Offline
Is there a way to alter the code so that one could limit the choices for solid fill color? I typically only use 3-4 colors in my models, depending on what I'm doing. I can leave it default, and change later, but it would be nice not to have the long list pop when I do want to switch.
I've looked at the code, see where the materials get called, but do not know enough to enter a list of specific options.
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
@tfdesign said:
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
Yeah, I was just amazed that folks jumped in with all sorts of 'building' ideas, images, etc. before any of this was discussed. These things that I've mentioned (and many many more) - should inform the building, the materials, the siting, etc.
I'm not suggesting any one of those things I mentioned - just using them as examples as starting places. Context should drive design. Not some 'insane' idea for a form being plopped down on the site.
But you've got to give a designer credit. If you're given a large empty canvas, the first reaction is to come up with some great design ideas and possibilities. The list of things you provided, although probably most important, will always come second. It's the nature of the game
And thats why I mentioned ego vomit.
What are great design ideas and opportunities without context and use? Empty shells... buildings unrelated to culture, history, environment, use patterns, etc.
Architects aren't (or shouldn't be) mad scientist sculptors working in complete isolation from the realities where their 'creations' sit.
@tfdesign said:
I wouldn't call those "insane". I would have thought that those are rather valid points?
Yeah, I was just amazed that folks jumped in with all sorts of 'building' ideas, images, etc. before any of this was discussed. These things that I've mentioned (and many many more) - should inform the building, the materials, the siting, etc.
I'm not suggesting any one of those things I mentioned - just using them as examples as starting places. Context should drive design. Not some 'insane' idea for a form being plopped down on the site.
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
But yes, if you must, advocate for more ego vomit all over the landscape.
Erm, bit confused here..... why are you on a forum that's very nature is about designing and building? It seems rather odd that you are here and not hanging out with all the doom Malthusians on other forums....
I was offering up 'insane' ideas.
Note that nowhere in the first post did the OP mention program, use, budget, typical resident profile (families, empty nesters, rich hipsters, etc.), history of the parcel, connections to transit, cars, roads, ... (s)he jumped right to wanting to make this 'wow look at the shiny crazy insane thing over there'. No concern for the people who will live with it, live in it, drive by it, walk through it, have to interface with it every day. Architectural Tyranny.
Here's an insane idea - lets find out what the hell the needs are of the site, people expected to live / work / play here, client, and interconnected local community might be. Then lets talk about how those parts inter-relate with the existing site - the ecology, the river, the existing infrastructure. Then lets work up some program for how / what the best uses of the site may be - so we aren't building in the flood plain, or having to design expensive foundations in a seismic zone, or maybe so we respect the natural flow of water on the site. Then lets overlay how people might use whats left over of the site taking those parameters into consideration. Then we can map out potential use areas. Then we can start talking about individual buildings, and what they might look like, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to the greater context of the larger surrounding community(ies).
Otherwise, we'll end up with a tribute to someone's 'insane architectural vision' - with little regards for the people who will spend parts of their lives living in the OPs asylum.
,
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
the reason notes have such power in music is because of the spaces in between.
Although in this case, I entirely agree with you ie the relationship in music between the spaces between notes, having more power then when crammed together in something that is over produced. I also agree that there is a very strong connection between music and architecture.
However determining a connection between planning for a housing estate and music being over produced, well perhaps I can see what you are saying, but from how I read your statement, you were suggesting that it would be better not to build at all? I'm struggling to see a connection there- apart from perhaps likening your idea to an architectural version of John Cage's 4:33 minutes?
The very nature of this forum is to design and build, through the medium that has come to be known as "SketchUp'ing". I suppose one could sit in front of a VDU, and simply stare for hours at a blank screen and do nothing....but what would be the point in that?
In this asylum, everyone builds.
The insane thing to do is the thing that no one is doing.
That is how we would know it is insane. Otherwise, it is business as usual, just another Architecturally Shaped Structure dotting the landscape.
But yes, if you must, advocate for more ego vomit all over the landscape.
I'm sure John Cage posted to a forum to source all of his groundbreaking work.
@tfdesign said:
@bmike said:
What if you did nothing? Left the site alone. Let the world be. Proposed not to build, but to experience the place as it is.
You'd be a very boring anti-progressive with no friends (or money) loner.
Who wants to live like that?
the reason notes have such power in music is because of the spaces in between.
@dave r said:
My point in suggesting the testing was for him to prove to himself than the post will support the weight. He was talking about gluing up 3/4" thick oak. With the small amount of weight he proposes to put on it, there's no way it would buckle.
Assuming the post is securely anchored to some sort of base so that it can't tip over, there will be no problem with the post supporting the TV. There are boats with unstayed masts around 3" diameter. Those masts can support much more than 50 lbs of load laterally with no problem.
ahh.
got it.
+1 on no TV.
been TV free for 12? years now.
What if you did nothing? Left the site alone. Let the world be. Proposed not to build, but to experience the place as it is.
That would be a radical departure from business as usual.
@dave r said:
Most of the weight will be in compression and won't be a big deal. I don't think you'll need to worry about the column breaking. The bigger concern is how do you plan to keep the thing from tipping over? What do you intend to make the base out of and how?
To convince yourself of the strength of your wood, get a piece of 1x4 oak maybe 6' long. Clamp it securely to the work bench so it is sticking out of the end by 4 feet. Hang a 5 gallon pail at the end. Put a small clamp on the end of the board to prevent the bail on the bucket from sliding off. Now start putting weight into it. Test to destruction if your bucket is big enough.
Which will be fine for testing a cantilever beam... does the OP need to test a column?
Most likely if the post is short, even small dimensions can work - so long as the post doesn't buckle.
And you'll need to either have a moment connection to the floor, or some sort of bracing, as noted by others.
@tig said:
Thanks bmike.
Bmike was on v1.6
Edson - do you have the latest copy of HolePunch ? It should be v2.0 http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?p=271170#p271170...
1.7 20110121 Observers are now first removed then added to avoid duplication and rare clashes with other scripts.
1.8 20110208 Finding Cutting Component's 'loop' edges to match with punched hole algorithm improved to avoid glitches if multiple edges in the Z=0 plane.
1.9 20110209 Context-menu code recast to avoid exacerbating gray-out issue.
2.0 20110309 Punched hole algorithm improved for nested groups/components.These 4 updates since then might have already fixed the 'clash' issue
Tough for me to keep up with all the updates and plugins!!!
Glad we solved my problem. Hopefully this works for Edson!!!
OK, running your latest update of the #HolePunch.rb things seem to be working fine.
I've attached the previous version I had which appeared to cause the issues.
@tig said:
I assume you don't have the 'Outliner' window open whilst you are doing these operations - that is a known and notorious cause of crashes...
The HolePunch tool does use observers to ensure that the cutting component and its 'hole' are 'linked' they select, move together etc.
I assume the objects you are trying to 'boolean' are simple non-cutting instances that haven't any 'hole-punching' connections... The HolePunchSelectionObserver only kicks in if certain prerequisites are met like component behavior and paired attributes... There is also a tools Observer that spots if you are 'copying' punched-objects... but again I don't see how that might kick in in this case...
Clearly Hole Punching works 'safely' on my PC and also for many other users, I am [currently] at a loss as to why it might be causing this in your specific case[s]... I get Edson's example to boolean perfectly in all varieties with HolePunching enabled ???
The code is 'open' so if Google spot what might be up I'd be more than grateful...
Outliner closed (only open when I really need it!)
The model and examples I posted did not have any objects that had made use of the HolePunch tool - I can create a new model, a few solids, and if HolePunch is in the folder, it will crash.
As I said - to have the solids tools work with HolePunch in my Plugins folder, I need to use groups, and not components to perform the solid operation. This may be a clue, but I'm not a programmer...
My guess - HolePunch and SolidTools conflict with how they handle creating copies of components while performing their operations.
I'm not sure which version of HolePunch I'm running - but I will go back to the thread and find your latest update and see if this causes any problems.
@edson said:
I am more than thankful to him for all the time I have saved using his numerous scripts.
+1,000, for sure. lots of helpful things from TIG have passed through my SketchUp models.
@edson said:
@jbacus said:
Hi again,
Tricia is running through a couple tests, and it does seem likely on our end that there may be a conflicting plugin installed. Can you share with us the list of plugins that you have installed when you see crashing or other instability with Solid Tools?
thanks-
john
.john,
I have 325 items on my plugins folder. do you want me to post a sequence of screen shots of it? just say the word and I will do it.
Are you using TIGs HolePunch? I found that to be the problem.
Confirmed. Put #HolePunchTool.rb back in my Plugin folder and it immediately crashed on a SolidTools operation.
Could it be the way SketchUp handles renaming components?
My prior work around was to explode and create group(s) - do the operation, then re-make the components.
This method worked - but as soon as I had components to do the operation(s), I would crash.
Dell Precision M6400, Vista Something, SketchUp Pro8...latest.
Seems that the problem is with TIGs hole punch tool. I removed it, and things seem to be working fine.
@jbacus said:
@bmike said:
OK, I just swapped my backup folder of Plugins from my original SketchUp install. All is working fine on that model I posted.
So... there is a conflicting plugin somewhere...
Here's what I was running:Hi again,
Tricia is running through a couple tests, and it does seem likely on our end that there may be a conflicting plugin installed. Can you share with us the list of plugins that you have installed when you see crashing or other instability with Solid Tools?
thanks-
john
.
See the list above. That is what is in my folder when I crash. No problems when I run with the originals. I'm in the process of moving them over 1 by 1 now...
