Sketchup is Inacurrate???
-
-
You dare judge Brother Jeff?
-
These 1/4", 1/8", 1/16", 1/32" are for me perfect obscurantist measures from occultism !
-
@unknownuser said:
These 1/4", 1/8", 1/16", 1/32" are for me perfect obscurantist measures from occultism !
-
[off:2hxvcf0c]In the UK at least no one uses the arcane 'pounds, shillings and pence' any more!
The UK dragged itself into the 20th century when I was a lad...
12 pence = 1 shilling
20 shillings = 1 pound
There were even coins as ha'penny [½d] and farthing [¼d]
[somewhat illogically 'd'=pence
]
We had other coins worth 1d[penny],3d[joey],6d[tanner], 1s[bob],2s[2-bob/florin],2s/6d[half-crown] and banknotes for 10s[10-bob],£1[a quid],£5[a fiver]...
There were also olde coins for 5s [crown] and guinea [£1/1s]***
So something would be priced as "£1/10s/4½d"
Nows we have decimal pounds/pence and coins up to £2.
So it is now approx. £1.53.........*** The 'guinea' was an interesting idea.
If you were doing a service like an auctioneer you priced/charged the buyer in guineas and paid the seller in pounds - thereby keeping the standard 5% commission [1s is 1/20=5% of £1].
Having a base-12 shilling [like the feet/inch system!] allows you to divide it up into 1/4,1/3,1/2,2/3,3/4 and 1/6ths [and with ½d you jumpp to base-24 so 1/8ths are possible - 1½d was 1/8th of a shilling; using ¼d even allowed 1/16ths !!], but not 1/10ths ! Of course we still use 12 hours, 60 minutes/seconds etc [and obscure 'degrees'] for that very reason...
[/off:2hxvcf0c]
I can still 'conjure' with the olde fractional feet-and-inches - but 'metric' IS so much easier... -
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
when handing out a cultist..
Yeah, I saw that too. You posted faster than I could.
Handing out cultists.... what a concept.
-
@thomthom said:
@unknownuser said:
when handing out a cultist..
haha. good catch!
(I think i need a context checker on my computer as opposed to a spell checker
) -
At least you weren't handing out a cutlass [pirate theme...]
-
.
ok, so here's a real world scenario showing why the offset tool w/ arcs is a no go… inferencing doesn't work because if i inference for the arc, everything else goes sour & viceversa..
…and that's a basic slice of a real world drawing.. this perimeter wall would actually be a lot bigger and possibly more complex in a full drawing.. the whole process has to be done manually where as if the offset tool worked properly, it'd be a big timesaver..
EDIT ugh.. that uploaded version of my skp didn't have any of my notes on there.. ?? i'll sort it out soon..
EDIT #2 -- ok.. fixed
-
@tig said:
I can still 'conjure' with the olde fractional feet-and-inches - but 'metric' IS so much easier...
my daughter is learning length & volume in school right now..
her homework the past two weeks has been all metric stuff.. (you know.. how to move a decimal point around )i just wish they were teaching her metric as 'the way things are' as opposed to 'here, you might see this stuff occasionally'.
-
That's a very good example Jeff
-
The USA is already quite 'metric'...
You have had 'decimal' money forever.
You buy coke/pop in 'liters'.
Your cars have 'cc' engine data.
The US Army measure horizontal distances in 'meters' [but then heights in 'feet' - as do aircraft the world over!].
Most complex science in conducted in 'metric'.
So I expect that much of the US space-program is 'metric' too...Now if only we can get you into using a few 'metric lengths'...
I find it surprising that given the US's break with the UK just as the French were pushing their newfangled 'metric' system, that the US didn't adopt it too, much of the rest of the world did...
We are not trying to get you to adopt a decimal time or calendar system -
Remember the Mars Climat Orbiter
Some millions $ in smoking vapors for error between unities in translation! -
@tig said:
So I expect that much of the US space-program is 'metric' too...
:right. much of it is. unfortunately, not all of it.
we crashed a probe into mars by accident due to some imperial/metric conflictsre:length.
all of our official land surveys etc are metric as well.. it's just the tradesmen that won't switch. I think most of us would be into switching but most of our materials are still sold imperial only.it's pretty much the govt and manufacturers of building materials that need to lead the way.
Edit. well, I see frenchy has beaten me to the mars thing
-
@unknownuser said:
That's a very good example Jeff
maybe one of these days I'll get the point across that I've been trying to
-
@arcad-uk said:
I can see the argument from both sides for arc offsets because in the past I've wanted both results. Ideally SU will be given true arcs at some point. But from this thread I now understand why things are the way they are and on balance from an architectural perspective I prefer to have any offset from an arc create a consistent (wall) thickness which is what happens now rather than tapering the arc section to maintain a vertex offset.
I guess I'm now flogging a dead horse but the way it works now doesn't give a consistent wall thickness. see my last upload in this thread which shows an example using an actual wall.
-
Hey, what's better than a dead horse to beat! Anyhoo, wouldn't you use follow-me in a case such as the one you show? That way you are certain to have a consistent profile along the path.
-
@andybot said:
Hey, what's better than a dead horse to beat! Anyhoo, wouldn't you use follow-me in a case such as the one you show? That way you are certain to have a consistent profile along the path.
it would be nice if I could. but if I were to put a 2x6 profile at the end of one of those perimeter edges (in my latest example skp) then run follow me, it would produce the exact same (bad) geometry as offsetting the perimeter then push/pulling the face upwards.
these two tools (offset/followme)use the same brain..
-
oh. learn something new every day... I guess this one is a dead horse of the highest order. Oh well, back to ACAD.
Edit: oh hell, I'm back for more. The profile width is absolutely correct with follow me, but why is it not correct in your example? (5.489")
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
That's a very good example Jeff
maybe one of these days I'll get the point across that I've been trying to
Your first example, the one that you think is correct, doesn't have a constant wall thickness.
The other one (by your standards being incorrect) does indeed have a constant wall thickness.I can see the occasional need for offsetting an arc to get predictable new arcs instead of curves with unpredictable radii. But here in your example the wall thickness is correct by using SketchUp's basic 'Offset' tool.
Why do you measure/dimension its thickness not perpendicular to its surface?
Advertisement