Offline
I am afraid I still don't get it - old age I guess.
Image on left in its skp component file has an understandable bounding box but not when imported into main skp file on right. I cannot get the thing to sit in the centre of the shelf. Other face me components are similar.
Enlightenment will be much appreciated.
@dave r said:
@chrisglasier said:
But how do you get rid of mm as default - which, if I remember correctly, is contrary to ISO standards.
Do you mean you don't want to show the units? In Window>Model Info>Units, untick "Display units format."
As concisely helpful as I remember. Thanks.
But how do you get rid of mm as default - which, if I remember correctly, is contrary to ISO standards.
Thanks again TIG. I had a look at edges helper but I don't think there's anything there (at least that I can understand!). I posted http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43152833/sketchup-model-collada-three-js-no-edges. Maybe it's more a Threejs oriented question.
@tig said:
Can we have the original SKP ?
Thanks TIG. Here's the skp. I think the thin/thick lines may be a result of my changing things to see if the scaling was the problem - ie perhaps not comparing like with like. No edges is what really matters to me.
Will have to check in again tomorrow ... GMT +8 here
I hope the images are self explanatory.
If anyone can give me a hint what's happening here I would be most grateful ...
I don't want to be accused of hiding my light under a bushel! So I am posting this video again (previously buried in the skel topic)
Here's a scheme for individuals to lay out what they want to achieve (rather than how they currently achieve it) to define contexts and actions that can be individually automated by the coding savvy community - a kind of Web enabled joint venture in which individuals take control and coders get new markets to service with a wider spectrum of useful apps. In considering this please first consider whether it was the IT sector that give us ATMs or the banks who got them to automate banking ideas and expertise.
I want it to encourage a movement that involves individuals as active participants in the development of the Web, to give coders more useful things to automate if nothing else.
For example, just recently Kineticjs, a 2D platform for html5, stopped work on its development. (It displays and animates the trainset nameset in the video). Basically, Eric could find no commercial rationale - Google is not going to buy everything! It's archived OK but basically a waste of talent and effort unless I can find it a new purpose. Have a look at threejs ... awesome indeed but it really needs people to define useful things to do with it if it is to avoid the same fate. Even NWJS that webifies desktops seems destined just to create more look-a-like text editors and so forth. (How many do the Yodas need?)
I am not sure whether this has much to do with Sketchup itself but I think there are members of Sketchucation who understand the need for a more healthy balance between individuals' information (expertise) and our amazing new found technology.
Please help by giving the video a big view count, since this seems the only way a lonesome innovator gets a chance to be taken seriously! .
Thanks
Added May 24 2015
@duanekemp said:
Thank you for the heads up.
Here is a preview of the video I mentioned.
Skel appears around 3.00 in a collage showing different types of multimedia using html5 in node-webkit desktop windows instead of separately launched applications.
I'm a bit concerned about the soundtrack. Is it acceptable on an amateur basis?
@duanekemp said:
... But can you share what the advances have been since?
Well this was a small foray into an area that is important to what I have been trying to achieve for ages. As an infographist you may be interested in having a look at my video channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbK31Yy8yfs81mVBaXw3DXA). I am currently working on a new entry which consolidates everything into the node-webkit approach. This means individuals can use their desktops as part of the Web something like people use their smart phones as part of telecommunications. I hope a few weeks more will allow me to explain this properly!
The new title is OK but aren't you really looking for "An Alternative to Sketchup"?
@olishea said:
I just have a vision of a completely different 3D app that remains approachable, easy to use, dynamic, simple and innovative. An app that becomes as complex as YOU want it to be. An app that evolves with the times, evolves with your computer power, evolves with trends in 3D modelling. Forget the jargon, forget the conventions, we need something fresh; a whole new way to model in 3D.
You would be really better off to forget about a single 3D app and think about a web operating system that describes the component or collection of components and their properties and methods, links in a library like three.js to generate 3D graphics and selects small apps to translate methods to direct the library's functionality. By breaking up the competences in this way development is distributed amongst interested parties to evolve over time in line with all the prerequisites of your vision.
Use Chrome.
Open glasier.hk
Click image.
Open Models for brief explanation.
Open Glasier Nameset to open workshop.
Then Model > Face0 ...
It should eventually display as attached screenshot.
@juan974 said:
i m looking for it too, it s three.js :
https://sites.google.com/site/dessinsgillestarnus/home/test-3d-sketchup
http://threejs.org/it s quite like adobe pdf3D SDK :
(sample here http://a8z888yc17.1fichier.com/) acrobat 8.1 minimum
This is something I am working on using three.js which you may find helpful/interesting. Free for developing.
The Celebration is the 25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web. What got ignored was these two recommendations for WWW open data by UK's Digital Champion:
@unknownuser said:
open data has huge power but needs to move from technologists to mainstream
the uk cannot rest on its digital laurels. we must equip the private, public and not for profit sector with the skills to handle technology better
I am sure this is Britspeak for "Release the stranglehold on WWW development". By following up I feel like one of those British who voted Churchill out of office after VE day. But please consider:
The first makes sense because the majority of data belongs to the general public with more being produced every day. Many would be grateful if more non-creative tasks were automated. There's eBanking; why not eBuilding for example? In eBanking banks provide the data and options; technologists provide the automation. Those in the building industry could also provide their own data and options if there was the means to activate them on WWW; when this happens whole new fields open for the enthusiastic app makers (cf. the plug-in people here). But it means practitioners and technologists need to joint venture to set this up and I see no discussion let alone recognition of that.
This web page (screenshot) working as an activator is a response to her second recommendation. Plain text words are automatically made into hyperlinks when the file is uploaded. The skill is in reorganising processes to allow technology to help automate them (just like Banks did with ATMs).
Re-organisation needs to be object oriented to marry with www automating code and this naturally leads onto greater popularity and demand for 3D models (the main reason I experimented with Sketchup and joined Sketchucation many years ago). But right now the WWW Consortium does not seem to want to acknowledge re-organisation as a way to determine meaning, favouring this approach:
initiated 12+ years ago.
Ironically it was the 25th Anniversary that made me think about these things and I am interested to hear what others also think about it. For example, isn't "Web for all" like offering Sketchup Make for free but to use it you have first to be highly proficient with Ruby?
Two builders go into the pub after a hard day's work. They're sat drinking for a while when a very smartly dressed man walks in and orders a drink. The two began to speculate about what the man did for a living.
"I'll bet he's an accountant." said the first builder.
"Looks more like a stockbroker to me." argued the second. They continued to debate the subject for a good while until eventually the first builder needed to use the toilet. On walking in, he saw the smartly dressed man standing at a urinal.
"Excuse me mate, but me and my friend have been arguing over what a smartly dressed fella like you does for a living?" the builder said to the man.
Smiling the man replied, "I'm a logical scientist."
"A what?" asked the builder.
"Let me explain" the man continued, "Do you have a goldfish at home?"
A bit puzzled, but intrigued the builder decided to play along, "Yes, I do as it happens."
"Well then it's logical to assume that you either keep it in a bowl or a pond. Which is it?"
"A pond" the builder replied.
"Well then it's logical to assume that you have a large garden." The builder nodded his agreement. So the man continued, "which means it's logical to assume you have a large house."
"I have a 6 bedroom house that I built myself." the builder said proudly.
"Given that you have such a large house, it's logical to assume that you are married..."
The builder nodded again, "Yes, I'm married and we have three children."
"Then it's logical to assume that you have a healthy sex life."
"Five nights a week!" the builder boasted.
The man smiled a little, "Therefore it's logical to assume you don't masturbate often."
"Never!" the builder exclaimed.
"Well there you have it" the man explained, "That's logical science at work. From finding out that you have a goldfish, I've discovered the size of your garden, all about your house, your family and your sex life!"
The builder left, very impressed by the man's talents. On returning to the bar the other builder asked, "I see that smart bloke was in there, did you find out what he does?"
"Yeah," replied the first, "He's a logical scientist."
"A what?" the puzzled second builder asked.
"Let me explain" the first builder continued, "Do you have a goldfish at home?"
"No" replied his mate.
"Well, you're a wanker then!"
A man walks into a doctor's office with a carrot up his nose and a piece of celery in his ear.
The doctor says: "Well, first thing is that you're not eating properly."
Continuing the pursuit ... what do members think about verbing professional titles, like architect in particular? To engineer something has always been OK since its gerund engineering is universally understood and properly defined. But to doctor something and doctoring has sinister inferences contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. I don't care if to lawyer or vicar something becomes part of the vernacular but I find to architect software sticks in the craw.
Architects have forever had unique responsibilities to Society and have been required to undergo study and practice in arts and sciences for a long period before being qualified to serve it. It seems to me there must be some idea 'look and feel' puts an architectural edge on otherwise superb engineering, that it somehow enhances Societal well-being. I find to ennoble software engineers with 'Chief Software Architect" unnecessary and distasteful, maybe even illegal.
More than this to architect something just sounds so uncouth.
@chris fullmer said:
I don't remember when access was only a "thing".
Merriam-Webster - First known use [as verb] 1962!
