@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

AMAPI 7.5 a French program had that!
Alas only the beta 8 for some happy will be released!
And the firm shut down after a Japan buy out of team!

That should be a very cool product!

i guess another product that does something similar is bonzai.. except it combines the two 'modes' at once and you don't switch between them (i don't think).. iirc, their hook is that it's a polygon modeler with nurbs like qualities/calculations ?

a good example of what would be sweet to see happen to sketchup is bonzai3D..

the problem is, they tried to bring sketchup like qualities into formz to make bonzai.. in reality, it would be better if sketchup tried to copy bonzai.. (or i don't really know exactly what the problem is but on paper, bonzai should of had swarms of SU users switching over.. but it didn't pan out that way.. UI weirdness probably)

but their idea of nurbZ or some sort of pseudo nurbs shows that you can bring more intelligence into a simple to use polymodeler such as sketchup..

(and i'm pretty sure bonzai offsets properly as well )

They should of provided a free version just like SU has. The UI is based on planes and unfortunately it is not as intuitive as SU. Also SU masters way bigger scenes and the 3D navigation is way better in SU. If only SU would grow up a little bit more, dang.
I tried the all new FormZ last summer and dropped it right away. there was no way I was gonna be able to work as fast with that one, like I can in SU.
I also looked at Autodesks 123D, what a headache that is. So I'm sticking with SU no matter what. I know the issues and know the work arounds, hoping some day they will be gone.
The only other very easy to use, intuitive, fast work flow tool I found and also bought is MOI (moment of inspiration) it's like Rhino without the overhead of commands.

@unknownuser said:

...

it shouldn't really offer design/aesthetic variations.. that's up to the designer to decide..

Looks good to me.

Edit: I was just playing with this one ha ha https://tinkercad.com

@unknownuser said:

@desertraven said:

So I'll consult Rhino or AutoCAD, then decide what to do in SU. Very inconvenient.

sort of off topic i guess but just a little 411 on nurbs p..., they'd be accurate..

Yes, what it plots on to the screen and what it calculates are two different things. But I'm sure a sphere is always calculated from the center as is an arch or a circle.

That is why I would like the arch tool to stay true to the radii and not to the perpendicular segment reference. That is just wrong. A circle is a circle and an arch is an arch a sphere is a sphere. And if we decide to design a variation we are entitled to do so, but not the software, that has to be absolute reliable.

Edit: Here the diagram showing how the situation changes with one wall being not tangent. The Blue is the "true" circular offset. Green is the alternative wall position.
Red is the segmented same thickness wall. Yellow shows how the segmented wall needs to be called out in a plan with it's new resulting inner radius.

@unknownuser said:

@desertraven said:

I am missing the point of Garrits example, why would you solve the corner situation in a none tangential way to start with?
I've designed quite some buildings in my life and facades for wedged buildings too.
Why start out with a not tangential approach in the given situation?

in situations like this maybe?
[attachment=0:2c4ainrc]<!-- ia0 -->likethismaybe.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:2c4ainrc]

Yes, If I had a compass tool and could draw a real circle, then I could decide what arch my window set up or door will follow.

But if the arch tool is a polygon that pretends to be a curve then I'm at the mercy of the software.

So I'll consult Rhino or AutoCAD, then decide what to do in SU. Very inconvenient.

I am missing the point of Garrits example, why would you solve the corner situation in a none tangential way to start with?
I've designed quite some buildings in my life and facades for wedged buildings too.
Why start out with a not tangential approach in the given situation?
As a designer I would strive to keep the outside wall consistent, and that is what I've been talking about all along, consistency. How ever the miter in the inside results is secondary.

But still I would like to be in control of the solution vs letting SU decide.
That is why I'm crying for a compass tool. And so long I'll have to put up with work arounds and plug ins.

If you guy's ever bothered looking at my AutoCAD drawing it would strike you what is really going on and what is needed to create an accurate model.

You can clearly see the real arches that are tangentially connected to the two "walls".
The offset red segment is offset perpendicular which is wrong. if it were offset following the radius it would be correct.

Because a true arch, being completely round without the facets would have the exact offset value of the 2 units.
Tuning them into facets means you cut off the roundness in each segment, which would make the parallel distance across the facet curves smaller. Still in the vertices the distance stays true to the 2 units. Even if you changed the number of facets the edges follow the true curve, the flat distance in the resulting segments changes with the numbers.

Edit: and @ Gerrit, your example is not tangential to both walls. If they were it would be quite clear what is correct. The segmented Arch still needs to act as a real arch not like a polygon. That's why we need a compass tool to display a real circle/ arch then the user can decide what looks better and Sketchup does not need to guess.

Wo3Dan brought up a valid point, as shown in the below diagram, if the offset curve needs to convert into a polygon, there is a problem.

@wo3dan said:

@desertraven said:

...
Edit: The result needs to be an offset copy of the original arch, with the same parameters, amount of segments, just bigger or smaller depending on the side of the offset......

There are quite a few situations (more than you would like to believe) where this is NOT possible at all when dealing with segmented arcs. ...... segmented arcs.

Looks like the arch at "A" isn't tangent to the wall? Judging from the pink circle.

@jbacus said:

@gilles said:

and also a circle tool wich works like the rotate tool

John, would it be possible to incorporate a "lath / revolve" function in to the existing "protractor tool"?
It would be done by adding an option triggered by holding down the "alt" key to create revolved shapes.

Like copying using the protractor tool, one could choose how many segments one wants to create by either typing in "x" followed by number or "/" followed by number?

Well a "compass tool" that acts like the "tape-measure" tool and creates "dash lined" true circles to find intersections would be very handy.

@unknownuser said:

@jbacus said:

Really, guys- I checked out of this thread for a couple days and it... wow. I love the detail and the impassioned argument on all sides. Also, you're losing me with respect to the actual changes you want made. Maybe someone could summarize for me? It would be helpful.

john
.

basically, this:

[attachment=0:342zdrwd]<!-- ia0 -->offset_desire.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:342zdrwd]

(which would also apply to 3D offsets such as seen with the follow me tool)

Signed!

Okay, so let's say there is potential to get rid of the quirks when it comes to arches and circles.
Should not be a big deal and IMO would not change Sketchup to becoming a heavy weight application like AutoCAD.

Here another quirk that I have encountered many times in the last years and it just happened again yesterday.

I was chopping away drawing some vaults and arched doorways, when I noticed that something was just slightly off.

I had my style set to colors by axis to avoid inaccuracies. So what i did just before it went wrong on me was to copy a complete wall from one side to the other and then flipping it to get a mirrored version. Doing this I was making sure to use the inference engine to guide the copy process.
All looked good every line that mattered was on axis and showing the correct color.

after hitting the save button however, I noticed that the copied wall was slightly off on the blue axis, just a fraction, hardly visible by eye unless one zooms in to where the camera starts clipping into the geometry.

This happens some times, not always. I know of this and take the extra time to check after copying any object that needs to be exactly positioned to avoid trouble down the road.

So to me it seems there is a problem with the inference engine that is makes minute mistakes when snapping to endpoints along an axis. Maybe there is to much going on and it assumes any possible intersection, midpoint, endpoint or what ever it thinks or guesses i'm doing. This clearly inhibits me from working in a speedy way, which is sad.

As much as I like this feature, in some cases I wish there was an override key and /or for the pro version a toolbox to determine specific snaps. Also another thing that bugs me about this engine is that it is so hard to find a center of a circle or an arch.

All I know is as nice as this engine appears for a beginner, it sure is an inconvenience and speed stopper for the advanced user. Plus who ever tried to trace a organic shape off of a image will know how hateful it can be.

To sum it up, the inference engine makes you work SU wants you to and keeps you from working the way you want to. It also is a potential for minute errors that you pay dearly for down the road if you don't pay explicit attention to what it does.

@unknownuser said:

Now the big question does a polygon / box modeler capable to simulate a true
arc / circle without to drive crazy the ruby coder!

"Maya" or "3D max" are both able to handle polygonal geometry correct.
All the coder has to do is make the arch and circle act as such. They offset from a center point at any given angle depending on the amount of segments. That's all there is , not rocket science.

Edit: The result needs to be an offset copy of the original arch, with the same parameters, amount of segments, just bigger or smaller depending on the side of the offset.

Edit2:
@unknownuser said:

@alan, I can't believe I'm having exactly the same conversation now, I had with a newbie nearly 10 years ago.

Yes that is a sad thing.

So far the only way I have done shapes, like the last shown, was by building them by hand.

That way I am sure there is no weird bulge or any other unexpected result.

It is nowhere stated by the developers that one should not use the follow me tool, at least I did not see any warning.

This is the promise from the Sketchup web site:

@unknownuser said:

Follow Me: Create complex extrusions and lathed forms

You use SketchUp's innovative, do-everything Follow Me tool to create 3D forms by extruding 2D surfaces along predetermined paths. Model a bent pipe by extruding a circle along an L-shaped line. Create a bottle by drawing half of its outline, then using Follow Me to sweep it around a circle. You can even use Follow Me to round off (fillet) edges on things like handrails, furniture and electronic gadgets.

No warnings stating that there are problems and unexpected results.

Edit: oh I just saw Jeff had quoted the above statement already, sorry for the repeat.

@alan fraser said:

Olav, in the case of the arches, wouldn't it make more sense not to bisect the circle until after you have offset it? And when you offset it, just ignore the value in the Measurement box, but offset by inferencing across the top of the established pillar?
That way, you not only avoid all the nonsense of having to deal with little line stubs, but you also get an entirely consistent vertex to vertex distance up the pillar and right around the arch.
Or am I missing something?

Yes, Alan, knowing SU that, would be the better way.
But the best would be if SU did handle this correctly.
Otherwise I can't work intuitively and the way I like to and I will be forced to work the way SU dictates me to.

Edit: Also, the next guy I hire to do some work for me may not know of this and assume he'll just draw a shape and quickly outline it, knowing little about what is lurking beneath the obvious - layer.

Then I have to when all is done make sure this was all done right to avoid a pit fall down the road?

@unknownuser said:

Why not put an image or a V6 version ?

here an image:

Now this is the best screw up I've encountered so far with the follow me tool,

Un-frigging believable! look at the original arch on the bottom, the outer one!

I used the inner arch as the path

TotaScrewUp.skp

@alan fraser said:

I wouldn't want anyone to imagine that I think SU is 'good enough' either. One of the areas of contention here is down to a basic misunderstanding in terms...I think.

Take the example of Olav's quarter hemisphere. My viewpoint is why would you think that the Follow Me Tool would lathe a quarter turn under those circumstances. In order to do that, it would need to be a Rotate Tool; it isn't, it's an extrude tool...

Why SU doesn't actually possess a proper Rotate/Lathe tool after all this time is quite another matter.

But Alan, that is what they are selling it for or else they would of provided the revolve tool long ago.
I've watched those tutorials on SU6 when it was introduced as the architectural tool for Google Earth.
I will never forget the sentence "trust Sketchup it is smart and easy enough to know what you are doing." okay that was pertaining to the inference engine.
And that again proves their position of "it" being good enough.

With the given native tools there is no alternative to creating the undesired result, and then fixing it manually.

So it still boils down to the arch and circle tool where unexpected inconsistency occurs.

as Jeff already elaborated on the "J" shows what anybody would expect of a offset tool to do when dealing with arches.

By failing to deliver a clean solution, there are pitfalls that can affect your work on the computer using SU down the road; if one does not know or pay explicit attention to the shortcomings of SU.

this example shows how inconsistent and deceptive the workflow is with SU.:

The above diagram shows how a circle is created using the inference engines suggestion.

In creating the circle I am following the red direction which creates the circle according to it's radius on a vertice (not at a half segment)
So going from there I'm going to create the half circle for my arch.

Next i'm using the offset tool. Now if I know it all and am paying attention I see there is a inconsistency at both ends of the arch/ half circle. Also I notice SU breaks up the arch / half circle and inserts two end points. Why I don't know.

So let's say I want my offset half circle to be an actual half circle then what do I do??
I go in there and add two small pieces using the inference engine.

Now I realize I've just gained two more end points in my geometry, I can not get rid of, unless I explode the curve.

If i was to close the shape of my two arches I would be able to extrude my 3d arch but then would see that I need to smooth the two lines appearing where the extra endpoints are.

At this point I would rather draw a brand new arch.

Anyway In case I say who cares it's only SU, good enough, I'll take the thing as it comes.

So the above diagram shows the whole dilemma, either the post will not be consistent with the width of the arch, not being 2' but 1' 11 13/16" and that added up in an array can cause trouble just like that,
or I fix it manually, gaining the before mentioned extra endpoints.

So the extra endpoints can lead to a problem in SU, that is if you don't pay explicit attention, it will be a pit fall.
The inference engine could, because it is so close to the desired endpoint, pick the wrong one and then your faces won't close on some wall down the road when you're not thinking of the extra endpoint any more.
This is one of those minute little things that can get you down the road. And then you got to get back and find that little bugger.

I think the circle and arches really need to follow what one expects them to do when offsetting, copying, or extruding along them as a path. They are circles and arches and should not act as if they were segments.

@unknownuser said:

@desertraven said:

But quite on the contrary to my amazement the developers of Sketchup have not found it necessary to even attempt to make this work. (I guess they are just thinking "good enough")

dunno, i think it's best you start seeking alternatives.. i mean here in this very thead, one of the developers has said "oh.. that would be neat to have in sketchup"…

neat?

not absolutely necessary?

fighting up to this point was an uphill battle.. after john's response, that hill just turned into a vertical wall..

personally, i'm over it.. can't believe i lasted this long..

I'm quite amazed you stuck it out fighting so long and also you never seem to sleep? I'll have to look up Johns respond I may have missed it.
I'm not sure if posting here will ever do any change, but I just think spreading awareness is a good thing.

I've spent so many hours working my ass off using Sketchup on various large scale projects, remembering those moments where I wished I had one of the developers at hand to just give them a good shake to get them back to the reality of what we are doing here.

But despite all frustration so far SU has served me well, if I look on the bright side.
I am able to create vast scenes with tons of buildings and still am able to work on a detail over there and not have the whole thing freeze like I would have had using 3D Max or AutoCAD.
Usually I save each building or building segment in it's own file.

But anyway then again, it get's me when I see all this potential and only some glitches standing in the way of excellence. I have spent hours, and this is not just me, to hunt down a minor little issue that has suck in because either me or one of my guys hasn't payed explicit attention to what Sketchup thinks is the right way. As soon as you leave the square you are in trouble.
Many times I also experience that after opening a drawing after a day or two some minute things have changed.
I don't have a concrete example at hand, but it happened more then once and it always has to do with geometry that is on any angle that is not square. e.g. 2 or more buildings at an 12.5 degree angle to each other.

One time I did an organic shaped thatched roof, every time I attempted to save the drawing Sketchup threatened to "fix" my geometry, only to add odd, twisted faces in a so far clean solid model.

I see there is lots of work to do and a long road ahead if the Dev. is serious about this product.

Anyway, I hope to see you around here some time longer, I appreciate you input and your eagerness to fight for the better of Sketchup, thanks,

Olav

@unknownuser said:

@ Alan,You can't realistically expect SU to guess your intention

Really? What alternative intentions could I of had in this example? Why would anyone want the result as shown in my diagram?

Why would I, as a user, care about weather or not the SU needs to read the beginning of the path perpendicular? or why would I want to know how the dog on thing is programmed?

I use a path, that starts and ends in a square, an arch just as SU draws it and that is all I got using the ntive SU tools.

I don't have an alternative arch tool that draws an arch with a half segment at the start and the end.

Also talking a bout guessing, when I draw a rectangular shape with the rectangle tool, SU guesses that I may be drawing a square or a golden section. Hmmm,,

And obviously the geometry produced by Sketchup in my example is useless to say the best and completely unacceptable to make it clear.

@ TIG, I haven't expected anything else but that this issue had been discussed many times before, and there is a obvious reason why.
But quite on the contrary to my amazement the developers of Sketchup have not found it necessary to even attempt to make this work. (I guess they are just thinking "good enough")

An arch does not end perpendicular it is dependent on the center and all segments need to be equal.

I think these issues reside in Sketchup because someone keeps denying what is really needed on the user side; and because of that stubbornness, we, the users, have to put up with work arounds and a cluttered up, extensive plug in library.

So here is another annoying short cumming of Sketchup.
I know the follow me tool is not supposed to be a real revolve tool, but why can't this be made to work to create a geometry one would expect?

result?!

To me this also defies any logic in an alleged simple to learn design software.

@unknownuser said:

@ Jeff, there's something wrong on the windows side of things pertaining to this.

No there isn't, on windows entity info shows the correct units and digits.