I considered orienting it the other way, but decided it didn't make much of a difference. After all, I don't like texturing models very much. In fact, I barely ever texture them.
As for what it will be, I'm not sure yet. Something interesting and Roman. I don't really have any plans since it was intended to just be a test model.
Gaieus:
Wow! Great stuff, thanks. I didn't think to get the pendentives by cutting up a sphere. Do you think that my pseudo-pendentives are acceptable as they are, or should I really try to make them proper? I don't suppose it would change the model much. I tried expanding on it a little and didn't really encounter any problems.
Hi. I recently made a model to test pendentives—that is, those concave triangly shapes formed when you try to put a dome on top of four arches so it fits nicely over a square. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out any way to make these in Sketchup except by hand. I think the model looks all right, but I'm not very experienced with Sketchup, so there may be a glaring error I'm just not seeing. I am including five pictures—three in wireframe and two with faces to give you an idea of what I did.
^This is a picture from the side of my model with wireframe and hidden geometry on.
^This is a picture from the underside looking up into the dome with wireframe and hidden geometry on.
http://i.imgur.com/UOGPM.png (large)
^This is a picture from the underside looking directly toward a pendentive with wireframe and hidden geometry on. As you might've guessed, the pendentive is hidden geometry because I wanted it to look as smooth as possible with faces on.
^This is a picture of the model from above it. It shows the outer dome and arches and such with faces on and hidden geometry off.
http://i.imgur.com/RXT7v.png (large)
^This is a picture of the model from slightly below it. It looks up into the dome and shows at least partially shows all four pendentives.
Are there any problems with my method? Is there an easier way to do it?
Hey guys! Just stopping by and sharing how the third circle came to be:
You can probably trace what I did here... I was following Jean Lemire's guide (thank you very much for that, by the way!) and found a pretty simple method. I drew the tangent of the first circle you suggested I use and then drew a line from the radius of the second circle off to the right along the red axis. I found the radius of the third circle was exactly one-half the radius of the second, so I made a line of that distance and aligned it to the green axis at the point where the tangent and the radius-line-thingy met. The other end of that line was the center of the circle, and from there I drew the shape. 
That may be unclear, and if so, I apologize... I didn't bother to label the lines or anything. The only thing that bothers me is that the first and third circles don't exactly meet up, but it's understandable considering they're all using under 40 sides. It's not very noticeable from afar anyway.
The cables should be made of carbon nanotube fibers. 
Just curious: what are you trying to do there? Create two intersecting pipes?
Anyone else wishing for an easy way to bisect angles? 
@jean lemire said:
Hi folks.
See this SU file for ideas:
Perfect! Thank you! That helped a lot. Everything is much clearer now. Also, d12dozr, interesting plugin. I'll try it out sometime.
@gaieus said:
First of all, I would use a circle with a segment count that is divisible by ten (around the cinquefoils, there are those ten pikes or what that should conveniently adjust to the segment count of the surrounding circle). Then of course you still need some bulging - say at least 3 segments between each - that would be 30 segments for a circle. Or 40 maybe but considering the overall complexity of the whole shape, I would not go over that.
Thanks for the suggestion on the segment number; by default, I use powers of 2, but I'll go with 30. Still not sure how I would go about making the circle, though, which was my original question (sorry if it was unclear). I can't figure out how to find the center point nor the length of the radius (although I could make it if I had either). In case you're curious, I'm assuming the diameter of the main circle is 16 units.
See those cinquefoils in the corners of that window? I know how to draw those in Sketchup (I was also able to make trefoils and quatrefoils), but I can't figure out what the darn radius for the thing would be. As you can see, they're the optimal size available for a circle in the area provided. Any suggestions on how to do this? I'm still a newbie when it comes to stuff like this... so help is much appreciated. Thank you!
@tig said:
You can already draw it using three similar Polygons and the built-in inferencing - see this example...[attachment=0:2d3mez6r]<!-- ia0 -->PolyApothemExample.PNG<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:2d3mez6r]
Wow! Clever trick there. I'll try that later. Thank you.
@unknownuser said:
@catmando said:
So, what do you think?
protractor and guide lines.
i dunno, working with simple angles is pretty easy in sketchup. i think a hexagonal axis (?) would be more confusing than helpful (or maybe i don't understand what you mean by hexagonal axis)
I used guidelines with my snowflake. Very handy at first, but they quickly became a pain, and they don't have the advantage of lines matching their angle spontaneously as with axes.
As for a hexagonal axis, well, it's hard to describe. You know how the degrees between each line that forms the current axis is 90, 180, 270, or 360 degrees? Well, in a hexagonal axis, the degrees between each would be 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, or 360 degrees apart (arranged equally around a point of origin, of course). I tried to make one with guidelines earlier in Sketchup, but it wasn't working out very well, as you can imagine.
First off, I searched and couldn't find a suggestion like this. I saw a similar one posted, but it was really not what I was thinking of.
Okay, so, yesterday I was doodling in Sketchup. I was trying to make a pretty snowflake with hexagonal symmetry, but it wasn't working well. Sketchup was, as usual, addicted to our wonderful default axis with its wonderful 90 degree angles that are only remotely useful when making something like a snowflake, where the world revolves around 60 degrees.
Later, I was messing around with 8-fold buildings. I was okay at first, laying out the blueprint of the building (which was basically an octagon with rectangles sticking out of the ends) and then giving it some height. Of course, as the building got more complex (I cut off one of its "legs" and as it grew taller I removed a few things to make the facade stick out), it got harder and harder to make what I want. I rely a lot on inferring and that-all, so when I'm trying to make something 60 or 45 or whatever degrees and Sketchup just doesn't get it, I can't do anything about it. The closest we have to a solution are being able to put down our own axes, but as you know, those are just the same old thing, with the added (read: almost useless for me) advantage of being at a custom angle.
I propose that we are able to make axes of varying types; hexagonal ones, for example, where the distance between each one at any given point is 60 degrees, not 90; or octagonal, where it's 45; or, hell, dodecagonal if we so please.
So, what do you think?
@mitcorb said:
I don't know of such a tool.
Do I understand that you wish to generate a 2D polygon using a script that utilizes the apothem as a parameter?
May I ask why you do not wish to use the native Sketchup tool for polygons, aside from the possibility that it does not employ the apothem?
You can draw any polygon, make it a group, draw its apothem inside the group, measure the length, edit the value control box display and Sketchup should rescale the group proportionally to the desired apothem value.
Is this too much work? Even with tools, ya still gotta do some knitting.
I could do all that. I think I'd be better off with a tool to do it, though. I'm sorry to hear that there is no such tool. I guess I can manage, right? Thanks!
Hiya. I've been looking around on this forum for a certain plugin: a way to draw polygons by their apothem (the length of a line perpendicular to one of a polygon's sides, or in Sketchup terms, a line from the center point to the midpoint of an outer segment) instead of the radius. I searched this forum quite a bit and can't seem to find any mention of such a tool.
I know there is a fancy formula provided on Wikipedia for converting the radius length of a polygon to apothem, but it seems this forum loooves shortcuts (not that it's a bad thing ) and this would certainly help me and probably many others make stuff. Thanks in advance!
Also: if this is the wrong forum, I apologize. I am a newbie and this subforum's description says you can ask a question here.