[Plugin] TIG-Smart_offset

jpalm32

Ditto. Fix the core! Can't even fix the Icon scramble, how hard can that be?

jeff hammond

@dave r said:

This angle frequently causes issues in Offset as well as other things like Follow Me.

@tig said:

The problem is having a circle intersect a line squarely is that the distance between the two parallel segments ...

regarding that angle.. (which is proper as you guys know.. but in case anyone else is listening..)

what irks me is that the developers have done some things regarding the way arcs work in a polygon modeler which are correct.. for instance..

• if you use the arc tangent snap, (draw a straight line, choose the arc tool, click on one end of the line, find the light blue 'tangent at vertex' snap) then the first arc segment will not be inline with the straight line.. the first angle of the arc will be placed in the proper position.. it's accurate.. etc.

• entity info gives correct length of arc as opposed to sum of segment length (granted, this is just a little math calculation they're doing but still...)

• the arc's centerpoint is given accurately and it's not perpendicular to the end segments of the arc.. again, this is proper and accurate

• using the arc tool's half-circle snap... you don't end up with the end segments being parallel.. they're bent inward.. in other words, sketchup is calculating the position of the arc's vertices and not the segments-- as it should... but then you try to offset an arc and it moves the segments instead of the vertices ?tf

• when you're positioning an arc or circle (setting the bulge part of the arc), you're moving a vertex around.. not a segment

• the cardinal points are on a vertex, not a segment

so, they did do some things which are right and directly deal with the issues i have but why half-arse* it ?? follow through please and tidy up the rest of it.. thank you

*my use of arse instead of ass was meant to be a way to make a more mellow/ less mad sounding statement.. not sure if it works right but that was the intent

TIG

Here's v1.9 http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=446462#p446462
An obscure error in the code when the tool's method called from within another script has been fixed fixed [when the face.parent.entities!=model.active_entities !].
Other users of the toolbar/menu options will find no difference in its operation with this update.

rv1974

may be it'd help in bug hunting.
Attachment: inner offset is not correct, no outer offset at all
(values: +-20)

tig2.skp

Jean-Franco

looking at your skp and welding part of the segments you'll see different results.

rv1974

@jean-franco said:

looking at your skp and welding part of the segments you'll see different results.
[attachment=0:2t1zi3eq]TIG-Smart_offset_example.jpg[/attachment:2t1zi3eq]

I exploded those arches and no offset get executed

Jean-Franco

@rv1974 said:

@jean-franco said:

looking at your skp and welding part of the segments you'll see different results.
[attachment=0:3fig2342]TIG-Smart_offset_example.jpg[/attachment:3fig2342]

I exploded those arches and no offset get executed

Yes, the same behavior for me.

TIG

I'm investigating...

TIG

Here's v2.0 http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=446462#p446462
Just ready for the New Year

It has further refinements and glitch trapping.
The recent reports of malformations were caused by the face having very 'sharp' spikes, which were returning a false negative when testing for their offset vertices for the new outline's points. This is now fixed, but it has meant that the point-on-face 'checking tolerance' has had to be increased to 0.5mm - so it could now fail on a face that has a 'finger' that is narrower than 0.5mm, when measured along adjacent vertices' internal-angle-bisectors - but that is very very unlikely anyway...

rv1974

the last one is much better!
things to refine:
no outer offset in attached shape

tig4.skp

mapi_79

great job, as always TIG. Thank you and Good Year

TIG

Here's v2.1 http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=446462#p446462
This version now has the same vertex checking tolerances applied to curves' vertices as to plain edges... [I accidentally missed that code out in the previous version].
Hopefully it now also works with the recent problem offset examples posted: mind you, these are getting somewhat 'extreme'
Feedback please

ken

TIG

I have been following the updates, and the plugin still has this output with my model. I am not sure this is correct or is a problem.

Thanks for your work.

Ken

Image 1.png

Dave R

@unknownuser said:

TIG

I have been following the updates, and the plugin still has this output with my model. I am not sure this is correct or is a problem.

Thanks for your work.

Ken

Ken, I'm curious. If you were to draw that out with paper and pencil, what would you expect that amount of offset to look like?

TIG

@Ken
That's not right.
The offset is not maintained evenly - it's too near the 'spikes'.

I can't get the effect...
However, I do get the outline failing at some point sooner than it ought, when the inward facing 'spikes' get so large they cut through to the other side of the shape...
I looking to see what's up with that...
Outward offsets are also problematical on that shape...

rv1974

@tig said:

Here's v2.1 http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=446462#p446462
This version now has the same vertex checking tolerances applied to curves' vertices as to plain edges... [I accidentally missed that code out in the previous version].
Hopefully it now also works with the recent problem offset examples posted: mind you, these are getting somewhat 'extreme'
Feedback please

It starts to look like quest game
Step by step it's getting better.
Inner ofsetting (value:-25) in my last attachment is not 100% correct.
P.S. Thank you
And Happy New Year!

Dave R

Maybe you just need to change the name of the plugin to TIG_Random _Shape_Generator.rb.

I also got something similar to your second one, TIG, when I used a larger offset distance.

TIG

I've got my algorithms in a twist [very painful!]
Trying to unravel the mess...
I'll update asap...

ken

@dave r said:

@unknownuser said:

TIG

I have been following the updates, and the plugin still has this output with my model. I am not sure this is correct or is a problem.

Thanks for your work.

Ken

Ken, I'm curious. If you were to draw that out with paper and pencil, what would you expect that amount of offset to look like?

Dave

Well I don't know. That is why I questioned, just what is an offset in an earlier post. Like I said, I only use offset to define a distance to place another object. I know that an offset will eventually distort the shape, so I don't use it to make a larger version of the shape.

I just feel that the attached offset is not what I expected. And it may come to past, that after doing an offset, no matter which tool is used, an individual will need to clean up the edges.

A side note, it would be nice if an offset could be made with guidelines, that way I would get my distance, and be able to delete the offset lines later.

Ken

jeff hammond

@tig said:

@Ken
That's not right.
The offset is not maintained evenly - it's too near the 'spikes'.
.

actually, that's pretty close to being right (aside from the whole arc offset business i got into earlier..)

if that arc is a half circle then i offset the same distance as the two top squares are wide then the solution would be this: (the white is inset from the blue shape)

[EDIT] -- i updated the image to include dimensions