Barley Twist Spirals
-
The unneeded edges I was referring to can be seen if you turn on Hidden Geometry (View menu)
Also more missing faces at the bottom.
If you used components instead of groups you would reduce much of the work needed to draw this. That applies to other things, too.
-
@dave r said:
The unneeded edges I was referring to can be seen if you turn on Hidden Geometry (View menu)
Also more missing faces at the bottom.
[attachment=1:zqm4jyv1]<!-- ia1 -->unneeded.png<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:zqm4jyv1]
[attachment=0:zqm4jyv1]<!-- ia0 -->unneeded2.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:zqm4jyv1]If you used components instead of groups you would reduce much of the work needed to draw this. That applies to other things, too.
Are you saying that using groups instead of components is the reason for the unneeded edges?
-
No. But when you use groups instead of components and need to edit them, you have to touch every copy of them to make the changes. If you use components you only need to edit to modify all copies. If you look at the twist I posted you'll see it is made of three identical parts. Each is a component so modifications to one will propagate to the others.
You could split the barley twist into smaller identical units to make construction and editing easier and faster. It'll also result in a lower file size.
-
@dave r said:
No. But when you use groups instead of components and need to edit them, you have to touch every copy of them to make the changes. If you use components you only need to edit to modify all copies. If you look at the twist I posted you'll see it is made of three identical parts. Each is a component so modifications to one will propagate to the others.
You could split the barley twist into smaller identical units to make construction and editing easier and faster. It'll also result in a lower file size.
For a two start twist, my workflow was to create a one turn twist, group, hide the edges that would join the copies, copy and rotate 180 degrees, copy those two twist and array upwards. It seems since I have hidden the adjoining lines at first this shouldn't be a problem. (But in fact, I see that the finish model shows even rendered where those hidden lines are.)
I understand the concept of using components and the advantage in terms of editing one propagates to all. My thinking was to edit the group first then copy and avoid "make unique" for the bottom and top since the top and bottom have to be uniquely edited? Is my thinking right here? Am I missing something else? -
My preference would be to make a component from the git go and make the copies. Make Unique is a trivial thing when it comes to that. For a model such as yours, starting with components makes it easier to see how the whole thing is developing as you edit. If something isn't going the way you expect, the earlier you figure that out, the easier it is to back up and fix it.
i started to write more about using components instead of groups but I won't get on my soapbox about that now.
I'll just say I have never once in more than 9 years of using SketchUp found a situation where a group made more sense than a component. -
Here is your model with some corrections and the use of components,note it is 650Kb instead of 1950.
-
@dave r said:
My preference would be to make a component from the git go and make the copies. Make Unique is a trivial thing when it comes to that. For a model such as yours, starting with components makes it easier to see how the whole thing is developing as you edit. If something isn't going the way you expect, the earlier you figure that out, the easier it is to back up and fix it.
i started to write more about using components instead of groups but I won't get on my soapbox about that now.
I'll just say I have never once in more than 9 years of using SketchUp found a situation where a group made more sense than a component.Got it, will do
Thanks -
Gilles version of your model illustrates very clearly the reduction in file size that I mentioned earlier.
And even 100 of them is only 820 Kb. That's a couple of hours of production in your shop, right?
-
@gilles said:
Here is your model with some corrections and the use of components,note it is 650Kb instead of 1950.
Looks better than mine. So you redid the spiral?
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
found a situation where a group made more sense than a component.
You have some plugins who works only with groups!
You're right. And when I use them I wind up converting the groups to components. I'd be happier if a component was just created by the plugin.
I haven't found a need to use any plugins that only work on groups.
-
@dave r said:
Gilles version of your model illustrates very clearly the reduction in file size that I mentioned earlier.
And even 100 of them is only 820 Kb. That's a couple of hours of production in your shop, right?
Wish I could make them that fast. I missing something - would like to know your work flow on the spiral
-
I'd be happy to show you. I can't do it at the moment, though. Maybe another live demo with you or I'll make a video.
-
@unknownuser said:
found a situation where a group made more sense than a component.
You have some plugins who works only with groups!
-
@dave r said:
I'd be happy to show you. I can't do it at the moment, though. Maybe another live demo with you or I'll make a video.
Dave
That'd be great!! -
and here for example after explode the original component for paint each faces
I don't need to make a component again, but just a group!
-
-
-
I just want to thank you all for this thread. It has been a great learning experience.
-
-
This thread is hot! Another point I would make is with screw.rb one can then make a component of spiral section that would stack directly beneath the other (without turning) and so you could increase, vary the height (within a module) easily.
I assume that can be done with Gilles' version.
Advertisement