Sketchup 7

"Swingman" wrote

> <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
>> doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.
>
> Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
> below the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.
>
The universal "hide" command is controlled by estrogen.

Them wimmin folks can hide anything!

"Morris Dovey" wrote
>
> You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) curve
> is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus at
> the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs other
> than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.
>
> I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
> still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
> 'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p
>
Is this for a parabolic reflecter? I have made a bunch of those for a solar
powered pool company many years ago. We used metal coated mylar and set the
panels into a frame to support them. We thermoformed them in a vacuum
forming machine. The machine was home built.

We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plaster
mold. Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic. Turn
on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and collect
eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.

Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of riches
in the solar heating biz. But I got it out of my system a long time ago. I
am much better now. :-)

On Feb 26, 11:51=A0am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote
>
> > I was a snob too. =A0;~) =A0It's pretty much Sketchup 7 all the way for=
me
> > now. Once you learn to tweak the programs so that the lines look the wa=
y
> > you want it seems to be leaps and bounds better for relatively small
> > drawings. =A0I consider relatively small to include a complete set of p=
lans
> > for a house. Memory may become a problem with tall commercial buildings=
or
> > large landscapes such as a city park.
>
> > You really have to learn the program to appreciate it.
>
> Folks can't seem to grasp that SU is not CAD and doesn't claim to be ... =
it
> is "surface modeling" software. Comparison is misleading and a waste of
> time.
>


Oh yea??? Sez who???

LOL
Kidding aside, I think SU is a wonderful option for people to get into
computerised design and SU appears to be a hit.
And I'll stop with my Bob-The-Builder jokes, okay?
And you're right, people should not compare SU with CAD because it is
indeed misleading.
What I did find really interesting, is that Google/SU immediately
supported Macs. That was cool.

Incidentally, I use my CAD program as a surface modeller as well. Such
is the world of NURBS.

r

On Feb 27, 2:24 am, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
> >move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
> >becomes unreadable.
>
> Right click the offending dimension.
> Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
> Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
> End", or "Centered"

Well, I'll be darned. Now why can't they tie that into the "hide"
function to do it automatically...

-Kevin

I sent you an e-mail with an attachment of what I think you are asking
about.

Leon

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.
>
> Oops - sorry (I forgot). There's a freshly uploaded copy at
>
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/SK7NotYet.jpg
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Feb 25, 7:06=A0pm, spaco <[email protected]> wrote:


> =A0Is Sketchup better now?


It's Legoware. Cute, and somewhat functional. But I admit that when it
comes to CAD, I'm a snob. I have become proficient with the package I
use. In comparison, SU is awkward and limited.

On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
> >> that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
> >> someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
> >> piece and have them produce the correct part.
>
> > It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
> > be a project on which more than one person is working, with
> > others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
> > shop...

Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together :)

> Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
> the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
> would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
> SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
> "complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

-Kevin

"spaco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Steve Turner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
>> I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that program
>> that I miss terribly in Sketchup.
> <snip>
>
> On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
> (still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive as
> time goes on??

Maybe! I have probably used 6 or 7 CAD programs since the mid 80's TurboCAD
was absolutely the most difficult for me to "attempt" to master. AutoCAD LT
eas infinatly easier for me to learn and I used it for about 12 years.
Sketchup is as much easier for me to use compared to AutoCAD as AutoCAD ias
to TurboCAD.



> I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about 3
> times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take forever
> to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
> Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
> Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
> well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this
> V7.
> Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
> I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
> really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden all
> the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
> learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
> "default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

Sketchup 7 is better than 6 and as mentioned above has become my primary
drawing program. Well worth learning to think a little differently as
drawings are about 10 times faster using Sketchup 7. The learning curve is
pretty shallow especially if you watch a few of the numerous short online
tutorials.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
> that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years
and
> have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but
it
> certainly holds it's own in this medium.

I think many people looked to CAD (if only the basics of it) because there
were few really capable graphics programs around and if you learned enough
you could design most anything with it. Now with faster and more affordable
computers around and the plethora of available, cheaper (and free) graphics
programs that abound, we can pick and choose what will do the job with the
least amount of effort. That's not CAD anymore for most people.

Robatoy will chafe (as will many of us) at all the "experts" who suddenly
appear in the design arena solely because of the cheapness and capabilities
of new software. People will have to put in a fraction of the time necessary
to learn more advanced programs than what was originally necessary for any
CAD program. It's exactly that same as the $700 I spent some years ago on my
first 80 meg hard drive. Now all I can do is reminisce about it because hard
drive space is thousands of times cheaper. Life's a bitch sometimes.

On Feb 28, 11:44 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Methinks the "average woodworker" is likely to be a nailbender. Somehow
> I don't think that anyone in this forum aspires to be an average
> woodworker, so I'm not sure I understand where you're wanting to go with
> this...

All I was really going for was that using that approach in Sketchup
isn't the only way to effectively use it. It just depends on what you
want to get out of it.

> I can understand how that might be true for work that is primarily
> decorative. On the other hand, if you decide to build a clock with
> wooden works or something requiring precisely interacting parts, you'll
> find that your results will be more satisfying if you exercise your
> creativity /before/ you start building.

True, but then you might very well want to model things like gears in
a program that already has built in functions where you plug in the
diameter and number of teeth and spits out a drawing of the gear
(maybe such a thing exists for sketchup, don't know). And so maybe
you don't need to go to the trouble of importing that into sketchup,
maybe just a circle will do. Maybe you're buying plans for that whole
mechanism, so you don't bother with anything but a simple object that
has the key reference points that interface with the rest.

I think most of us aren't doing stuff like this guy: http://www.woodthatworks.com

-Kevin

On Mar 2, 8:54=A0am, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:

> =A0 =A0 But, when I need to dimension cabinetry or built-ins or permit pl=
ans I
> still revert to TurboCad (though City of Houston has accepted SU drawings=
).
>
That SU will slowly be accepted by other departments and cities is
inevitable. It is the information that is within the document that
counts, not what software created it.
In a nearby county there was a engineering manager who only accepted
MicroStation documents or printed blueprints. MicroStation?? Ya
kidding me? Sure it was a nice CAD program for the Mac, but nobody
used it. AutoCAD was, and still is, king around here. The engineering
guys want assurance that when they're opening a drawing, that what
they see is what it is meant to be. In due time SU will achieve that
level of confidence, I'm sure. Then there is the image problem: "I
will present you with some SketchUp drawings, madam." (I'm not sure
which of the 57 flavours/ingredients yet,,but) And then there is that
mischievous component, knowing that those Bob-The-Builder and LegoWare
remarks just irk the shit out of some of the thin-skinned class-mates.

Onto my pogo-stick I climbeth and off to make some
countertops.....oops, almost dropped my yo-yo.

On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't create
> components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After assemble
> of the components that can be easily moved again.

I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were
doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
for? All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
what it will look like not how to make it.

-Kevin

Leon wrote:

> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
>>> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
>>> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
>>> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
>>> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
>> I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
>> working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
>>
>> I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
>> can make it in SU7.
>
> Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
> the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
> 3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
> an easy one.

You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote
>> You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) curve
>> is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus at
>> the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs other
>> than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.
>>
>> I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
>> still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
>> 'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p
>>
> Is this for a parabolic reflecter? I have made a bunch of those for a solar
> powered pool company many years ago. We used metal coated mylar and set the
> panels into a frame to support them. We thermoformed them in a vacuum
> forming machine. The machine was home built.
>
> We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plaster
> mold. Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic. Turn
> on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and collect
> eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.
>
> Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of riches
> in the solar heating biz. But I got it out of my system a long time ago. I
> am much better now. :-)

'Tis. You can see photos of a half-width prototype at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html

These are being used to heat the hot head of a fluidyne engine. You can
see a photo of a low temperature (and low-efficiency) prototype at the
bottom of

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Dyne.html

and concept drawings of the next generation at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Fluidyne.html

Converting the solar radiation to heat is easy - using the heat from a
concentrator with only 32 ft^2 of mirror to produce more than 1 hp is
"interesting".

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Robatoy wrote:

> Ever consider a linear fresnel reflector on a small scale? The
> simplicity appeals to me.
> http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/odonnell_ausra_clrf.pdf

I've considered it - and think it's a great idea for some applications
larger than the one I'm working on.

My goal is something simple enough that anyone, anywhere can assemble
with a screwdriver and have running in ten or fifteen minutes using a
single graphics-only instruction sheet.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
>>>>> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
>>>>> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
>>>>> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
>>>>> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
>>>> I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
>>>> working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
>>>> I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
>>>> can make it in SU7.
>>> Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
>>> the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
>>> 3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
>>> an easy one.
>> You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
>> curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
>> focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
>> arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
>> 'extruded' yet.
>>
>> I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
>> still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
>> 'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p
>
> Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
> stuff.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/SketchUp3d/browse_thread/thread/38377246792deaf7/a2b4c3205f3f5c3d?lnk=raot
>
> Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
> drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
> to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
> scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
> need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
> working on now:
>
> http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp

Interesting!

> Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
> the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
> On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
> about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
> model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
> like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
> going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
> look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
> drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
> seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
> my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
> right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
> of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though :)

I'd really like to see some photos of the finished top in place. That'll
be quite a feature.

> The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
> move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
> becomes unreadable.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Leon wrote:

> Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.

Oops - sorry (I forgot). There's a freshly uploaded copy at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/SK7NotYet.jpg

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[email protected] wrote:

> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
> I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
> other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
> correct part.

It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only be a project
on which more than one person is working, with others perhaps doing
their part of the project in their own shop...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
>>>> that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
>>>> someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
>>>> piece and have them produce the correct part.
>>>
>>> It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
>>> be a project on which more than one person is working, with
>>> others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
>>> shop...
>
> Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
> woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
> end up fitting together :)

Methinks the "average woodworker" is likely to be a nailbender. Somehow
I don't think that anyone in this forum aspires to be an average
woodworker, so I'm not sure I understand where you're wanting to go with
this...

...and I doubt that different parts made by /one/ truly average
woodworker have a very high probability of fitting together precisely.

>> Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
>> the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
>> would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
>> SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
>> "complete" drawings yet.
>
> The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
> own creativity in completing it.

I can understand how that might be true for work that is primarily
decorative. On the other hand, if you decide to build a clock with
wooden works or something requiring precisely interacting parts, you'll
find that your results will be more satisfying if you exercise your
creativity /before/ you start building.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7%[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:83a65a51-154e-45d9-88fa-f171cb55a00f@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete
>>> model
>>> of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
>>> inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me
>>> to
>>> make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry
>>> chest
>>> drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer
>>> sides
>>> that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer
>>> helps
>>> me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
>>> cabinet or chest.
>>
>> But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
>> and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
>> realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
>> things just for the sake of doing them.
>
> I absolutely agree on the details of the DT joints and mortise and tenons,
> although some times doing one of the mortise and tennon joints can be
> helpful if you are using that joint on a side and back of a narrow leg
> that you may be attaching a long apron to. I built a walnut desk last
> summer and seeing the inside of the joint using the x-ray view let me see
> if the tennons were going to come in contact with each other. I was able
> to offset the aprons a bit more so that this did not happen.
>
>
>>
>> You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
>> philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
>> from mine :)
>
> Agreed, as mentioned above.
>
>
> I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
>> sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
>> sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
>> also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
>> going.
>
> Agreed, and again especially if it is a comcept that you have done time
> and again. I don't really draw drawer details for a kitchen redo any more
> although I will draw the drawer so that I know howmany of which pieces to
> plan for. I use Cutlist Plus all the time tell me how much wood to buy.
>
>>
>>> More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
>>> during the actual construction phase.
>>
>> What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
>> my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
>> sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
>> have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
>> bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
>> predetermined is fun!
>
> Nothing really bad about doing the detail solving in the shop, that is the
> way that I started doing it in the late 70's and early 80's. I drew a
> concept and worked it out in the shop/garage. I'll admit that I built
> some pretty nice stuff that I still use today but geez it took a long time
> to complete a project. I built a dresser that way and I think it took me
> 3 months of working on weekends. I also would have to make 2 or 3 trips
> back to my wood supplier to get the materials that I needed. I tended to
> be a develop the piece as I go type builder back then. Now days it is
> easier to sell a piece to the customer being able to show him the details
> of what he is going to spend a few thousand dollars on.
> I find that I can think just as easily at the computer and see if my idea
> works and or looks decent immediately. I very seldom have to buy more
> wood after the initial purchase any more because I have all the details
> of what I need, knock on wood. I typically don't have any wasted cuts
> because I know from the drawing exactly how long to cut 98% of the pieces.
> Basically I can make changes on the computer and present different ideas
> to the customer and go with the one that he prefers. After doing this for
> 30 years, I want to build when I am out in the shop not solve problems, I
> have done that before and that way is not efficient for me.

Ditto ... as a builder I hate having to "field engineer" and don't' relish
it in the shop. It's also an enjoyable past time for me to plan a project
"in detail", particularly when it's my own design ... second in enjoyment,
perhaps, to actually seeing the results of a well executed plan.

I also agree with Kevin, you don't have to draw in every tubafour in the
framing plan of a house ... I don't usually have the need to draw the
dovetails on a drawer, or the drawers in a cabinet run for that matter,
unless it's to get a detail into the clients head, or give them a choice.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Leon wrote:
> >>> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
> >>> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
> >>> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
> >>> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
> >>> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
> >> I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
> >> working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
>
> >> I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
> >> can make it in SU7.
>
> > Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
> > the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
> > 3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
> > an easy one.
>
> You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
> curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
> focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
> arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
> 'extruded' yet.
>
> I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
> still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
> 'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
stuff.

http://groups.google.com/group/SketchUp3d/browse_thread/thread/38377246792deaf7/a2b4c3205f3f5c3d?lnk=raot

Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
working on now:

http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp

Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though :)

The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
becomes unreadable.

-Kevin

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is
>> athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
>> it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
>> that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
>> covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
>> components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.
>
> As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
> Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
> waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer? All I need to
> make a drawer is length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's
> it. What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I need the
> tenons and mortises modeled for in the first place, and what benefit
> does showing them at each leg accomplish? Why do I need to model the
> dovetail recess in the front legs if I am going to be cutting the
> dovetails on the rail and using that to mark the location of the
> recess? This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
> I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
> other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
> correct part.
>
> -Kevin
>

As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete model
of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer helps
me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
cabinet or chest. More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
during the actual construction phase. All of the parts and their sizes have
been predetermined and I know how they are going to fit before cutting any
wood. This is especially helpful when I made a 12 drawer jewelry chest with
4 or 5 different sized drawers.

"Leon" wrote

> I was a snob too. ;~) It's pretty much Sketchup 7 all the way for me
> now. Once you learn to tweak the programs so that the lines look the way
> you want it seems to be leaps and bounds better for relatively small
> drawings. I consider relatively small to include a complete set of plans
> for a house. Memory may become a problem with tall commercial buildings or
> large landscapes such as a city park.
>
> You really have to learn the program to appreciate it.

Folks can't seem to grasp that SU is not CAD and doesn't claim to be ... it
is "surface modeling" software. Comparison is misleading and a waste of
time.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:83a65a51-154e-45d9-88fa-f171cb55a00f@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete
>> model
>> of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
>> inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
>> make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
>> drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
>> that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer
>> helps
>> me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
>> cabinet or chest.
>
> But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
> and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
> realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
> things just for the sake of doing them.

I absolutely agree on the details of the DT joints and mortise and tenons,
although some times doing one of the mortise and tennon joints can be
helpful if you are using that joint on a side and back of a narrow leg that
you may be attaching a long apron to. I built a walnut desk last summer and
seeing the inside of the joint using the x-ray view let me see if the
tennons were going to come in contact with each other. I was able to offset
the aprons a bit more so that this did not happen.


>
> You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
> philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
> from mine :)

Agreed, as mentioned above.


I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
> sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
> sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
> also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
> going.

Agreed, and again especially if it is a comcept that you have done time and
again. I don't really draw drawer details for a kitchen redo any more
although I will draw the drawer so that I know howmany of which pieces to
plan for. I use Cutlist Plus all the time tell me how much wood to buy.

>
>> More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
>> during the actual construction phase.
>
> What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
> my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
> sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
> have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
> bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
> predetermined is fun!

Nothing really bad about doing the detail solving in the shop, that is the
way that I started doing it in the late 70's and early 80's. I drew a
concept and worked it out in the shop/garage. I'll admit that I built some
pretty nice stuff that I still use today but geez it took a long time to
complete a project. I built a dresser that way and I think it took me 3
months of working on weekends. I also would have to make 2 or 3 trips back
to my wood supplier to get the materials that I needed. I tended to be a
develop the piece as I go type builder back then. Now days it is easier to
sell a piece to the customer being able to show him the details of what he
is going to spend a few thousand dollars on.
I find that I can think just as easily at the computer and see if my idea
works and or looks decent immediately. I very seldom have to buy more wood
after the initial purchase any more because I have all the details of what
I need, knock on wood. I typically don't have any wasted cuts because I
know from the drawing exactly how long to cut 98% of the pieces. Basically
I can make changes on the computer and present different ideas to the
customer and go with the one that he prefers. After doing this for 30
years, I want to build when I am out in the shop not solve problems, I have
done that before and that way is not efficient for me.

On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
> > doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.
>
> Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or below
> the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.

Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
that in. Go to Window -> Model Info -> Dimensions. Under Dimension
set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
'Outside' appears to just be below.

The hide function I was talking about is under "expert dimension
settings"

-Kevin

On Feb 25, 11:17 pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> For example, if I draw
> a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
> *four* lines instead of two!

It didn't used to do that automatically, you had to tell it to
intersect. The Intersect menu function is still there. The main thing
is that if it doesn't do that then the intersection doesn't become a
hot point that you can easily click on. The only time I really
wouldn't want that is if I'm screwing around with something, but you
can use undo instead of deleting. But it would be nice to have that
as a mode you could turn on and off.

My main annoyance is when you have a hollow area and it insists on
redrawing a surface across it every time you do anything along the
edge.

-Kevin

On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete model
> of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
> inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
> make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
> drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
> that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer helps
> me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
> cabinet or chest.

But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
things just for the sake of doing them.

You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
from mine :) I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
going.

> More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
> during the actual construction phase.

What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
predetermined is fun!

-Kevin

On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> > Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
> > woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
> > It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
> > in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
> > have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
>
> I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
> working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
>
> I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
> can make it in SU7.

Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
an easy one.


-Kevin

<[email protected]> wrote

> There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
> doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or below
the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Feb 24, 8:02 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I hadn't even realized you could do that now, sweet!

-Kevin

Leon wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
>> I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that program
>> that I miss terribly in Sketchup. Some of the decisions it automatically
>> makes for you can be pretty maddening (merging entities together when they
>> just happen to be touching, for example) but perhaps with time I'll learn
>> to work around my preconceived notions of how it *ought* to operate. For
>> a free program it's pretty damned incredible.
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, merging, remember to make all pieces a
> component first, just like you would when actually building and assembling.
> When you make each piece a component they no longer are automatically
> "permanently attracted to each other"
>
> Hoping that I am understanding your situation, taking a box for instance,
> draw 1 side and give it depth, "push" to the disired thickness. If you need
> to rabbet the ends or put a dado in at the bottom do that now. When that
> piece is absolutely completed make it in to a component. Now any other line
> or part that may be along the same lines of the side can be easily moved or
> modified. Copy that component side to make the other side and rotate as
> needed. If you make any modifications to one component all copies will also
> automatically modify the same "UNLESS" you make that component "Unique" All
> components can be modified later if necessary. After you have drawn all the
> components, move them together to assemble. As long as all of the pieces
> are components you can move and manulipulate as desired.
> Remember that you must edit a component to midify it. Simply drawing extra
> lines on a component will not make them a part of the component.

I've been piddling with Sketchup again this morning (have the day off
work today) and I'd just about come to that same conclusion when I read
your post; thanks for solidifying it for me. This sounds kinda like
using blocks and groups in TurboCAD; separately edited components that
maintain their own identity when inserted into a drawing. Thanks.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

"Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
>> forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.
>
> I should have included the URL:
> http://www.google.com/sketchup/training/videos/new_to_gsu.html
>
> Tanus

Thanks, but I found it, using the words of my son when he was 3, "all by my
self". LOL

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> No CAD or not much CAD background here, but I still started and stopped
> about 3-4 times before I started to get a handle on it.


Oddly, it seems to take exactly that to understand and finally appreciate
SU. Both myself and Swingman pretty much started with the program the same
way.
I do have quite a bit of CAD experience and have never been instructed on
CAD. I did have a couple of years of formal training in mechanical and
architectural drafting however. Having that back ground certainly helps in
learning how to make the programs perform efficiently.
Stick with it, with 20 years CAD experience and having bought and used the
more expensive versions I am leaving AutoCAD LT behind after working with it
for 12 years and going through 5 upgrades. Prior to that I used IMSI
Designer, TurboCAD, and 3 versions of AutoSketch.
So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years and
have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but it
certainly holds it's own in this medium.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:20efac96-b4ba-417a-9d3d-9e0e5bf59434@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote
>>> innews:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
>> woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
>> end up fitting together :)
>
> This is probably not a fair answer from me but Swingman and I have often
> in the past built kitchens together, He would build the face frames in his
> shop and I would cut up all the plywood panels. A few years ago I took 27
> pieces of oak veneer plywood back to my shop to cut up. When he was done
> with the face frames and i was done with the 100+ panels we would get
> together at his shop and spend 3 or 4 days assembling all the components
> for a kitchen or two. Typically a few weeks later we would install the
> cabinets.

LOL ... you can't argue with success, or the topnotch skill and equipment
that allows such precision.

(it's also nice that the tape measures on our saw fences just happen to
coincide!) :)

>>> Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
>>> the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
>>> would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
>>> SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
>>> "complete" drawings yet.
>>
>> The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
>> own creativity in completing it.
>
> That can also be done on the computer, but you can be creative in several
> different versions. That way you end up with your favorite version and so
> to speak not be taking "pot luck" with what you end up with.

Yeppers ... for me, there is a *great* deal of satisfaction in executing a
carefully crafted, well thought out, PLAN.

... probably because I'm not all that "creative". :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote


> As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
> Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
> waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer?

I agree it is most often unnecessary to model the drawers in a project,
however, SU will generate a list of parts which can then be used to generate
both a material list and a cutlist, so doing so that extra modeling can
often come in handy on large projects, particularly with groups of multiple
drawers of the same size.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:da9abd53-fa75-40b3-879f-d79abc2ef3c5@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> I can always go back to the drawing and add
> more, but if I took the approach of having to model every last detail
> before I got to go in the shop, that would just suck all the fun out
> of it.

It's a hobby in itself to some, and maybe even an end in itself to some
others. I don't recall anyone here suggesting doing that, though. I tend to
draw in the tenons. Having already thought it through, it doesn't make sense
to NOT make the notation. Doing so might even help keep me from cutting that
perfect fitting mortise someplace I didn't want one. Really, it's not a big
deal; just offset the end profile and pull and push it to the right shape.
Adding a haunch is even easier.

If I didn't draw them in, I'd stand at the bench and sketch them in with a
pencil. If I didn't like pencils even, maybe I'd just go straight for the
saw. That's valid, too. Just cut it over length, mark the shoulders, and
have at it. But you still have to think it through at some point.

My personal limit for drudge work is finger joints. I don't have the
patience to grind them out on the tablesaw or router table. So, I never have
to worry about drawing them in SU. Not that I think it would be difficult.
Something like that is even more important to get right, to make sure the
fingers and spaces don't offer surprises somewhere else.

Leon wrote:
> I have been an AutoCAD LT user for 12 or so years. I have been using
> CAD programs since 1986. Never have I run across and learned so quickly to
> draw on a CAD type program as with Sketchup. 3D is SIMPLE with Sketchup. I
> down loaded it years ago and removed it, down loaded it again and forgot
> about it, uninstalled it once again and finally down loaded version 6 and
> after putzing with it 2 or 3 more times discovered that it was OK.
> Version 7 was released a few months or so ago and it is even better.
> It seems that there are fewer errors and problems and designing on it now
> seems very intuitive once I learned to assemble my drawings with components,
> thanks Swingman.
> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy.
But I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that
program that I miss terribly in Sketchup. Some of the decisions it
automatically makes for you can be pretty maddening (merging entities
together when they just happen to be touching, for example) but perhaps
with time I'll learn to work around my preconceived notions of how it
*ought* to operate. For a free program it's pretty damned incredible.

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9bf52bbd-9a18-43e8-b1e8-3a02da0c9576@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 8:02 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
>> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions
>> .
>> It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something
>> complicated
>> in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
>> have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
>
> I hadn't even realized you could do that now, sweet!
>
> -Kevin

I was reading a FWW article explaining a new plug in for making "to scale"
templates. Basically a tool for cutting out templates to check complex
shapes that you are making. Think a curved and tapering table leg.
Learning that you could now print to scale was a side benefit. I tried it
on version 6 and it would not work.

The plug in is "Slicer". In the program it will take a curved and tapered
leg and divide it into as many cross sections as you like and then lay all
those sections out to be printed in full scale.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1b4b9652-181e-4b2c-a4fd-3a1e14464feb@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 7:06 pm, spaco <[email protected]> wrote:


> Is Sketchup better now?


It's Legoware. Cute, and somewhat functional. But I admit that when it
comes to CAD, I'm a snob. I have become proficient with the package I
use. In comparison, SU is awkward and limited.


I was a snob too. ;~) It's pretty much Sketchup 7 all the way for me now.
Once you learn to tweak the programs so that the lines look the way you want
it seems to be leaps and bounds better for relatively small drawings. I
consider relatively small to include a complete set of plans for a house.
Memory may become a problem with tall commercial buildings or large
landscapes such as a city park.

You really have to learn the program to appreciate it.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't
>> create
>> components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After
>> assemble
>> of the components that can be easily moved again.
>
> I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
> pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
> making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were

It's less about what you need in the model or drawings as keeping things
straight with Sketchup. Other CAD systems will manage a certain amount of
information behind the scenes. For example, a part may be made up of some
extrusions or sweeps, each with an associated sketch and other information.
Sub-assemblies contain other assemblies as well as parts made from features
of extrusions and such. The relevance here is that Sketchup doesn't do any
of that organization for you by itself. Sketchup components are in many ways
analogous to parts and sub-assemblies in the other systems. Everything that
isn't grouped into a component is part of the global component.

If that's right for what you're doing, that's already more than you need to
know. However, it's clear to me from your comments that this is the
precisely the problem you're running into. In your mind, the box you're
drawing is a board separate from the box already in the model. From
Sketchup's point of view, you're trying to connect them together to make a
compound shape. The way you tell Sketchup what you have in mind is to group
them into separate components.

> doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
> bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
> probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
> center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
> for?

Draw them if you need them. Don't draw them if you don't. This is
independent of the problems you described.

> All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
> the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
> at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
> point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
> drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
> the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
> what it will look like not how to make it.

Sketchup is looking over your shoulder, and guessing wrong. Give it a clue.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
>> woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions
>> . It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something
>> complicated in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible.
>> So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
>
> I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was working
> on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
>
> I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I can
> make it in SU7.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/


Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.

Steve Turner wrote:

<snip>
> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
> I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that
> program that I miss terribly in Sketchup.
<snip>

On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
(still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive
as time goes on??
I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about
3 times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take
forever to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this V7.
Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden
all the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
"default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

Pete Stanaitis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> > There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
>> > doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.
>>
>> Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
>> below
>> the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.
>
> Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
> that in. Go to Window -> Model Info -> Dimensions. Under Dimension
> set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
> 'Outside' appears to just be below.

Yeah, but that's a global change. The other way is obviously for single
situations, problem is I can't remember from one use to the next which goes
where.

> The hide function I was talking about is under "expert dimension
> settings"

Like you, if want to hide a dimension in that situation, I don't use one.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> > There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
>> > doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.
>>
>> Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
>> below
>> the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.
>
> Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
> that in. Go to Window -> Model Info -> Dimensions. Under Dimension
> set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
> 'Outside' appears to just be below.


I don't know if it is a better way but as you point out it is possible to do
default them that way. Most often, the lettering between the arrows is the
best location. Personally I think a leader with the lettering to the out
side of one of the extension lines would be better.

spaco wrote:
>
>
> Steve Turner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy.
>> But I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that
>> program that I miss terribly in Sketchup.
> <snip>
>
> On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
> (still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive
> as time goes on??

I wouldn't call TurboCAD the most intuitive CAD program I've ever used.
It does get better over time (a little), but some things just don't
work when you think they ought to (hey, that just worked a minute ago on
this other object, why won't it work HERE?!) and it can be pretty damn
maddening.

> I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about 3
> times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take
> forever to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
> Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
> Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
> well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this
> V7.

Don't feel bad; I'm still on V8 Pro (the latest is V15) and I got there
in pretty much the same way you did, so I can't really comment on
whether it's any better now. Many times I've tried to find a way to
upgrade, but they just make it too damn difficult and they want too much
money for the Pro version. I've compared the features of Pro and Deluxe
and concluded that I don't need any of the Pro features anyway, and
since the Deluxe is much cheaper I've downloaded the trial version to
attempt a migration. However, many of my V8 drawings won't transfer
over because the Deluxe version claims I've used Pro features that
aren't supported in Deluxe, even though I don't know exactly what those
features are, I didn't use them knowingly, and IMSI support can't tell
me how to get around it. Their "solution" was to suggest various
vendors that offer the Pro version for a "reasonable" price...

> Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
> I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
> really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden
> all the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
> learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
> "default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

I'm right there with ya; I'm still trying to decide if I can deal with
its quirks and if it will have enough functionality to entice me to
move, and right now it's looking pretty "iffy". For example, if I draw
a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
*four* lines instead of two! I really don't like the way it transforms
the things I draw into other things entirely. But perhaps that offers
me advantages that I don't understand right now, and I want to stick
with it and give it a chance; partly becomes it makes 3D design very
easy (which I like), and also because I really dig Google's "public
warehouse" model. Sketchup users have already built up an impressive
collection of publicly accessible drawings, and it seems like the sky
could be the limit...

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:54e0ecb3-bc06-4614-a181-e6b547c717da@f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:

>
> Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
> stuff.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/SketchUp3d/browse_thread/thread/38377246792deaf7/a2b4c3205f3f5c3d?lnk=raot
>
> Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
> drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
> to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
> scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
> need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
> working on now:

Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't create
components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After assemble
of the components that can be easily moved again.

For printing to scale be sure to uncheck the "Fit to page" and "Use model
extents" boxes and then change the scale boxes to be equal for the In print
out and the In Sketchup. This is possible after unchecking the mentioned
boxes.





>
> http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp
>
> Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
> the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
> On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
> about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
> model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
> like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
> going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
> look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
> drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
> seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
> my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
> right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
> of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though :)
>
> The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
> move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
> becomes unreadable.


Apossable solution is to manually draw the demention in those situations.






> -Kevin

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

>
> I think many people looked to CAD (if only the basics of it) because there
> were few really capable graphics programs around and if you learned enough
> you could design most anything with it. Now with faster and more
> affordable
> computers around and the plethora of available, cheaper (and free)
> graphics
> programs that abound, we can pick and choose what will do the job with the
> least amount of effort. That's not CAD anymore for most people.

> Robatoy will chafe (as will many of us) at all the "experts" who suddenly
> appear in the design arena solely because of the cheapness and
> capabilities
> of new software. People will have to put in a fraction of the time
> necessary
> to learn more advanced programs than what was originally necessary for any
> CAD program. It's exactly that same as the $700 I spent some years ago on
> my
> first 80 meg hard drive. Now all I can do is reminisce about it because
> hard
> drive space is thousands of times cheaper. Life's a bitch sometimes.


Well in defense of the expensive software users, I too had tried many times
in the past the free and $39 software. I finally stopped searching when I
upgraded to AutoCAD LT. Then Sketchup came a long and I looked at the same
way up until the last few months.

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> I've been piddling with Sketchup again this morning (have the day off work
> today) and I'd just about come to that same conclusion when I read your
> post; thanks for solidifying it for me. This sounds kinda like using
> blocks and groups in TurboCAD; separately edited components that maintain
> their own identity when inserted into a drawing. Thanks.


Correct!

I had to get out of the mind set of drawing I was using a t-square and
triangles.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Leon" wrote
>
>> So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you
>> waiting for?
>
> Just to reiterate for those wRec'ers interested in using SU
> as a tool in their woodworking endeavors, Fine Woodworking
> has an excellent blog called "Design.Click.Build" that is
> all about using the program for woodworking projects. Dave
> Richards and Tim Killen have written dozens of very
> specific articles that will increase your proficiency with
> the program in that regard.
>
> http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/blog/design-click-build
>
>

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is at
http://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

This tutorial is what cleared things up for me. I had used
TurboCad and Autocad previously but was never proficient with
either. But having that background, at least to me, was as
much a hinderence as it was a help. If you have a CAD
background you must change your way of thinking or you'll
never get anywhere. The old install, try it out, uninstall
routine comes to mind.

If you have any interest in using SketchUp I encourage you to
take a look at this. It is invaluable for someone just
starting out.

Larry

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]
ups.com:

> On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found
>> is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it
>> a bit but it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8
>> part tutorial that you can download in Word format or
>> follow it online. It covers a lot of the problems
>> discussed here including making components, using layers,
>> dimensioning, etc.
>
> As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make
> the piece. Putting more effort into the model than what is
> needed to do that is a waste of time. Why do I need a
> model of the drawer? All I need to make a drawer is
> length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's it.
> What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I
> need the tenons and mortises modeled for in the first
> place, and what benefit does showing them at each leg
> accomplish? Why do I need to model the dovetail recess in
> the front legs if I am going to be cutting the dovetails on
> the rail and using that to mark the location of the recess?
> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
> that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
> someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the piece
> and have them produce the correct part.
>
> -Kevin
>

For some of us that aren't as gifted as yourself, it helps us
think the plans through from start to finish. I haven't
reached the stage where I can build from pictures in my head.
I like to see what I'm building *before* I start. Helps me
avoid mistakes, and I'm full of them. Not sure who to credit
it to but can you say "precision cut firewood"? Yep, I've got
some of that...

Larry

Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
>> that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
>> someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
>> piece and have them produce the correct part.
>
> It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
> be a project on which more than one person is working, with
> others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
> shop...
>

Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20efac96-b4ba-417a-9d3d-9e0e5bf59434@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]:

>
> Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
> woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
> end up fitting together :)

This is probably not a fair answer from me but Swingman and I have often in
the past built kitchens together, He would build the face frames in his shop
and I would cut up all the plywood panels. A few years ago I took 27 pieces
of oak veneer plywood back to my shop to cut up. When he was done with the
face frames and i was done with the 100+ panels we would get together at his
shop and spend 3 or 4 days assembling all the components for a kitchen or
two. Typically a few weeks later we would install the cabinets.


>
>> Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
>> the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
>> would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
>> SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
>> "complete" drawings yet.
>
> The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
> own creativity in completing it.

That can also be done on the computer, but you can be creative in several
different versions. That way you end up with your favorite version and so
to speak not be taking "pot luck" with what you end up with.

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:

>
> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
> I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that program
> that I miss terribly in Sketchup. Some of the decisions it automatically
> makes for you can be pretty maddening (merging entities together when they
> just happen to be touching, for example) but perhaps with time I'll learn
> to work around my preconceived notions of how it *ought* to operate. For
> a free program it's pretty damned incredible.


If I understand you correctly, merging, remember to make all pieces a
component first, just like you would when actually building and assembling.
When you make each piece a component they no longer are automatically
"permanently attracted to each other"

Hoping that I am understanding your situation, taking a box for instance,
draw 1 side and give it depth, "push" to the disired thickness. If you need
to rabbet the ends or put a dado in at the bottom do that now. When that
piece is absolutely completed make it in to a component. Now any other line
or part that may be along the same lines of the side can be easily moved or
modified. Copy that component side to make the other side and rotate as
needed. If you make any modifications to one component all copies will also
automatically modify the same "UNLESS" you make that component "Unique" All
components can be modified later if necessary. After you have drawn all the
components, move them together to assemble. As long as all of the pieces
are components you can move and manulipulate as desired.
Remember that you must edit a component to midify it. Simply drawing extra
lines on a component will not make them a part of the component.





>
> --
> "Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
> (From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
> To reply, eat the taco.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
>move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
>becomes unreadable.

Right click the offending dimension.
Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
End", or "Centered"

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
> it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
> that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
> covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
> components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer? All I need to
make a drawer is length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's
it. What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I need the
tenons and mortises modeled for in the first place, and what benefit
does showing them at each leg accomplish? Why do I need to model the
dovetail recess in the front legs if I am going to be cutting the
dovetails on the rail and using that to mark the location of the
recess? This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
correct part.

-Kevin

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Leon" wrote
>
>> I was a snob too. ;~) It's pretty much Sketchup 7 all the way for me
>> now. Once you learn to tweak the programs so that the lines look the way
>> you want it seems to be leaps and bounds better for relatively small
>> drawings. I consider relatively small to include a complete set of plans
>> for a house. Memory may become a problem with tall commercial buildings or
>> large landscapes such as a city park.
>>
>> You really have to learn the program to appreciate it.
>
>Folks can't seem to grasp that SU is not CAD and doesn't claim to be ... it
>is "surface modeling" software. Comparison is misleading and a waste of
>time.

I agree. They are very different animals. However there IS an overlap
in what you can do with 3-D CAD, solid modelers, and Sketchup, and
this overlap tends to lead to a reaction like Leon's. And someone used
to doing conceptual drawings in Sketchup would find a solid modeler
able to produce the same shapes, but incredibly frustrating to do jobs
that Sketchup is best for. And a user of solid modelers find Sketchup
and 3-D CAD inadequate for their needs. They all have their place.

For me, the visualization help with sketchup makes it the software of
choice; its limited CAD capabilities meet my needs (combined with a
simple 2-D CAD program)
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On Feb 26, 1:22 am, [email protected] wrote:

> It just downloaded an update and there's nada about what it updated.

Oh sure, now that I say that they put out release notes. Just bug
fixes.


-Kevin

On Feb 24, 11:47=A0pm, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lee Michaels wrote:
> > "Morris Dovey" =A0wrote
> >> You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) cu=
rve
> >> is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus=
at
> >> the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs oth=
er
> >> than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.
>
> >> I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
> >> still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right=
.
> >> 'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p
>
> > Is this for a parabolic reflecter? =A0I have made a bunch of those for =
a solar
> > powered pool company many years ago. =A0We used metal coated mylar and =
set the
> > panels into a frame to support them. =A0We thermoformed them in a vacuu=
m
> > forming machine. The machine was home built.
>
> > We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plas=
ter
> > mold. =A0Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic.=
=A0Turn
> > on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and colle=
ct
> > eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.
>
> > Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of ric=
hes
> > in the solar heating biz. =A0But I got it out of my system a long time =
ago. I
> > am much better now. =A0:-)
>
> 'Tis. You can see photos of a half-width prototype at
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html
>
> These are being used to heat the hot head of a fluidyne engine. You can
> see a photo of a low temperature (and low-efficiency) prototype at the
> bottom of
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Dyne.html
>
> and concept drawings of the next generation at
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Fluidyne.html
>
> Converting the solar radiation to heat is easy - using the heat from a
> concentrator with only 32 ft^2 of mirror to produce more than 1 hp is
> "interesting".
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Ever consider a linear fresnel reflector on a small scale? The
simplicity appeals to me.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/odonnell_ausra_clrf.pdf

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> > There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
>>> > doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.
>>>
>>> Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
>>> below
>>> the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.
>>
>> Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
>> that in. Go to Window -> Model Info -> Dimensions. Under Dimension
>> set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
>> 'Outside' appears to just be below.
>
> Yeah, but that's a global change. The other way is obviously for single
> situations, problem is I can't remember from one use to the next which
> goes where.


Seems like \n<> would be a cool Ruby Script that you could assign a short
cut key to. I finally did that for the dimensioning tool and for one for an
objects dimensions.

now if only I could convert that into a Ruby Script. ;~)

"Morris Dovey" wrote
>> The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
>> move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
>> becomes unreadable.

Better explanation than my previous:

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/item/7039/dimensioning-your-drawings-a-couple-quick-tips


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Feb 26, 12:20 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Morris Dovey" wrote
>
> >> The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
> >> move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
> >> becomes unreadable.
>
> Better explanation than my previous:
>
> http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/item/7039/dimensioning-your-drawin...

Just the sort of intuitive thing that doesn't need any documentation!
There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

It just downloaded an update and there's nada about what it updated.

-Kevin

On Feb 28, 3:12 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote innews:[email protected]
> ups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found
> >> is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it
> >> a bit but it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8
> >> part tutorial that you can download in Word format or
> >> follow it online. It covers a lot of the problems
> >> discussed here including making components, using layers,
> >> dimensioning, etc.
>
> > As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make
> > the piece. Putting more effort into the model than what is
> > needed to do that is a waste of time. Why do I need a
> > model of the drawer? All I need to make a drawer is
> > length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's it.
> > What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I
> > need the tenons and mortises modeled for in the first
> > place, and what benefit does showing them at each leg
> > accomplish? Why do I need to model the dovetail recess in
> > the front legs if I am going to be cutting the dovetails on
> > the rail and using that to mark the location of the recess?
> > This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
> > that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
> > someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the piece
> > and have them produce the correct part.
>
> > -Kevin
>
> For some of us that aren't as gifted as yourself, it helps us
> think the plans through from start to finish. I haven't
> reached the stage where I can build from pictures in my head.
> I like to see what I'm building *before* I start. Helps me
> avoid mistakes, and I'm full of them. Not sure who to credit
> it to but can you say "precision cut firewood"? Yep, I've got
> some of that...

Precisely because we do make mistakes do I prefer to work as much as
possible with what is in front of me, already made. What happens when
we screw something up, but it's still quite workable as long as we
adjust as we go along, but then we forget what changed and go back to
working from our drawing and create parts that perfectly match the
drawing but don't work with what we already screwed up? I mean who
hasn't made a beautiful mortise, perfect in every respect, except for
being in the wrong place.

I can't visualize a complete project in my head, if I could I wouldn't
need sketchup at all. But once I get the outside of it squared away
then I can just sort of chip away at everything I don't know until I
have enough to get started. That may mean drawing out certain areas
that I don't understand. I can always go back to the drawing and add
more, but if I took the approach of having to model every last detail
before I got to go in the shop, that would just suck all the fun out
of it.

-Kevin

Steve Turner wrote:

>For a free program it's pretty damned incredible.

I've been around free software since day one, and what I found
incredible about Sketchup is that even if it cost a lot, it is pretty
incredible. There is not much I can think of a common wood worker could
not do readily with this very free application. It may not work
perfect for an architect designing the twin towers, or a design engineer
drawing up the final specs of an atomic power plant, but for some guy
building a deck, a barn, a kitchen cabinet, a night stand or any of the
many things your every day wood worker builds, this is the perfect tool
at the perfect price.

BTW, the stickiness is maddening until you use components.

One interesting thing is the "professional" $600 version works about
exactly the same as the free version, with the main difference in
ability to interact with other design software, not something that would
plague your average wood worker.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Leon wrote:
> "Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>
>> I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
>> I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that program
>> that I miss terribly in Sketchup. Some of the decisions it automatically
>> makes for you can be pretty maddening (merging entities together when they
>> just happen to be touching, for example) but perhaps with time I'll learn
>> to work around my preconceived notions of how it *ought* to operate. For
>> a free program it's pretty damned incredible.
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, merging, remember to make all pieces a
> component first, just like you would when actually building and assembling.
> When you make each piece a component they no longer are automatically
> "permanently attracted to each other"
>
> Hoping that I am understanding your situation, taking a box for instance,
> draw 1 side and give it depth, "push" to the disired thickness. If you need
> to rabbet the ends or put a dado in at the bottom do that now. When that
> piece is absolutely completed make it in to a component. Now any other line
> or part that may be along the same lines of the side can be easily moved or
> modified. Copy that component side to make the other side and rotate as
> needed. If you make any modifications to one component all copies will also
> automatically modify the same "UNLESS" you make that component "Unique" All
> components can be modified later if necessary. After you have drawn all the
> components, move them together to assemble. As long as all of the pieces
> are components you can move and manulipulate as desired.
> Remember that you must edit a component to midify it. Simply drawing extra
> lines on a component will not make them a part of the component.
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> "Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
>> (From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
>> To reply, eat the taco.
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
>
>

I'd add one thing to that. I have a terrible time with the Rotate tool
and try to avoid it as much as possible. Creating a second side of a box
by Copy/Pasting works well but the associated geometry with the original
side appears on the opposite end or side of the component. Leon proposes
rotating the component. That works, but I've found a simpler method.
Using the Scale tool allows you to scale the component into itself and
create a mirror image.

I set the scaling to -1, and I've got my component "rotated" without
rotating. I"ve done this very successfully with rabbeted/dovetailed
sides/ends and it takes seconds.

There is a video on the SU site that shows how this works.

Tanus

Leon wrote:

> Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
> forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.
>
>

I should have included the URL:
http://www.google.com/sketchup/training/videos/new_to_gsu.html

Tanus

[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
>>>> that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
>>>> someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
>>>> piece and have them produce the correct part.
>>> It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
>>> be a project on which more than one person is working, with
>>> others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
>>> shop...
>
> Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
> woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
> end up fitting together :)
>
>> Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
>> the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
>> would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
>> SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
>> "complete" drawings yet.
>
> The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
> own creativity in completing it.
>
> -Kevin

Kevin, your work is stunning. It's not the kind of thing that I think
I'd ever attempt, but it's wonderful to look at.

Morris said in response that the "average woodworker" is likely a
nailbender and is not represented here in the Wreck. I'm not so sure
about that. I think I'm more of a nailbender than a craftsman, and
therefore I can speak from that level.

For two reasons I need to see the thing I'm building and need to know in
advance what I think is going to happen when I go into the shop. First,
I'm not particularly high in the visualization of a new project. Things
don't work out so well just inside my head, and having a plan, even 2-D,
helps me immeasurably. 3-D takes me into that shop with some amount of
confidence that I know where I'm going. That's a bit of an illusion, and
I'll get to that later, but still I've got a roadmap.

Second, I'm dealing with a low level of skill and experience. There are
guys in here who have 40-50 years behind them and can draw from that,
putting pieces together for the 100th time that I have never done
before. That's not me. Often, in either design, build or assembly, I'm
tackling things that I've merely heard of before. That can be an immense
challenge, and plans can make that challenge manageable.

Having said that, the best laid plans...etc. Regardless of how many
times I've laid something out on paper, the real world rears its ugly
head in the shop and I have to adjust on the fly as you allude to. It's
the nature of the business, because if you spent all your time planning
for every contingency, you'd never open the door to the shop. And that's
cool too, cause that's when learning truly takes place.

FWIW

Tanus

Larry wrote:

> I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is at
> http://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
> it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
> that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
> covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
> components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

Yes, a good one, here is a more direct link"

http://www.srww.com/google-sketchup.htm

> This tutorial is what cleared things up for me. I had used
> TurboCad and Autocad previously but was never proficient with
> either. But having that background, at least to me, was as
> much a hinderence as it was a help. If you have a CAD
> background you must change your way of thinking or you'll
> never get anywhere. The old install, try it out, uninstall
> routine comes to mind.

No CAD or not much CAD background here, but I still started and stopped
about 3-4 times before I started to get a handle on it.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>
>
> GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
> I finally created a short cut for the dimensions tool, and a short cut for
> the "dimensions object tool".

ROTFL ... atta boy, Bubba!!

BTW, I'm on site here in the boonies and tried to call you. Got a call for a
"government" cabinet job in Klute, but I can't even consider that at the
moment, thought you might be interested, but for some reason, and although
I've called your cell a hundred times, it keeps telling me it's a non
working number?

Did you change numbers? You hiding? :)

If not, call me so I can re-capture ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip


>
> Yeppers ... for me, there is a *great* deal of satisfaction in executing a
> carefully crafted, well thought out, PLAN.
>
> ... probably because I'm not all that "creative". :)


Not to mention, IIRC you were always wondering "what if" concerning the
legs/feet on your table in the kitchen area. With Sketchup you were able to
determine that you had make the right choice concerning the size. Had it
been available and you had used Sketchup you could have saved years of
wondering, "what if". LOL

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't
>> create
>> components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After
>> assemble
>> of the components that can be easily moved again.
>
> I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
> pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
> making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were
> doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
> bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
> probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
> center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
> for? All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
> the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
> at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
> point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
> drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
> the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
> what it will look like not how to make it.
>
> -Kevin

I can understand what you are talking about here and I used to think that
way. Most of what I build can be quite complex and for me the drawings
help me to visualize if some thing is going to work or not. Basically the
components are not used so that you can pull them out so to speak, you use
components so that you can more easily modify a part that may be too long or
too wide, etc,.. I recently designed a jewelry chest with sliding dado's
for the drawer slides. I made every thing out of components and then
assembled a drawer out of copies of the components. Then I grouped that
assembly so that I could place it in the cabinet and see how it fit. If it
were too long I could easily modify a component part outside the cabinet
with out having to remove the drawer. The drawer components would
automatically adjust while in place inside the chest.

"Tanus" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>

>>
>
> I'd add one thing to that. I have a terrible time with the Rotate tool and
> try to avoid it as much as possible. Creating a second side of a box by
> Copy/Pasting works well but the associated geometry with the original side
> appears on the opposite end or side of the component. Leon proposes
> rotating the component. That works, but I've found a simpler method. Using
> the Scale tool allows you to scale the component into itself and create a
> mirror image.

Your are correct when the par/component to be rotated is not symetrical.

>
> I set the scaling to -1, and I've got my component "rotated" without
> rotating. I"ve done this very successfully with rabbeted/dovetailed
> sides/ends and it takes seconds.
>
> There is a video on the SU site that shows how this works.


Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
>> that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years
> and
>> have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but
> it
>> certainly holds it's own in this medium.
>
> I think many people looked to CAD (if only the basics of it) because there
> were few really capable graphics programs around and if you learned enough
> you could design most anything with it. Now with faster and more
> affordable
> computers around and the plethora of available, cheaper (and free)
> graphics
> programs that abound, we can pick and choose what will do the job with the
> least amount of effort. That's not CAD anymore for most people.
>
> Robatoy will chafe (as will many of us) at all the "experts" who suddenly
> appear in the design arena solely because of the cheapness and
> capabilities
> of new software. People will have to put in a fraction of the time
> necessary
> to learn more advanced programs than what was originally necessary for any
> CAD program. It's exactly that same as the $700 I spent some years ago on
> my
> first 80 meg hard drive. Now all I can do is reminisce about it because
> hard
> drive space is thousands of times cheaper. Life's a bitch sometimes.

I employ both; as a long-time TurboCad (v.2, mostly v.7 and more
recently Deluxe v.12) user and SU not long after I discovered it and it was
still @Last Software in Boulder (currently v.6 Pro). SU has been
particularly useful to render project drawings that allow clients to
envision the finished look of a project. AAMOF I have a drawing to do today
for an associate's client, another who "just can't picture what it will look
like! (the WHAT IF MY GIRLFRIENDS WON'T LIKE IT!!! syndrome :o) )"
Coincidently, the "staff" architect for a timberframe builder my SYB and
I employed for a piece of dirt we have in southern Colorado is the voice of
the early SU tutorials. At the time (2006?) SU had just been bought by
Google and Mark had left the company to strike out on his own. I was
excited enough to plop down another $95 on our return to Houston for the v.6
upgrade. I doubt those plans/drawings will be the final project site plans
especially for the trades.
But, when I need to dimension cabinetry or built-ins or permit plans I
still revert to TurboCad (though City of Houston has accepted SU drawings).

Dave in Houston

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>



GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>

I finally created a short cut for the dimensions tool, and a short cut for
the "dimensions object tool".

"Morris Dovey" wrote

>> The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
>> move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
>> becomes unreadable.

Double click on the one you want to change and type in the following,
depending upon which side you want it:

<>\n or \n<>


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:78abc07a-99d4-4499-adbd-dcab8e25b4e9@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 11:17 pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> For example, if I draw
>> a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
>> *four* lines instead of two!
>
> It didn't used to do that automatically, you had to tell it to
> intersect.

It does it automatically on version 7, thank goodness.

That said if you continue to draw on Sketchup like you would on any other
typical CAD program it can become a bother.

I guess the thing that you have to remember about Sketchup is that it works
best when you draws objects not just lines that infer objects.

"Leon" wrote

> So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

Just to reiterate for those wRec'ers interested in using SU as a tool in
their woodworking endeavors, Fine Woodworking has an excellent blog called
"Design.Click.Build" that is all about using the program for woodworking
projects. Dave Richards and Tim Killen have written dozens of very specific
articles that will increase your proficiency with the program in that
regard.

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/blog/design-click-build


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0ee11463-6b6d-4090-9afb-42aef6a60cec@u18g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 2:24 am, Tom Veatch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>> >The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
>> >move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
>> >becomes unreadable.
>>
>> Right click the offending dimension.
>> Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
>> Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
>> End", or "Centered"
>
> Well, I'll be darned. Now why can't they tie that into the "hide"
> function to do it automatically...

Sketchup is basically in it's infancy stages. IMHO it is only now worth my
time to work with. I wish some of the CAD programs that I have owned in
the past 20 years were as advanced in their 7th versions. :~)