Sketchup is Inacurrate???
-
@alan fraser said:
But Thomas, that doesn't alter the basic problem of the arc not actually being and arc but a series of segments. Saying that SU knows the radius is pretty meaningless when you get different measurements for such a radius depending on whether you are measuring from the centre to a point or to an edge.
SU has no option but to offer offsets from the edges, not the points. Think of the confusion that would arise if you were to offset 1m from a rectilinear shape...only to find that the resulting 'path' was only 1m wide as measured by the diagonal from the corner.I fail to see why the arc can't be treated as the arc it represent - ignoring it's segmented presentation in SketchUp.
An 500mm radius arc is offset by 100, the result can easily be computed to an 600mm arc. Use the meta data of the arc entity to calculate the true geometric offset - then transform that result into the segmented representation SketchUp uses.
-
But as I said in an early post, there is a fundamental mismatch between the way SU draws arcs and circles and the way it draws offsets. It can only sensibly draw offsets perpendicularly edge to edge; but it calculates arcs and circles point to point or centre to point. If the Arc Tool could be persuaded to construct arcs with the measuremnt being made from a segment mid-point instead of an end point, then the problems associated with offset largely disappear...as in the diagram. Those are real offsets, not doctored concentric circles.
It does, however require that an arc begins and ends with a half-segment.
-
What I had in mind was that SketchUp reconstruct the original arc instead of offsetting it's edges or points. Make ArcCurve entities special cases in the offsetting process. And that prevents any half length segments.
The problem as, as you say that things go wrong when the offset bases itself of the segmented abstraction of the arc. What I'm trying to get to is that offsetting the arc based on it's geometric properties (the metadata which SketchUp holds of the arc) then you get a correct offset.
-
Yes, I definitely think that copying the original is probably the easiest way to go. I think that's how TIG's script works also.
On the problem of interior offsets, I long ago gave up using the Offset Tool or even Follow Me (most of the time). The shape below was constructed by positioning a scaled copy of the outside shape then using Curviloft and tweaking the individual contours to give a rounded profile rather than the straight truncated pyramid. A workaround, I admit...but a heck of a lot quicker than using SU's standard tools, then having to clear up all the mess.
(Yes, I know there's Rounded Corners in 3D, but it's not always appropriate...and it too can give some nasty intersections)
-
@alan fraser said:
Yes, I definitely think that copying the original is probably the easiest way to go. I think that's how TIG's script works also.
If it does -then Jeff, you mentioned not even that worked 100%?
However, the general consensus appear that both Offset and Follow Me can benefit from changes which would greatly improve our workflow.
SketchUp is inaccurate when it comes to Curves, due to it's nature of segmenting - but there should be room for improvement if it treated Arc and Circle entities are their true geometric origin instead of their segmented representation.
-
re: a solution
i suppose the offset tool itself could be 'fixed' fairly easily..
as now, su appears to explode an arc prior to offsetting it therefore losing its inherent arc-like properties.. so they'd just have to stop that behavior and instead, when offsetting an arc, treat it more like the way we can move the bulge (a vertex) around when drawing an arc..but-- that's a band aid and doesn't address the entire problem.. throughout this thread, i've been using the offset tool as an example because it's easier to talk about.. but things start getting really bad with the follow-me tool and other operations that create faces during offset like operations..
if you use follow me on a 24-segment-circle profile then a path with an arc in it and turn on hidden geometry… you'll see that you've effectively offset the profile path, incorrectly, 22 times (the top and bottom of the tube are correct.. they're the same as the path moved vertically with no offset)
and in that case, i don't think it's such an easy fix a only changing the offset tool..
(not sure if i'm making sense here.. didn't sleep much
)
i imagine the devs know exactly the deal here and wouldn't need multi-page forum threads to point out the error.. they get it already.. they have to..
but when it comes down to an actual solution to the issue, i think it's on them to figure out the best way to solve the problem.. i think all we really need to do as users is try to get them to address and/or fix this behavior but when it comes to the actual programming and methods used to overcome this limitation, that's all on them.. keep it behind closed doors if they must.. i'd be totally ok with that.
i just wish the door wasn't closed at this point (i.e.- the 'what & why' stage.. the point prior to any sort of 'how' stage..) and they were willing to discuss with us publicly..
-
@thomthom said:
@alan fraser said:
Yes, I definitely think that copying the original is probably the easiest way to go. I think that's how TIG's script works also.
If it does -then Jeff, you mentioned not even that worked 100%?
.no, it works right -if- you're only trying to offset one single arc and no other entities..
you can't, say, use it on a square with filleted corners… you'd have to do 4 separate offsets in that case as well as connect the arcs with 4 new lines..as in.. it's not very helpful at all
but i imagine it could be modified more to where it would work better in this situation..like my last post was getting at.. it doesn't address the real problem at all
-
True that. I wish I'd taken interest in these arc & offset threads before I went to Basecamp and had them in front of me for inquiry.
-
@unknownuser said:
like my last post was getting at.. it doesn't address the real problem at all
Real problem being Follow Me? Or how SketchUp doesn't handle arcs by their true geometric nature in general?
If Offset and Follow Me offset using the real nature of arcs (while still generating a segmented representation) would the problem then be solved?
-
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
like my last post was getting at.. it doesn't address the real problem at all
Real problem being Follow Me? Or how SketchUp doesn't handle arcs by their true geometric nature in general?
If Offset and Follow Me offset using the real nature of arcs (while still generating a segmented representation) would the problem then be solved?
solved? no.. better? yes (and if this functionality was coming from within the app itself, then it would be better yet.. i could then use, say, shapebender on an arc and get the same results i would get from follow-me (which is what happens now.. but followme and shapebender at the present time both give the same exact results and they're both wrong)
but really, this is where the can of worms starts opening up.. yesterday in this thread i wrote:
@unknownuser said:
and i do understand that this isn't a simple fix.. on the surface it is but i think once you examine a bit further, many facets of the core app are linked in to this behavior.. not just the offset tool and follow me tool.. but the whole brain.. we just see it come out in certain tools but the behavior is underlying..
a simple example i can think of which will give an 'oh.. wait a minute
' moment.. (if i type offset!.. that means we're assuming we're using a new&improved offset tool which properly deals with arcs)draw a 90º arc then mirror it to form a 1/2 circle
weld the 2 arcs together as a single curve
now what??when i offset! that 'curve', i'd actually expect it to give me the same results as individually offsetting! each individual arc.. and that's what it should do.. so even at this point, the offset! tool is still not working properly because in the above scenario combined with the discussion/fixes mentioned up to this point, that 2_arc_'curve' is going to be offset! improperly..
[EDIT] unless there's a way to make su continue to see the arc as an arc even after joining two together? i.e.- once an arc - always an arc until the user explicitly says it's no longer an arc or deforms it in such a way that it breaks the arc like properties ??
[/EDit]realistically, the only time the offset tool should work as it currently does is when all of the segments are individual edge entities.. anytime there's a 'curve' (not just 'arc') in the mix, the offsetting should calculate separately..
if i want to offset a bezier curve, it needs a new behavior too in order to really get to the bottom of this issue.. that would require sketchup to begin recognizing a relationship between each segment of a 'curve' instead of viewing it as a collection of edges..
so eventually, the devs would have to draw a line as to where this behavior stops and reverts to it's current behavior.. the only way i see preventing that would be to turn sketchup into a fully functioning nurbs app and that's definitely not the solution (might be cool though
)… but as i see it now, the devs have decided to draw that line in the wrong place.. at the very least, any arc entity should (and could) function as an arc in all situations.. they're almost there now except they drew the line very close to the finish line (the wrong side of the finish line)again, it's not an easy fix and there's no clear cut solution and it's up to the developers to make the decision on how far to go with it.. but come on, let us know something..
is this problem going to be addressed in any way or do we need to just accept the behavior for what it is? If you do foresee some real changes being made in this area, what can we expect to see? that type of stuff.. -
@unknownuser said:
[EDIT] unless there's a way to make su continue to see the arc as an arc even after joining two together? i.e.- once an arc - always an arc until the user explicitly says it's no longer an arc or deforms it in such a way that it breaks the arc like properties ??
[/EDit]You'd think it should be able to do that. It nearly does that.
If you draw a Circle - Entity Info says Circle, 24 segments.
Draw a line between two vertices of that circle and you get two arcs with 12 segmetns each.
Erase the edge between them and SketchUp merges the two arcs into a single Arc with 24 segments. Now here's the little extra head scratcher - save, close and reopen the file. Select the curve and notice that Entity Info once again says Circle. o_OSame thing happens when I do what you describe. Take a 90 degree Arc and copy and paste it together into an circle. All though, immediately they appear as four arcs. But if I draw temp edges at the arc ends and erase them SketchUp will merge the arcs together. Again I get an 24 segment arc, which when the model is reopened, becomes a Circle.
I even tried with Vertex Tools to run Heal Vertices on the four arcs forming the apparent circle and that also yielded the same result.
So SketchUp nearly does what you describe - but the healing function needs to be teased.
While the nature of SketchUp isn't to present true arcs in the viewport it sure is room for improvements -
@thomthom said:
You'd think it should be able to do that. It nearly does that.
If you draw a Circle - Entity Info says Circle, 24 segments.
Draw a line between two vertices of that circle and you get two arcs with 12 segmetns each.
Erase the edge between them and SketchUp merges the two arcs into a single Arc with 24 segments. Now here's the little extra head scratcher - save, close and reopen the file. Select the curve and notice that Entity Info once again says Circle. o_Ohaha.. nice find.. o_O indeed!
-
@thomthom said:
If you draw a Circle - Entity Info says Circle, 24 segments.
Draw a line between two vertices of that circle and you get two arcs with 12 segmetns each.
Erase the edge between them and SketchUp merges the two arcs into a single Arc with 24 segments. Now here's the little extra head scratcher - save, close and reopen the file. Select the curve and notice that Entity Info once again says Circle. o_OI'm not seeing that. I still get an arc of 24 segments...exactly as when closed.
However, if I get to the stage of creating an arc of 24 segments and then copy either the face or the edge (or both) I get a new circle of 24 segments that is recognised as such. Seemingly the simple act of copying recreates a circle entity. -
@alan fraser said:
I'm not seeing that. I still get an arc of 24 segments...exactly as when closed.
Can you post the file? I'm curious to whether I can find the difference between our attempts. Ruby might help me.
-
-
Strange! I just did it again in a fresh file and now I get a circle...but still with the correct entity info. Maybe the FormFonts layer is the magic ingredient.
I am on V. 8.0.16846. I assume you two are as well.
-
"but still with the correct entity info"? As it says Circle after merged?
For me it said Arc until I reopened the file, then it said Circle. Your model opens with a "Circle". -
another quick point along these lines..
@thomthom said:
You'd think it should be able to do that. It nearly does that.
aside from the ability for an arc to always remain an arc, an offset arc should create a new arc.. for one, it makes too much sense for an offset of an arc to be an arc but it will also further tighten up a consistent behavior throughout sketchup..
if we draw a surface whose perimeters contain an arc(s) then push/pull the surface, the newly created edges will also be arcs..
so that should happen as well in an offset. -
I was wondering if the core problem with arches and the resulting shortcoming geometry is in fact what is keeping, or has kept, the developers from creating tools for curved surfaces?
Like e.g the in ability to provide any mapping for curved surfaces or the native lack of the push pull tool to perform an extrusion on a curved surface?@ TIG Out of an architectural standpoint, this is what I expect of how it needs to be.
The respective pieces of my arch need to be consistent and not perpendicular. Be it round or segmented same thing.
-
Well, in theory we can create ourselves what SketchUp doesn't provide. Except some fundamental things such that we cannot introduce true curves - we cannot introduce new entity types. We can create abstractions. Like, in order to map curves surfaces and create ring and loop selections I wrote QuadFace Tools - which tries to build a toolkit that will let you create and manage non-planar quads. Similarly I'm developing BezierSurface, which allows you to create and manipulate (and UV map) quad-bezier-patches.
However, since there is no way to hook into the native tools to make them understand these new abstractions I'm doing, I need to write a complete set of tools for everything.
Mind you, aside from SketchUp's way of dealing with arcs, I find it's lack of the "quad" concept the most limiting. Everything becomes so much easier of surfaces are built up on units of quads. Mapping and traversing becomes logical and rational in terms of a computer - which doesn't have the insight to understand what the whole mesh really represent, only understanding the geometry on a the most naive level of vertices, edges and faces.
Advertisement