Sketchup is Inacurrate???
-
@unknownuser said:
@me said:
My $1 calculator(*) reveals 1439.98966329mm.
hum hum first number after the decimal point?
1439.8966322 mm mine ...You are right, my result has a typo
. (lack of coffee?)
It should have been typed as: 1439.8966329mm -
@Wo3Dan
Cool! Else that was meaning that the plugin should to be rewrited !
-
@unknownuser said:
Unity in mm enable
On PC we have just ~1439.90mm even maxi precision decimal asked!Seems to be more complex than that...
Precision of arcs entity info does not seem to change when edited in "model info" - lines etc. are OK, precision changes immediately, but for arcs you need to close and re-open the file. So maybe 0.00 precision is what is loaded into your default template - and gets 'stuck' until the file is saved.
This seems a very consistent and repeatable bug - I can easily make the opposite effect of arcs showing more precision than other entities by changing/saving/loading. -
@unknownuser said:
What is this prodigy ?
Unity in mm enable
On PC we have just ~1439.90mm even maxi precision decimal asked!
Anyone with the PC version of SketchUp (whether free and pro) seeing arc lengths displayed in 'Entity Info' with more precision than one decimal digit?
In SU7 there's no problem: the decimals correspond the precision that is set. Not in SketchUp 8, neigther the Dutch free version (latest) nor the English pro version (8.011752)
-
@unknownuser said:
In SU7 there's no problem: the decimals correspond the precision that is set. Not in SketchUp 8, neigther the Dutch free version (latest) nor the English pro version (8.011752)
I am in free V7 or free V6 here
And that works with the trick of save / Exit / reload!
So for the V8 seems that is a bug ? -
@trogluddite said:
......Precision of arcs entity info does not seem to change when edited in "model info" - lines etc. are OK, precision changes immediately, but for arcs you need to close and re-open the file. ........
Thanks for clearing that up. I was almost certain that I'd seen more precision before. But couldn't seem to get it back.
In SU7 shown arc's length precision changes immediately after changing the settings!
Edit: In SU7 it's okay only starting from a loaded file with heighest precision. Just like you both explained. I didn't notice this before, since most of my saved (thus later loaded) files include the heighest settings to begin with. -
Win7 64bit
SU7: 1 decimal digit for Arc lengths.
SU8: 0 decimal digits for Arc lengths.I cannot seem to be able to change it. :s
-
Yep! That's the trick!
(So PC = MAC)
And I can change the number of segments!
Of course no more than 6 decimals so rounding result!
it's not so bad!
Here with free V7
-
@thomthom said:
Win7 64bit
SU7: 1 decimal digit for Arc lengths.
SU8: 0 decimal digits for Arc lengths.I cannot seem to be able to change it. :s
Not even when starting with a template that has set units precision to more digits?
Or (same thing) when loading a file saved with precision with more digits? -
@wo3dan said:
Or (same thing) when loading a file saved with precision with more digits?
Did this - set my model to maximum decimal digits, closed and reopened the model.
What template can I try?
-
@thomthom said:
@wo3dan said:
Or (same thing) when loading a file saved with precision with more digits?
Did this - set my model to maximum decimal digits, closed and reopened the model.
What template can I try?
The one that you (or better, SU) currently use(s). What if you re-new that template, but this time with precision set to max. Be sure to make it the default one. What happens then.
For me both methods (loading file including its saved precision / start with correct template) work for me in SU7. I still have to try in SU8, but I'm almost convinced that I have seen correct display of arc lengths in SU8 in the past. -
just chiming in to say that, on mac, there's no tricky steps to take to get those boxes to update.. change the units in model info and they update accordingly in entity info.. as you'd expect should happen.. so yeah, there's something wrong on the windows side of things pertaining to this.
and i fear, out of all of this discussion, this will be the only thing that gets fixed
-
I support improvements for arcs and circles, wholeheartedly, and thank Jeff for his diligent pursuit of enhancement.
On reading this entire thread, yet again, I believe there is a solution available.
Create a new tool by exposing, existing, functionality of arcs and circles and cardinal points.
Each know where there centre point lay, both know there own radius, and are capable of changing the number of sides after an initial commit. So, iff...
one: show the radial vectors and the centre point and use the end vectors as a handles for radial positioning (dividing the arc segments to fit between two, user selected, end points [with inference?])
two: when 'scaling' an arc from either end, allow a modifier key to scale from arc centre point (like a full circle does)
three: scale a copy from centre point, as a bonus modifier key...then we could at least draw them quicker.
leave the rest alone... for now!john
-
So here is another annoying short cumming of Sketchup.
I know the follow me tool is not supposed to be a real revolve tool, but why can't this be made to work to create a geometry one would expect?
result?!
To me this also defies any logic in an alleged simple to learn design software.
@unknownuser said:
@ Jeff, there's something wrong on the windows side of things pertaining to this.
No there isn't, on windows entity info shows the correct units and digits.
-
@desertraven said:
So here is another annoying short cumming of Sketchup.
that's the same error.. there are lots of ways to see it (though this way makes it pretty obvious
) -
The affects of an Arc path's segment's angle to the face to be extruded with native FollowMe have been discussed many times over...
Here are the three variants.
An Arc path that does not have its start segment perpendicular to the face: radius sized base, but odd start/end facets.
An Arc path that does have its start [half] segment perpendicular to the face: non-radius sized base, half start/end facets.
EEbyLathe, which produces the desired result: radius sized base, all full facets matching Arc's segmentation etc...
-
I'm not really understanding what the 'error' is in Olav's example. The path appears to be set up to produce two very short, on-axis side segments, joined by a 4 segment arc. Isn't this exactly what Follow Me has done?
I hate to sound like I'm defending SU yet again, but the quadrant below was produced in a single action (using Loft junctions along 2 paths).
You can't realistically expect SU to guess your intentions. If you want a quadrant with two end profiles sharing a common centre of rotation and at right angles to each other, then draw them that way; don't provide SU with a path with which it doesn't stand a cat-in-hells chance of achieving your aim and expect it to magically solve your geometry errors for you.
The same goes for drawing an extrude path using a simple arc...like when you round off the corner of a rectangle, In that situation, neither end segment will be on axis...so you can't realistically expect the resulting end profiles to be either.I'm not saying that the devs or a Ruby scripter couldn't produce a specific tool for producing such a quadrant (leaving the default extrude action exactly how it is...which works perfectly well in most cases) But there are plenty of ways of achieving the same result at present, including the plugin I used, which took little longer than using Follow me.
-
@alan fraser said:
I'm not really understanding what the 'error' is in Olav's example. The path appears to be set up to produce two very short, on-axis side segments, joined by a 4 segment arc. Isn't this exactly what Follow Me has done?
actually, in that exact situation, i think the measurements are correct.. (i can't measure right now but this is probably right.. and RoundCorner would draw it accurately in a similar situation)
if you put a little flat space prior to the corner, the measurements will start going bad too.
http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=451105#p451105(visually, olav's example is not correct.. you'd have to get the sides back to 90º but upon doing so, i'm pretty sure the numbers will be right)
.
@alan fraser said:
You can't realistically expect SU to guess your intentions.
correct, if there's an arc in the path then it acts one way.. if the path is not arcs/curves then it offsets accordingly.. no guesswork required.
-
@unknownuser said:
@ Alan,You can't realistically expect SU to guess your intention
Really? What alternative intentions could I of had in this example? Why would anyone want the result as shown in my diagram?
Why would I, as a user, care about weather or not the SU needs to read the beginning of the path perpendicular? or why would I want to know how the dog on thing is programmed?
I use a path, that starts and ends in a square, an arch just as SU draws it and that is all I got using the ntive SU tools.
I don't have an alternative arch tool that draws an arch with a half segment at the start and the end.
Also talking a bout guessing, when I draw a rectangular shape with the rectangle tool, SU guesses that I may be drawing a square or a golden section. Hmmm,,
And obviously the geometry produced by Sketchup in my example is useless to say the best and completely unacceptable to make it clear.
@ TIG, I haven't expected anything else but that this issue had been discussed many times before, and there is a obvious reason why.
But quite on the contrary to my amazement the developers of Sketchup have not found it necessary to even attempt to make this work. (I guess they are just thinking "good enough")An arch does not end perpendicular it is dependent on the center and all segments need to be equal.
I think these issues reside in Sketchup because someone keeps denying what is really needed on the user side; and because of that stubbornness, we, the users, have to put up with work arounds and a cluttered up, extensive plug in library.
-
@desertraven said:
But quite on the contrary to my amazement the developers of Sketchup have not found it necessary to even attempt to make this work. (I guess they are just thinking "good enough")
dunno, i think it's best you start seeking alternatives.. i mean here in this very thead, one of the developers has said "oh.. that would be neat to have in sketchup"…
neat?
not absolutely necessary?
fighting up to this point was an uphill battle.. after john's response, that hill just turned into a vertical wall..
personally, i'm over it.. can't believe i lasted this long..
Advertisement