telling me he turns pool cues to a tolerances of 1/10,000"....
I remember thinking I'll bet a pore in red oak is deeper than that...
> It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
> points needed).
Don't know what that means. When I draw a curve, I usually just use 3
points and a metal yard stick or string for the radius. What's 4801
points all about?
> The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
> mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
> 9601 points for the full width.
Way beyond my knowledge of wood working. What is a Point, and why do I
need 9601 of them?
> FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
> first used was capable of handling the job.
I used Design Cad with primitive MS-DOS. Spent 40 days teaching my self
what it could do before deciding it was interesting, but not needed for
most of the wood working I did. Here, 25 years or so later I find SU, a
free drawing program did everything I need and then some...
> A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
> of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
> use a /very/ sharp pencil.
Doesn't matter, my eyes don't do +/- .001", far as I know.
> You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
> bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
> since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
> It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be used?
No argument there. In fact, SU doesn't work well w/o a computer. Based
on using your computer "as well as it can be used"... I have to
disagree. The best cad program *I* know about is AutoCad. It is huge,
expensive and you could go to school learning just a tad of what all it
can do. Honestly, some guy I know wanted to GIVE me a copy of AutoCad, I
declined because I didn't think I needed it, even for free. I doubt
many wood workers need it. I think most wood workers would do just fine
with SU, it is easy to use once you learn it, and you sure don't need to
go to school to learn to use it, and the price is right. To me, THAT is
using technology well.
> I hear you wanting to make a distinction between commercial activity and
> hobby activity, so let me respond to that by saying that my immediate
> interest doesn't fall neatly into either category.
I understand that. SU is certainly not for everyone either, no one ever
said it was. Most stuff made in a small shop can be built with or w/o
SU. SU just makes it cheap and easy to use your PC to expand your
design skills. If you find you need a full blown CAD program to draw up
parabolic mirrors, I guess you should look into autocad if you want the
best, or turbo cad if you don't need much. I know SU does all sorts of
curves, and the tutorial I listed previously shows how to draw all sorts
of curves like the French curve things draftsman used to use. I don't
know all the fancy names but I know they are more than a simple curve.
> I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
> I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
> appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
> constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
> than I do about function.
Well to some extent you may be right, as I do wood work purely for it's
FUN value. I seldom make stuff I couldn't buy, so I sure don't need
wood working per se. There are a bunch of people, Swingman is a local
example, that has found SU useful for commercial applications.
> "Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
> job - and although you seem
> determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
> years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that
> stuff.
You can think that, and I can think that free pisses off people that
spent good money on something SU does free. Let me point out again that
I could have had one of the most comprehensive CAD programs for FREE,
but turned it down because I knew I didn't need all that, so FREE is not
my only motivation. FREE is interesting to me because SU is so damned
good at what it does, it is hard to believe it is FREE.
It's like a company decided to give free cars away, and you go down and
turns out it's a FREE Honda. It works perfect, gets good mileage, and
is rather dependable. Robocop says it sucks, even though he never drove
it, and says his 4 wheel drive, GMC Z71 with towing package will tow his
6000 pound boat out of the river, not to mention cruise through deep
sand on any ocean beach, and the FREE toy you got won't. I say but I
don't have a boat, and I plan on driving to Giant Eagle supermarket, not
some beach on the ocean, but if I did, perhaps I would spend $30,000 on
a "real" truck, but for now, I'm pretty dammed impressed with someone
giving away a Honda! Now, instead of saying, yeah, good deal, he won't
stop denigrating your FREE car (SU) that does everything most shoppers
(wood workers) need.
Actually, this is not a perfect analogy. Better would be RoboCop
stating the Honda is junk because it won't run on regular gas (it does)
and won't go in reverse (it does) and doesn't have a heater (it does)
and doesn't tow 6000 lbs... Oops, it doesn't tow 6000 lbs, but hey, its
free, and most shoppers don't need to tow anything, let alone 6000 lbs...
PS, I really liked your home made CNC machine... Very nice work.
I hesitate to say this, but I bet one could draw it up in detail with SU
and share it with the world, if they wanted... another nice thing about
free, everyone can afford to get it, and share...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:34 pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
>>> but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
>> Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
>> "wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.
>>
>>> The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.
>> Seriously? You know this how?
> Because I played with it.
So I guess when YOU stated you didn't waste time learning SU, you were
lying?
>>> Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*
>> Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
>> pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.
>
> I can see that you'd never need SUPro. You're not likely to do
> anything interesting enough.
True. I have no need to export files to AUTOCAD, or any other CAD
program. Is that what "blows the socks off" and "BOM" means? It is
also true I don't do much interesting stuff, I have made cabinets of all
sorts, desks, chairs, lamps, tables, and even entire kitchens with
counter tops, complete with holes for sinks. Nothing really interesting
to most wood workers, but just stuff most woodworkers seem to do,
routinely. Happily, these are things SU, the free one, is really,
really good at drawing.
>> But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
>> about SU free or pro,
> We can't really talk about Pro as you don't own it.
I only talked about it based on what Swing said, and what I read on the
site. "Blow the socks off" was not in the picture drawn by those in the
know...
(Psssst, I did
> download it and looked at it intently, I commented elsewhere that I
> thought LayOut was quite usable.
You commented that the PRO blows the socks off the free one, opposite of
what has been said on the SU site, and by users of PRO and the FREESU.
>> I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
>> Pro. Here's what he said:
>>
>> "As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
>> whatsoever between the free and pro version."
>
> I have no problem taking Swing's word for anything, it's your words I
> have a problem with.
Hence, I quoted Swingman's words, but appears you have problems with his
words as well as mine...
You just whine and whine away, baying at the moon.
Making fun of the silly things you say about me, and SU, is entertaining
to me.
But what you should do, is take a look at Google's own SketchUp
> site and look at the comparison table that GOOGLE publishes, showing
> the differences between Free and Pro. You'll find there is a clear
> mention of import/export differences, one of which (.dxf) that I
> cannot live without.
Yes, everyone has told you that, it is amazing that the only difference
is it's import export abilities, particularly since you can import and
export jpg's, which is all plenty of WW's need. Those that need to
export .DXF files can spend $600 on the pro version, and they can create
DC's instead just reading them. Most ww's won't miss either, or even
know what they are.
> So, if FreeSU cannot export any of my work so I can use it, then WHY-
> THE-HELL should I bother looking at anything else that it might or
> might not do?
You shouldn't. On the other hand, if you want to list things that SU
cannot do, you should make sure you "wasted enough time" with it to be
right. You didn't and now you're out there twisting in the breeze.
Soon you will be cursing, calling me stupid and plonking me...
> You know what, jack? I think you are too stupid to understand what
> 'wasting time' really means.
Didn't take long...
I'm stupid, SU is not real, yadda yadda yadda!
> Trying to talk some sense into you
> certainly qualifies as 'wasting time'.
Especially when you are so BAD at it...
> Ahhh fukkit...
> <plonk>
There ya go!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
>>>> http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadratic/parabola/interactive-parabola.php
>>>
>>> Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?
>>
>> I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry,
>> I could have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for
>> someone just itching to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to
>> contribute to the Sketchup library of add-ons. Spin a cone and
>> intersect it with a face describing the curve, or just calculate the
>> points and connect them. More generally, maybe just import a list of
>> ordinates from a spreadsheet and plot them. This would be generally
>> useful for lofting a canoe hull, for example. Is that getting too
>> far out of the realm of woodworking?
>
> If woodworking is "making something out of wood", then the realm can
> become awesomely wide as soon as "design" becomes part of the picture.
>
> As far as the length of curve problem is concerned, there are at least
> three ways to approach the problem:
>
> [1] Set up a relation L = f(a), where L is the curve length, a is the
> focal length, and f(a) is a definite integral representing the length
> of the curve between limits - and work "backward" to produce the
> relation a = g(L). Once a is known, all the rest is "duck soup".
>
> [2] You can also set it up as a limit problem, but that's really just
> a way to sneak up on the integration method without getting your hands
> dirty with calculus.
>
> [3] You can also "cook" the geometry (locate the vertex at the origin,
> choose a convenient value for the focal length, etc) and compute the
> sum of the lengths of segments of some tiny constant value (say, a
> millionth of a unit). Then use the ratio of that (cooked) length to
> the desired length to arrive at the focal length of the parabola you
> want to produce. This method requires a certain measure of care in
> avoiding cumulative computational error, but would probably be
> easiest for folks who aren't comfortable with integral calculus or
> limit theory.
> I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
> dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one
> programming language for which I implemented/published/sold a
> compiler).
Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a commercially
publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at least the BSCS level.
Stand tall. Be proud.
> I browsed the Ruby programming pages and decided that the
> benefits just wouldn't provide an adequate return on my time/energy
> investment; and I attached a higher priority to completion of the
> solar engine project than to adding yet another "wart" to SketchUp.
>
> Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
> parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house? :)
Morris Dovey wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a
>> commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at
>> least the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.
>
> There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which
> hundreds of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming
> literate" which most of the computer literate folks aren't...
>
> ...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
> workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.
Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was a
cheap good full featured interpreter for it.
> Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big
> deal - but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of
> understanding of what it's all about.
>
> A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is
> just baggage to be carried from success to failure.
Well, actually it does make one an expert. Writing compilers is not
simple--a lot of students in courses with textbooks and being pretty much
stepped through it have trouble with them. Pride may be baggage, but so is
excessive humility.
You're selling yourself short--it doesn't matter how you developed the
skill, you've got a lot more than you think you have.
Morris Dovey wrote:
> I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
> dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one programming
> language for which I implemented/published/sold a compiler).
Very impressive. I mentioned that I got addicted to computers long ago
when I thought it might help me some in drawing up some of the stuff I
was making in my shop. Actually, I couldn't draw stick figures very
well and I had managed to become rather adept at drawing 3 dimensional
desks, cabinets and so on. When I started computing in earnest it was
programing that grabbed me the most. I learned 6 or 7 languages, mostly
high level text processing stuff like AWK/GAWK/REXX but also some lower
level stuff like C. The connection to woodwork is pretty neat, and I
learned to build stuff with programing that *I* found useful, just like
building stuff out of wood. The same sort of creative juices were being
satisfied.
One of the first "languages" I learned was SALT, which came with a
communications program called Telix. This was before the internet and
people were using 1200 and 2400 baud modems. The guy that wrote Telix
also wrote the programing language that went with it. I was impressed.
Reminds me of the guys that wrote C actually wrote it as a tool in
developing UNIX, the worlds greatest OS... again, I was impressed.
Knowing you wrote your own compiled language tickles the heck out of
me... and again, very impressive.
Today, I'm obsessed with neither programing or woodwork. I tend to
waste a lot of time just fighting with people like Robocop just for
kicks. Not sure why I enjoy it, but I do, and have ever since the
FidoNet days...
> Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
> parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house? :)
When I was a kid of around 10 or 12, my brother who was 17 built a canoe
out of orange crates. This was in the early 50's, and the canoe is
still hanging in our garage, and it is a perfect wood canoe with canvas
wrap. Orange crates were made of 1/4 wood slats in those days. I'll get
a picture of it one of these days, it is really impressive. People used
to laugh when you would tell them you made a canoe out of orange crates,
until they saw it.. Anyway, the neat thing is he used a neighbors band
saw to do some of the curved cuts, and when I got married, I bought the
neighbors bandsaw, and all of his other Rockwell/Delta tools which I
still use to this day... They sure made nice tools in those days.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
>>> Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
>>> the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
> Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?
Simpler question: Why would you ask this question after it has been
explained to you and after you've read what the differences are at the
SU page?
Even you can't be that thick headed... wasn't it you that carries around
the thickness meter? If not, go back through the threads and find out
who has the meter and stick it between your ears, or some other
appropriate place...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
> wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.<victorious grin>
I can see by the lack of content of your post you've run out of
ridiculous things to say, or any semblance of valid arguments.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>> I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
>> wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.<victorious grin>
> Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people from
> taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got tired of
> tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.
> Aren't you lucky!
He brings his own "luck" by repeating the same goofy mantra that is not
just wrong and easy for a lazy guy that can't spell and suffers poor
grammar, like me, to argue with, but silly, which adds to my entertainment.
I *respond* to anything that gives me entertainment. The quickest way
to stop my fun is to stop saying stupid things. Other than that, you
need to wait until I get bored, which will be somewhere between soon and
never, my choice.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>>> The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
>>> mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
>>> 9601 points for the full width.
>>
>> Way beyond my knowledge of wood working. What is a Point, and why do
>> I need 9601 of them?
>
> Well, the length of the curve is 96", and I need 100 pairs of (x,y)
> coordinates per inch, which give me 9600 points - plus one more at the
> end of the curve - which adds up to 9601 points total.
Aha, now I get it. Makes total sense to even me now.
> Then for you it's a terrific deal - and I really don't have difficulty
> understanding that, and I really wish the free version covered my needs
> as well as it does yours. (I suspect that eventually it will, but would
> be afraid to guess at /when/.)
That also makes sense. However, I'm not very clear on SU limitations on
drawing a smooth enough curve? I keep thinking the limit is on my
screen resolution and printer resolution? I know the segments of a
curve default to 24, but you can enter any number you wish, 100 for
example. I know my monitor is incapable of drawing a smooth curve. It
looks smooth to me until I blow it up, then, it is a jagged curve. I
know a 24 Sided circle looks smooth on my screen, and If I enter 44 it
looks exactly the same in SU.
> A client bought AutoCAD for me because he wanted me to be able to work
> with his drawings, else I wouldn't have it.
It is certainly a pricey little application. I cursory traipse around
the net looking for a price came up blank. I guess if you have to ask,
you can't afford it...
I do most of my work with DesignCAD 2000 and like SketchUp's human
interface much better.
I think if I were to buy a CAD program it would be DesignCad, because I
used it FREE oh so many years ago. It was pretty cheap then. I think I
still have a copy somewhere... Truthfully though, this SU thing is
pretty awesome, even if it wasn't free, it is so easy to use it is
almost confusing, if that makes sense. The PUSH tool is slick, I assume
the "real" cad programs have something similar? Sure does wonders for
wood work drawings...
I'd
> already have switched to SketchUp if it were suited to the work I (and
> the folks I'm working with) are doing.
I certainly understand SU is not a full blown CAD program, and for sure
if you need to share your work with other CAD programs, then SU is not
free, or even cheap. I would not even recommend SU if you need to share
your stuff with other CAD software because I don't know what else is out
there for $600? I do know what is out there for free, and wow, SU is
all by itself. I think SU is also becoming pretty common out there, so
common that plenty of businesses are using SU themselves, including
putting up SU drawings of their products.
The sink Robot Man displayed is an example of the kinds of products more
and more companies are showing drawings of in SU format. This trend is
not likely to end soon, more likely to grow. As it is, I could draw up a
complete kitchen in SU free, create a nice jpg and email it to a
customer, or print it a snail mail it if I had to. This is all most
small shops and hobbyists need.
Meanwhile, I'll squawk about what
> I see as inadequate capability and hope that the noise stimulates the
> SketchUp crew to add extend the package.
This is a good thing. One thing I don't like is the Dynamic Components
thing is the first thing SU put in the PRO version that is not in the
free version that has a basic drawing use. I don't particularly need
this but it is not a direction that makes me warm and fuzzy. I hope
they don't start getting a gap from free to pro... but hey, it works
cool right now, so no complaints yet.
> Yuppers - he's probably a particularly good example. My problem (and I
> don't have difficulty owning the problem) is that I keep wanting to make
> stuff /because/ it can't be bought. Stupid, huh? :-p
Nah, stupid would be making something you could buy cheaper, and built
better than you could. Generally, If I can build something as good as
what I could buy, I'm happy. Certainly mass produced stuff is seldom
EXACTLY what you want and when I build something, it has a better chance
of being exactly what I want, and built exactly how I want it as well.
I'm always amazed at seeing furniture out of exotic wood being sold
cheaper than I could buy the wood. Just the other day I was shopping
with the wife, and she pointed out a round cutting board about 2" thick,
about 18 or 24" round, end cuts up, and made out of some really really
nice looking dark, imported wood. It was $15. I told her I could not
begin to buy the wood for that price, let alone make all the cuts, glue
it, sand it and so on. I have a really nice coffee table we bought a
few years ago made out of some fancy exotic wood, with inlays and
everything. It was cheap as all get out, forget how much, but again,
way less than I could buy the wood.
> For that matter, we all like free - and (in case you haven't noticed)
Trust me, I've noticed. Been to your site numerous times. Free heat
gives me a warm feeling inside.
> I'm in the business of selling furnaces that deliver free heat, and if I
> can get this @#$!% solar engine running, folks all across the south will
> be able to buy solar air conditioners that deliver free cold.
That would be awesome. I'm in a climate lucky enough to need both:-)
> It would help a lot if you understood more about the sandbox Rob plays
> in - and it always helps to remember that he only makes an effort to be
> diplomatic when /he/ thinks it's worth the effort.
I enjoy the verbal jousting. One of my weak spots, along with no
drawing skills is no writing skills. All though grade school, high
school and college I hated writing much of anything. Hated it, hated it,
hated it. I still have zero use for spell cops, or grammar cops. Have no
clue how I got into enjoying posting crap in Usenet or Fidonet, but here
I am. Surprised the hell out of me...
> In the context of his
> particular operations, and of his interests, SU /isn't/ a good tool. My
> suggestion is that when he rubs your fur the wrong way, pause for a
> 10-count and then ask him why he said what he did. There's usually a
> reason. :)
I don't mind having my fur rubbed the wrong way, actually I enjoy it.
Plenty of things he has said that I ignore for one reason or the other.
Not sure why this one lights my fire. I think it's just that he's SO
wrong and SO flippant, I can't resist. I'm certain many wish I would,
but from past experience, I won't, way too much fun.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
John B wrote:
> I have been lurking on this thread and just wanted to let you know
> (particularly Swingman) that I really appreciate u turning me on to SU.
> I've fussed with it enuf to get that it will do exactly what I want,
> i.e. to design WW projects without a lot of constraints, but end up with
> a usable plan to build it. Thanks
Great. He was instrumental in getting me to work through it as well.
Took me 4 tries. How about you?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Swingman wrote:
> It is important for users to understand that the tools for the actual
> drawing/modeling are the same in both versions. The difference being in
> Export, Import and Presentation capabilities.
>
> Once again and simply put, and for all practical purposes, if you do not
> need these added capabilities which have nothing to do with the actual
> drawing of models themselves, you do NOT need the Pro version.
>
> Look at the chart carefully ...
>
> http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html
Looking at that, I noticed the price is $495, not $600 as I have been
saying.
Also, the free SU allows you to Import 3D models and 2D graphics in many
formats (DWG, DXF, 3DS, DEM, DDF and a range of image formats) I have no
clue what any of those are, but didn't know you could import anything
other than standard graphics like jpg's. I've imported jpg's in an
effort to figure out how to design something from a photo, but never got
very far. Tutorial looks OK but a little out there for my current
interest level.
Also, not particularly clear is that SUfree can export a jpg of whatever
you are designing/building. If you wanted to do a chalk drawing, or
other artsy/fartsy stuff someone mentioned, you could use your favorite
graphics program to do whatever to the exported jpg, assuming you have a
fancy graphics program.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> The interface with the real world and the ability to create 'pretty
> pictures' makes SUPro look like a good deal then.
> The Freebee completely useless..................to me.
>
> Now was that so hard?
Not particularly hard, just a far cry from:
> Opens doors. That's all it does?
or
> Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
or
> all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Jack Stein" whined
>> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
>> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
>> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
>>
> Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business.
Apparently you have no clue what a troll might be. Being employed and
having a job has zip, nadda, nothing to do with whether one is a troll
or not. Besides, I probably worked longer than RoboCop's been alive.
> He has actual skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this newsgroup.
Perhaps, but in this thread, the only contribution he's made is
misinformation, big time.
> You on the other hand whine constantly and make out Rob to be some kinda
> villian. This is definitely troll type behavior.
As far as the RoboTroll statement, it was just a response to him calling
me SteinTroll. BTW, I have no clue what a " villian" might be...
Perhaps RoboCop, the spell checker can help you with this stuff?
If all this bothers you so much, read something else...
Oh, Robocop sure doesn't need you defending him any more than Swingman
needs me. You have something good or bad to say about SU, go ahead and
make your day. A post that does nothing but attack me is troll like.
Are you employed/own a business?
Not sure what your post here contributes to anything, other than you
getting your rocks off attempting to make me look like a villain, or
troll, or whatever simple minded thing floats your boat.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Jack Stein" whined
>>> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
>>> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
>>> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
>>>
>> Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business. He has actual
>> skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this newsgroup.
>>
>> You on the other hand whine constantly and make out Rob to be some kinda
>> villian. This is definitely troll type behavior.
>
> I see by your reply that Steintroll is still at it. If it isn't funny or
> constructive, I won't participate.
> Steintroll is neither.
Funny, this post you just responded to is neither, yet you participate...
> and thank you for the kind words.
Takem' where you can gettem'
> PS. Somebody should explain to Steintroll what it means when one has
> been plonked.
I do know what it means when someone feels the need to repeatedly tell
the world they "plonked" someone yet not really do it. Perhaps you
should see a shrink?
PS, you missed a "glaring" spelling error in your buddies post... I
guess you were off duty or on a donut break?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> The interface with the real world and the ability to create 'pretty
>>> pictures' makes SUPro look like a good deal then.
>>> The Freebee completely useless..................to me.
>>>
>>> Now was that so hard?
>>
>> Not particularly hard, just a far cry from:
>>
>> > Opens doors. That's all it does?
>> or
>>> Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
>> or
>>> all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
>>
>> All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
>> worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
>> actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
>
> Don't forget the part where he called you ignorant. You remember that,
> don't you, Jack?
No, but his statements I just listed were directly related to what he
said about SU, nothing about what he said about me.
He termed your views ignorant.
Yes, and turns out he's the one that is ignorant.
> As you turn out the light at the end of the day, do you pat yourself on the back,
> congratulating yourself on how you showed that Canuck a thing or two?
You got a problem with Canucks or something? Didn't know this subject
came up in this thread even once?
> Or do you lay in the dark, your eyes still open and staring at the ceiling
> you don't see, wondering what it is he thinks you don't know? Is that
> why you're still masturbating here about how right you are? Maybe, if
> you can convince yourself that he's wrong about SU, he must also be
> wrong about your ignorance?
Jibber jabber becomes you...
> The fact of the matter is, Rob was exactly right. Y
The fact of the matter is, he is exactly wrong.
SU does MORE than "just opens doors, thats all it does"
SU Pro does NOT "blow the doors off" the free version
and, "All the good stuff" is NOT in layout.
These are just a few of the blindingly dumb ass statements he's made.
our views are founded in your ignorance of CAD systems.
Nice try but at least two fellow woodworkers that, it turns out, are
very familiar with other CAD systems and SU have agreed with my
statements regarding SU.
> A tool should simplify the task you're trying to do. If you have to struggle with it, trick it into doing
> useful work, it's not a tool.
Nice, but I haven't found a need to trick SU into doing anything. I can
draw up work benches, desks, boxes, chairs, sheds, most anything most
wood workers do with no tricks at all, no going to school to learn how
to use the program, and it works quite well, with no tricks.
> As you look through Swing's fount of
> knowledge, the FWW design-click-build blog, ask yourself just what is it
> that they're doing. Are they showcasing SU's slick interface and
> capabilities? Or are they, like everyone else, struggling at every step
> to trick it into doing what they want?
I dunno, I've looked at a number of tutorials and they where just
teaching me how to do things like draw a floor plan of my workshop, draw
up a 20 drawer work bench I'm thinking of building and an addition on my
pool room I'm thinking of adding to my house... What I found surprising
was how easily and accurately SU did this sort of thing once you learned
how to use it...
> Just randomly: a 12 minute video on stretching a dovetailed drawer. What
> is that? Is that useful work? Would you think so if you even thought
> there were better solutions? Could it be a non-issue given a "real" tool?
Dunno what you mean? I've done a ton of dovetail drawers and such with
no need for AutoCad or SU in the least. The fact SU can draw dovetails
is interesting, but not particularly useful to me. What "better"
solution is there to drawing up dovetail joints than SU?
> Here's another one, offsetting a curved surface, with a plugin.
Dunno, SU has an offset tool that works just fine when I used it?
> How about, "Doin' the Twist"? Is that a productive use of your time?
No twist needed. I punch in the size of my shop, grab the inset tool
and tell it to offset 4" and presto, I have a 4" thick wall drawn in
about .00001 seconds. No tricks, no magic, no jumping through hoops, no
6 months of going to school.
> Having invested the time and effort, how do you feel about going back
> and modifying the twist when, as it turned out, the constant rate twist
> looked like crap?
> The simple fact is, these are all simple operations with a CAD system.
Who cares? The operations most woodworkers, not ALL woodworkers do is
build desks, chairs, tables, sheds, benches, kitchens, sheds, additions
to their shops and NOT B52 bombers, NASA launch pads, or even parabolic
mirrors. I've seen a number of people tell folks in here that wanted to
build a door, or build their own kitchen, or any number of things that
they shouldn't, too complicated... Well, perhaps all that stuff is too
complicated for woodworkers, but I think it is right up a woodworkers
alley, and SU is the PERFECT tool for designing all this stuff. If some
of these folks that wonder how to build an exterior door or kitchen
cabinet want to design an F16 fighter jet, SU may not be the correct tool.
> SU is not a general purpose CAD tool.
No shit Dick Tracy. No one ever once said it was even a CAD program,
not once. I might as well say it now though, I think it IS a CAD tool,
in the "general sense". IF it's not a Computer Aided Design tool, then
what is it? Is it a full blown CAD tool like AUTOCAD TurboCad? Nope,
certainly not, and thank god for small favors, as I sure don't feel much
like spending a ton of money and going to school for designing with
AutoCad just to draw up a kitchen, or desk, or computer hutch, or
Shed, or barn, or even a counter top.
> This is what Rob meant when he called you ignorant. Your ignorance not only just shows, it shines like
> a beacon.
For sure, and I can't even spell simple words like hall or haul...
Do you think it brings me pleasure to point this out to you?
Well, yes. But then I'm too damned ignorant to see the beacon...
> It's just the opposite; it's a perfect waste of my time,
Well, yes again, if you think "bringing yourself pleasure" is a waste of
time... I know I've wasted a lot of time arguing with a few lunk heads
that think SU is not "real" software, or a waste of time to learn, or a
toy because it may not interface with their $30,000 CNC machine, or is
not sophisticated enough to efficiently draw up a B52 Bomber. But I
enjoy wasting time on stuff that interests me. In fact, I don't even
mind being called "ignorant", or SteinTroll, or having my spelling
checked by usenet geniuses. Laughing is one of my many pleasures...
> and you'll prove it to us by purposely misunderstanding what was said.
Lets see if I got it right:
You agree with Robocop that SU:
"just opens doors, thats all it does"
"Pro "blows the doors off" the free version
"All the good stuff" is in layout.
...and I'm "ignorant" because I think he's dead wrong?
...and you think I think SU is in competition with AutoCad, despite my
repeated statements to the contrary?
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> "Jack Stein" whined
Right from the get go it's obvious who likes to be provocative.
>>> Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business.
Now I'm sitting on my "paranoia" wondering what your point you are
trying to make?
>>> He has actual skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this
>>> newsgroup.
Still sitting on my "paranoia"
> I don't have the time and patience to respond to all this drivel.
Yes, that is obvious to say the least. Fortunately for me, I have the
time, the patience and the interest... so far.. Unlike you, if I didn't
have the time or patience, I would not be doing it... Go figure!
> 1. I have made my comments about Sketchup. I am now considering it for a
> couple projects specifically for the Stylebuilder module.
Good for you, makes my day, I guess Google will be sending me a check
for getting you to at least consider using their free product.
> 2. Whatever your problem with Robatoy is, your rampant paranoia and rabid
> demonization of his remarks hardly qualifies as any kind of objective
> commentary.
You say this with a straight face as you trash me without a word about
the subject at hand, which has been about Robocop making silly
statements about Sketchup, like:
"Opens doors. That's all it does?
Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut."
This is not all he has said, he started out saying he doesn't have the
"time" to list specifics about all of SU's short comings, or what makes
it nothing but a toy. This is what got me started because:
1)based on the number of posts he makes, he seems to have plenty of time
2) when he has been "specific" in the past, Swingman ended up wasting
his time specifically pointing out where he was wrong.
> 3. It is obvious to me that you want to provoke and perpetuate a war of
> words. I am having nothing to do with this.
No doubt! I think you really meant you wanted to talk trash but didn't
want me to respond... not troll-like at all, just hypocrite-like.
When folks take the time to trash me, I generally have the courtesy to
respond in kind, even though I don't have the "time" or "patience".
> 4. And since your remarks are remarkably devoid of any real value, I will no
> longer subject myself to this form of newsgroup abuse.
And the value of you words are? Well, I guess they provide me, and
probably only me, some form of entertainment, nothing much else I can
think of.
> 5. For someone who is overly pedantic about the definition of a troll, your
> behavior/comments are very troll-like.
I assume unlike real trolls, you have a job, so since you are not a real
troll, what kind of troll might you be, a pretend troll? A wannabe troll?
> 6. Plonk.
Who would have guessed? I think you've plonked me in the past... I
think I'll go kill myself...
BTW, real trolls never really plonk anyone, rather they just say it to
stir things up...
--
Whiny, Paranoid, Troll-like, Pedantic, Rabid Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lets see if I got it right:
>>
>> You agree with Robocop that SU:
>> "just opens doors, thats all it does"
>> "Pro "blows the doors off" the free version
>> "All the good stuff" is in layout.
>>
>> ...and I'm "ignorant" because I think he's dead wrong?
>> ...and you think I think SU is in competition with AutoCad, despite my
>> repeated statements to the contrary?
>
> His name is Rob. My name is Mike. We'll call you Jack until you let us
> know otherwise.
Well Mike, if you read your own post, you said "Rob was exactly right"
Out of respect I took the time to post some of what Rob has said that I
find exactly wrong.
If you'll back it down a notch, we can have a discussion.
OK Mike, but I think every ounce of worthwhile discussion over the value
of SU has been squeezed out this thread, and all thats left is fighting
over silly crap. I don't mind the silly crap all that much, and if you
really don't get that no one, not me, not even Google considers SU a
full blown CAD program like AutoCad, then not sure what else can be said
to clarify it for you.
> It opens doors. It's not a full CAD system. That about sums it up. It's
> the same concept, seen from different sides.
Nope, same side. In fact I think I've used those exact words about a
million times in this thread. "It opens doors thats ALL it does" is
plain ignorant at best, stupid at worst, and those are [some of] the
words used by Robocop that are exactly wrong.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > NOT the dreaded flaming finial!!!
>>
>> Shit disturber! You really like to wallow in it don't you? :)
>
> Say wot? Flame finials are works of art. Those are hard to make, even
> for an a-axis indexing lathe on a CNC.
> I like the brass ones, with the flame going a bit sideways in a
> mythical breeze.
> To carve those free-hand out of wood takes a deft hand...hell even a
> minwax hand!
> I ain't stirring shit! You must have me confused with someone else.
Jumping through the cable channels and caught Orange County Chopper guys
halling or hauling, not sure, in a new CNC machine to cut stainless
steel flames out for putting on a bikes gas tank. I think the damned
thing cut with water but it wasn't too expensive, just $500,000. I
think it was just a toy to these guys though, at least they sure made
tons of cash w/o it...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com
"Robatoy" wrote
> Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
> the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
> Let's see if you can sell him.
I quite arguing this a while back, but I will say, once again, that anyone
with a cursory familiarity with both versions will tell you that you are
dead wrong in that supposition.
Wail away at will, but it just simply ain't so.
> Tell you what. Let's take up the subject of CAD again when you get one
> of these:
> http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/?action=view¤t=AutoCADLevel3D.jpg
>
> BTW, the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0.
> The last one 3.87. That one was tough. No SU support.
That's is indeed quite an accomplishment, Rob ... my hats off to you. Well
done!
Problem is, we have not been discussing a "CAD" program ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:50:40 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
wrote:
>If you don't get it, hurry up, cause I'm starting to lose interest...
Aw what shame that would be. (From a retired old troll)
Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>
> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by a
> welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>
> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
> welded to the subassemblies.
>
> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
>
>
>
I see no problems in that application.
As far as accuracy, in inches you can go to .0001" or in 1/64" in fractions
of an inch. In mm, .0001mm
3D perspective would be automatic.
Just remember to draw objects/components, not line drawings.
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I was just pointing out that Sketchup will do much more than many think
>> it can do. Obviousely having a mechanical drawing back ground is helpful
>> in solving some of the more complex situations when using SU. More
>> expensive programs have short cuts for dealing with those common
>> situations.
>
> Preacher; choir. Regarding that last bit, though... I fear I'm belaboring
> it, and you have to be tired already of reading it, but it still needs to
> be said. The "smarts" in the 2d sketch is a generalization of the
> parametric solver, not just shortcuts for hard coded special, common
> situations. You nail down the things you care about, a size, or a
> distance, or some other relationship to some other part. This specifies
> your design intent. What isn't nailed down are implicitly the things the
> solver can adjust to maintain your intent when you later move things
> around or resize them. SU 7 Pro added the fledgling beginnings of this
> capability. I don't know much about it, since I don't have Pro to play
> around with, but I expect it to remain somewhat limited, simply because SU
> doesn't retain all that much history of how the parts are created. For
> example, it doesn't remember that you pulled a face X distance to create
> the part, so it can't later adjust that distance in its solution. We'll
> see how that turns out in subsequent SU versions. That should be an
> interesting area to watch.
>
>
Exactly. With all the attention that SU is getting I suspect that it will
evolve into a piece of software with more talents and probably at a higher
price. ;~(
"Leon" wrote
> At least it does not have a warning about possible "loose stool" like
> those potatoe chips did a few years back. LOL
Whoooops! Hold it! .... stop the presses! In your worst nightmare ... like a
glimpse under the seat of a construction site portapotty!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6075b68f-a72d-4332-96ba-2fb4698199ba@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 6:03 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ironically, I find SU best for the other end of the work. Start with a
>> blank
>> "sheet", slap in the topography from Google Earth, and have at it.
>
> Right now I'm trying to get the site plan drawing, prepared by the
> engineer to agree with Google Earth in Sketchup. The engineer has the
> North arrow off by almost ten degrees (ummm, hey buddy, we're going
> solar with this thing!), the buildings are in the right locations but
> the edge of the lake is off by a fair bit, and that affects setbacks,
> lot area and all sorts of other stuff.
Magnetic declination? ... I just had the same issue when orienting the slab
on a current residential project, which was ostensibly oriented specifically
for solar heat/hot water. The designer, who drew up the original "plans" (in
SketchUp, BTW), was not familiar with the difference between true and
magnetic North ... among a myriad of other things.
Amazing, the cavernous gap in education of some of these so called
"professionals" of today.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lee Michaels" wrote
>
> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>
> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by a
> welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>
> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
> welded to the subassemblies.
>
> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
Just give it a try and see how it works for you ... occasionally use SU to
send drawings to machine shops for beam/truss hangers that we need to have
fabricated for embedding into foundations.
Admittedly very simple fabrications, the one below was drawn on my laptop,
real time on site, while the Engineer watched, and the pdf export was sent
using my cell phone as a tethered modem ... a couple of years back what took
30 minutes would have taken a week, and cost a helluva lot more.
http://www.e-woodshop.net/files/SaddleHanger.pdf
Basically, for 2D shop drawings like this I haven't found anything that I
can't do quicker with SU than with my CAD programs, and, as you say, the
added and easy 3D ability is just a mouse move away and an added plus.
BTW, the machine shop didn't blink an eye ... then again, I'm always amazed
to find a machine shop that actually does business via e-mail and even knows
what a pdf file is. :)
YMMV ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Jack Stein" wrote
> I certainly understand SU is not a full blown CAD program, and for sure if
> you need to share your work with other CAD programs, then SU is not free,
> or even cheap. I would not even recommend SU if you need to share your
> stuff with other CAD software because I don't know what else is out there
> for $600? I do know what is out there for free, and wow, SU is all by
> itself. I think SU is also becoming pretty common out there, so common
> that plenty of businesses are using SU themselves, including putting up SU
> drawings of their products.
I now routinely download and import AutoCad files (dwg/dxf) of specific
products provided by appliance, sink, plumbing, and lighting fixture
manufacturers (like GE, Kitchen Aid, etc.) into SU Pro and use them in the
models I present to clients so that they can see a kitchen design with their
own appliances, sinks, faucets, light fixtures, etc installed.
The most I have ever had to manipulate these 3D AutoCAD files in any manner
is to scale them to project scale.
However, with the increasing number of manufacturers doing SU models of the
products and uploading them to Google's 3D Warehouse, the need to import
AutoCAD files is becoming moot for SU users.
A short list of building product manufacturers offering their products in SU
format, increasing daily:
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/cldetails?mid=5ab1f8c0846734ee4f78b7b58252a6e9
This ability, in 3D, is just ONE of the reasons I switched from my CAD
programs to SketchUp as my primary design/presentation software for
woodworking endeavors. I own/use TurboCAD, DesignCAD 3D, AutoSketch, and an
ancient copy of AutoCAD, which I used for a number of years and was
reasonably proficient with, but which no longer runs well on my current
computers.
(I also tried that POS, cabinet makers software program ... eeech!)
The use of SU in a residential construction project was forced upon me by
necessity (I was presented with a SU model (free version) of a client's
dream home and paid to use my building expertise to build it ... my
reaction: consider it done, as I always said I could build a house off a
napkin (I designed/built my current $800K home literally from graph paper
drawings).
I'm not happy with using SketchUp in the absence of architectural drawings,
but I'm glad that I had the familiarity with the program to do it (I
actually had to teach the "designer" how to do most of what he knows about
the program at this point, although a year ago I was pretty much a total SU
noob myself). It has caused me a great deal of extra re-work of the plans,
and much more supervision that normally goes into a house with regard to my
participation, but it has been a worthwhile learning experience ... and I
was a bit surprised to find out that it was _my_ short comings with the
program, NOT SU, that was the biggest fly in the ointment.
... live and learn.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I applaud google for putting a software tool out there that people can use
> to build things for a very good price. I am concerned that it is part of
> the overall effect of the world wide web dumbing things down in general.
> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and
> abilities of many as well. There are those who will do many things well
> with this tool. But like anything, many will not.
Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth with the 3d
buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason it exists, and
why Google gives it away. Combined with a 3dconnexion mouse, the view was
simply stunningly, the experience absolutely jaw dropping. Imagine now,
everyone running around with their free CAD system, and doing the same with
the rest of the countryside. That's the real gift, I think, even though SU
by itself rightly earns its kudos.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lets see if I got it right:
>
> You agree with Robocop that SU:
> "just opens doors, thats all it does"
> "Pro "blows the doors off" the free version
> "All the good stuff" is in layout.
>
> ...and I'm "ignorant" because I think he's dead wrong?
> ...and you think I think SU is in competition with AutoCad, despite my
> repeated statements to the contrary?
His name is Rob. My name is Mike. We'll call you Jack until you let us know
otherwise. If you'll back it down a notch, we can have a discussion.
It opens doors. It's not a full CAD system. That about sums it up. It's the
same concept, seen from different sides.
MikeWhy wrote:
>
> Yah. Done that. Made that podunk midwest cow town look insignificant;
> second city my hairy behind. Really, though. Try Manhattan in Google
> Earth with a 3dConnexion mouse. Get right in on top of Penn Station and
> the nearby penthouses.
I've looked down at Penn Station (MSG) from the 86th floor of the Empire
State Building. <G>
"Robatoy" wrote
> We may have this discussion one day in the future after Google has
> developed a large and dependable customer base and they start offering
> the essentials, such as import/export features only to those who pay
> for them. <snip>
> What are the differences between Pro and the Freebie now?
Basically what you said ... import/export features; and "Layout 2",
standalone *presentation* software (think "Pagemaker" for modeling ... that
also makes it possible to print customizable, scaled drawings to all the
various ArchX formats).
Pro version also has the ability to create "dynamic components" (free
version can read and operate DC components but not create); and another
standalone, "Style Builder", that is more for the artist modeler than
architectural/engineering modeling ... brush stroke drawings, etc.
As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
whatsoever between the free and pro version.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have been lurking on this thread and just wanted to let you know
>(particularly Swingman) that I really appreciate u turning me on to SU.
>I've fussed with it enuf to get that it will do exactly what I want, i.e.
>to design WW projects without a lot of constraints, but end up with a
>usable plan to build it. Thanks
What it boils down to concerning typical woodworking is, can you teach an
old dog new tricks? I kept at it and after realizing that you have to use
Sketchup in a different way and being willing to learn a different concept
it does most any thing.
I see that some one has written a plug in to make it work with a 3D modeler.
"Charlie Groh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ...will it scale a drawing from one reference? Like, say, I draw a
> cabinet and then set the dimension of one of the rails? I fiddled
> with the tutorial the other nite and was surprised at the
> accessability...if can set the deminsion of my first piece and the
> program will scale the remainder, well, I'm in!
Yes. Use the tape measure tool to measure known distance. Immediately type
the value it should be. Voila.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> "Lee Michaels" wrote in message
>>> I applaud google for putting a software tool out there that people can
>>> use to build things for a very good price.
>
> Yes, FREE is about as good a price as there is...
>
>>> I am concerned that it is part of the overall effect of the world wide
>>> web dumbing things down in general.
>
> I think it's just the opposite. I think it gives many people, like
> woodworkers, the opportunity to learn to use computer software to do stuff
> that the normally would not do. The bad thing I see is hobbyist
> woodworkers end up wasting lots of time on the computer instead of the
> shop.
>
>>> It raises the abilities of many. But also degrades expectations and
>>> abilities of many as well.
>
> That makes no sense to me?
>
> There are those who will
>>> do many things well with this tool. But like anything, many will not.
>
> Hard to argue with that...
>
>>MikeWhy wrote: Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth
>>with the 3d buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason
>>it exists, and why Google gives it away.
>
> I couldn't figure out why Google gives something this nice away for free?
> If what you say is true, I find it interesting that I like it for drawing
> up cabinets and don't even have the slightest clue what I'd use it and
> Google earth for? I know what I use Google earth for, and SU for, but
> have a tough time connecting the two? I guess if you were building a
> house and wanted to orient it with Google earth, but even then, what is in
> it for Google? Google earth is free, SU is free? I've always gone by the
> idea that if something seems too good to be true (other than some free GNU
> stuff), it probably isn't. I'm still wondering about SU, but so far, so
> good...
Those are reasonable questions. Nothing is free is this world; no free
lunches. Here's my pig-slanted view on who and what Google is.
Google is a public company, a profit making concern, not a philanthropic
interest. What is their product? What is their revenue stream? If you
accumulate enough of it, data becomes more than simply information. It
becomes knowledge. Knowledge is power, and power is money. Every month, they
serve up 6 billion lookups from their search engines. 6 billion times a
month, people go to Google to ask a question with an expectation of finding
an answer.
Knowledge is their product. What is their revenue stream? Is it too much of
a cop out to say I don't know? If I knew and understood, I would be sitting
in a semi-tropic villa looking out on my own slice of paradise, not the
frost covered side street that fronts my winter wonderland middle class
suburban home. You only need to know this about money: nobody is standing in
line to give it away for free, not in stock exchanges on Wall Street, not to
entrepreneurs as franchise agreements, and not to unproductive companies.
Google is well funded; they're not doing this out of their own pockets.
So, what of Google Earth and Sketchup? Last month, GE added bathymetric
data -- ocean bottoms, sea floors -- to their maps. The version before, they
added deep sky astronomy. The version I have now has historical data, old
maps and old aerial surveys, back to 1994 for my area, older in other areas
where available. Knowledge is power, and power is money. To own it, they
have to give it away, or at least let you see it. They have it, and now we
do. It's a little circular, I know.
But what of Sketchup? What's the tie in? In every near future sci-fi
fantasy, somebody at a computer console has building plans and infinite
details of the topography. How did it get there? Yesterday, there was
nothing. Tomorrow, it's taken for granted. Where did it come from? From
public building departments, where plans are filed for building permits? It
could, but that would cost a mint. Alas, the cheapest route is a grassroots
approach. Here's a tool. Draw a box, take some pictures, and slap them on
the outside. Share it with us if you like; don't bother if you don't like.
It's a start.
There's also gmail, Google's "free" email service. What a coup that was.
Overnight, they effectively subscribed to every private email discussion
list. Is there value in knowing who is saying what to whom about what
subject? Somebody seems to think so; lots of somebodies with lots of money.
But we were talking of Sketchup. Knowing the motivations for its existence,
the capabilities and limitations are hardly surprising. There are no nurbs
or real curves, just triangle meshes. These are what GE can display. They
don't want or need deeply detailed profiles; the support for drawing that
simple sink cutout is abysmal. You could do it, in the same way pigs can fly
given enough desire and a large enough catapult. There are better suited
tools, animals more aerodynamic than that pig, for that job. Does that
denigrate the pig or Sketchup? Not in any way that I can think of. Half the
world won't eat pork in any fashion. So what? The rest of the clues are in
what SU does well. Take a couple of street-side photos, follow some simple
directions, and trace it into a 3D shape; post it to Google.
Does any of that stop you from drawing anything else with it? Of course not.
The more use you have of it, the more literate you become in its use, the
better the chance you'll actually use it for its intended purpose. It is
somewhat "dumbed down", both because of what Google hopes to achieve with
it, and also to make it accessible. And this brings us to the other
comments, on which I'll take a pass and not respond. All that needs to be
said has already been said, perhaps more strongly than I would have, but
that's just how people are.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:M5Xql.8538$%[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> Last night, I took a tour around Manhattan in Google Earth with the 3d
>> buildings turned on. *That* is what SU excels at, the reason it exists,
>> and why Google gives it away. Combined with a 3dconnexion mouse, the view
>> was simply stunningly, the experience absolutely jaw dropping.
>
> You should see it from an airplane... You do the entire loop around 900
> feet up.
>
> Here's an example:
> <http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/images/flying/hudson-apr2005/>
>
> It's even better at night!
Yah. Done that. Made that podunk midwest cow town look insignificant; second
city my hairy behind. Really, though. Try Manhattan in Google Earth with a
3dConnexion mouse. Get right in on top of Penn Station and the nearby
penthouses. It's a different view, definitely a much richer level of detail
compared to zooming past at 120 kts a few miles away, even given the crude
resolution of the pasted on bitmap textures.
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> I heare you. ;~)
>
> For any Robotic Spell Cops haunting the rec, Leon's brain probably wasn't
> sure if he meant here or hear, so compromised with heare. All 3 sound
> exactly the same, even if you can't figure out what was meant.
>
> Or, it could have just been a typo... Whatever, I'm certain you will get
> to the bottom of it...
LOL!! Outlook Express Spell Checker. It runs all the time but just add
some text in the middle of existing text and there is a 50/50 chance it will
return an "all correctly spelled" indication. That'n probably would'a gone
through any way. Then I'll use the excuse that I am using a new key board
with slightly tighter keys that my stout fingers don't particularly work
well with.
"Morris Dovey" wrote
> A happy thought for tool snobs: SketchUp is a tool available for the
> downloading and, among other things, can itself be a tool for imagineering
> and building tools that either one cannot afford to purchase - and/or that
> no one else has yet imagined.
I love that word "imagineer" ... first time I heard/saw it was on the
business card of Hondo Crouch of Luckenbach, Texas fame, almost 40 years
ago. AAMOF, I was honored to be on his 'washer pitching' team at one point.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:52:34 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
>>>> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>>>>
>>>> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by
>>>> a welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>>>>
>>>> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some
>>>> odd angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and
>>>> attachments welded to the subassemblies.
>>>>
>>>> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>>>>
>>>> Comments? Suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see no problems in that application.
>>>
>>> As far as accuracy, in inches you can go to .0001" or in 1/64" in
>>> fractions of an inch. In mm, .0001mm
>>>
>>> 3D perspective would be automatic.
>>>
>>> Just remember to draw objects/components, not line drawings.
>>>
>> How about dimensioning? I would need the lengths to be very clear.
>
>Not a problem, Sketchup has semi-automatic dimensioning. You point out the
>constraints Sketchup fills in the measurements. Pick a line and Sketchup
>will dimension that line. Pick two points and Sketchup will determine the
>distance between those points.
...will it scale a drawing from one reference? Like, say, I draw a
cabinet and then set the dimension of one of the rails? I fiddled
with the tutorial the other nite and was surprised at the
accessability...if can set the deminsion of my first piece and the
program will scale the remainder, well, I'm in!
cg
>
>As mentioned in my other thread you can modify dimension results to outside
>the extension lines if the results will not fit between them. You can also
>modify the size of the font used.
>
>
>
>
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6075b68f-a72d-4332-96ba-2fb4698199ba@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 27, 6:03 pm, "MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ironically, I find SU best for the other end of the work. Start with a
>>> blank
>>> "sheet", slap in the topography from Google Earth, and have at it.
>>
>> Right now I'm trying to get the site plan drawing, prepared by the
>> engineer to agree with Google Earth in Sketchup. The engineer has the
>> North arrow off by almost ten degrees (ummm, hey buddy, we're going
>> solar with this thing!), the buildings are in the right locations but
>> the edge of the lake is off by a fair bit, and that affects setbacks,
>> lot area and all sorts of other stuff.
>
> Magnetic declination? ... I just had the same issue when orienting the
> slab on a current residential project, which was ostensibly oriented
> specifically for solar heat/hot water. The designer, who drew up the
> original "plans" (in SketchUp, BTW), was not familiar with the difference
> between true and magnetic North ... among a myriad of other things.
>
> Amazing, the cavernous gap in education of some of these so called
> "professionals" of today.
I grew up in Chicago. It wasn't until primary flight training in Seattle
that I came to understand the difference can become rather significant and
of more than academic interest.
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a
>> question for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>>
>> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated
>> by a welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>>
>> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some
>> odd angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and
>> attachments welded to the subassemblies.
>>
>> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>>
>> Comments? Suggestions?
>
> It's not a drafting tool. You'll bend over backwards to make it produce
> working drawings. Sketchup is more a modeling and visualization tool
> that happens to place a few dimensions and notes, sometimes usefully,
> sometimes not. It doesn't do angular dimensions, for example.
>
>
One of the thing that I could never get use to in version 6 was the
three dimension presentation. Each time I used it my edges were in
different plans.
With version 7 this seems to be corrected and you can make some pretty
good old fashion 2d drawings.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 27, 2:07 pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:50 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
Exactly, to say that you can use SU to build a house does therefore
not validate the software but the builder, who can use anything if he
knows how to build a house in the first place.
I have 20 years and thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in my
software, yet I cannot design, much less build a boat. The software is
very capable as a tool to a boat builder, but *I* cannot design/build
a boat. Owning software with capability means dick.
If my problems are such that my selection of software DOES solve them,
then I am a happy camper. And I am.
You may be in luck with that boat, There are hundreds of design drawings of
boats/ships for Sketchup. :~)
Snip
So yes, one can build a house with SU, but will it be a better house?
Not necessirilly better or worse as the same goes for AutoCAD or the like
software.
The more in tune with the software you are the better the results of the
plans.
I think the point to designing suitable plans for building a house using
Sketchup is simply that Sketchup is quite capable of fulfilling this need.
More expensive programs that will do the same are simply more expensive
programs that do the same.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Jack Stein" whined
> >
> > All of these statements are very misleading at best, total bullshit at
> > worse. I'd call you RoboTroll rather than RoboCop, but I think you
> > actually believe the stuff you say, unlike a "real" troll.
> >
> Unlike real trolls, Robatoy actually has a job/business. He has actual
> skills, expertise and makes actual contributions to this newsgroup.
>
> You on the other hand whine constantly and make out Rob to be some kinda
> villian. This is definitely troll type behavior.
I see by your reply that Steintroll is still at it. If it isn't funny or
constructive, I won't participate.
Steintroll is neither.
.
.
and thank you for the kind words.
r
PS. Somebody should explain to Steintroll what it means when one has
been plonked.
In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.<victorious grin>
"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey wrote:
Snip
>
> Most of the stuff wood workers build is made up of straight lines and
> curves. SU handles those with ease, thats why it's the perfect tool for
> most woodworkers.
Here is where I will explain it's short comings a bit more concerning the
"curves" that you mentioned above. SU will easily draw the appearance of
circles and portions of a circle/an ark. this depends on how many line
segments the circle has. Unless there is a plug in some where and please
tell me where if there is, you can not draw a relatively smooth irregular
curve like a CAD program will. For instance with AutoCAD you can draw a
flexible curved through a series of points that are not in a line or quickly
draw an ellipse.
Something like an ellipse would be difficult with SU although you can draw
one with a bow compass and could on SU at a particular angle but you would
be limited. A typical isometric ellipse can be drawn with 4 arcs with 2
different radius.
"MikeWhy" wrote
> I grew up in Chicago. It wasn't until primary flight training in Seattle
> that I came to understand the difference can become rather significant and
> of more than academic interest.
Know the feeling ... in my case, calling in artillery fire, in earnest, was
indeed of more than academic interest. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I have been reading the Sketchup posts with interest. I got a question
>> for you Sketchup enthusiasts.
>>
>> How appropriate would Sketchup be for metal projects to be fabricated by
>> a welding shop? Specificaly projects made mostly with square tubing.
>>
>> Their would need to be detailed information. This would include some odd
>> angles, very specific lengths and positions of both holes and attachments
>> welded to the subassemblies.
>>
>> The 3 D perspective would be nice but not neccessary.
>>
>> Comments? Suggestions?
>
> It's not a drafting tool. You'll bend over backwards to make it produce
> working drawings. Sketchup is more a modeling and visualization tool that
> happens to place a few dimensions and notes, sometimes usefully, sometimes
> not. It doesn't do angular dimensions, for example.
>
>
Ummm My Sketchup does angular dimensions.