Posts made by DesertRaven

Maybe those authors of the models in question want to be asked?

@alan fraser said:

@desertraven said:

It is completely illogical that the end of an offset arch would result in a cut short end segment or elongated end segment - just for the sake of keeping it square.

No, it's not illogical, it's just inconvenient for offsetting arcs. There ought to be another tool (or at east an option) for doing that, based on offsetting the end points, not the facets. Calling it illogical implies there's no logic. There is...like I said, it's just not a logic that a lot of people find particularly useful in many circumstances, me included. If there isn't already a Ruby for doing this, there ought to be.

More correctly, it's more than inconvenient, it's misleading. The reason being that it's not really an Offset Tool at all when it comes to offsetting arcs...it's a Joint Push/Pull Tool. In other words, it pulls out the facets, the resulting new endpoints are simply where those extruded facets happen to intersect. As such, it's no surprise that they don't conform exactly to any expected increase in radius.
In fact if you pull an arc upwards into 3D and JPP it, you'll find you get exactly the same new 'arc' as if you'd 'offset' it.

Gerrit, you're absolutely correct about the bulge/radius thing. I was having a senior moment.
There have been times when I simply can't persuade the Measurement box to say Radius instead of Bulge; I guess that's what prompted the remark. But of course I could always simply override that by typing value + r.

Well your logic explains what happens through SU, but that does not make the end result a logic conclusion. And if the Joint push pull does the same thing then it needs fixing too.

Edit: I'm glad you are agreeing on the misleading part. Here another example how misleading this tool is: The arch and the 2 lines were offset in one go so they were all 3 selected the result speaks for it's self.

@alan fraser said:

@unknownuser said:

"DesertRaven"Alan, this thread is going exactly where it needs to go. If we keep saying we'll settle for "good enough", nothing will ever be gained to the better.

Where have I ever indicated that I'd settle for 'good enough'? I have pointed out several times now the shortcomings of the Offset Tool...in both exterior and more especially on interior offsets. I have also mentioned that Follow Me leaves much to be desired....

.....You can campaign for true curves from now till eternity...but you won't get them.

Alan, I have provided examples explaining to a "T" what I'm basing my criticism on, I have no problem with SU using facets vs real curves, as long as the result is what it is supposed to be and not some variation.

It is completely illogical that the end of an offset arch would result in a cut short end segment or elongated end segment - just for the sake of keeping it square.

The correct logical conclusion is:
That the offset arc follows the center to the edge in a line and all facets be consistent. Because I am starting with an equal sided arch so I expect an equal sided offset version of the arch. Plus an arch is a segment of a circle.
Why wouldn't the segments need to stay consistent in the offset version?

@alan fraser said:

This thread seems to be getting a little lost. .....he last few pages seem to be little more than bitching about the fact that it's not a NURBS modeller. Absolutely correct....it's not...so what?

Alan, this thread is going exactly where it needs to go. If we keep saying we'll settle for "good enough", nothing will ever be gained to the better.
As much as I appreciate your input I sure wish this thread could turn into something to access Sketchup's many shortcomings, elaborate on them and seek out how it could be done to the better.
Maybe, by chance this could be an inspiration for the developer and new owners of Sketchup.
If we, the users agree on certain issues, then maybe we are being taken serious and the Dev team sees it necessary to ally changes or improvements.
But as I said it is good to see issues from all sides.

@unknownuser said:

@alan fraser said:

But you said those circles weren't accurate...and they are. They are circles of an established radius and they are the correct distance apart for their circumferences to touch tangentially. Whether they actually touch visually is entirely dependent on how many segments you care to assign to them. Did you increase the number and see that they do, in fact, touch?

i'll give you that
i mean, you're right, if the circles in your model are infact accurate (proper radius.. proper x/y centerpoint) then i t....

seriously, if you guys (suteam) do not want to do the stuff requested in this thread to your app.. that's ok.. hook these boys up with some more ruby access.. set them up with a little vending machine.. there are obviously people that are willing and able to make workarounds.. as is now, it's often "whelp.. here goes another workaround".. but with the right developer access, and an ideal of more uniformity, they can make truly legit workarounds.. to where it doesn't feel the slightest bit workaroundy..
thank you

Maybe those SU dev's should consider hiring or at least inviting those "ruby wizzes" into their holy grounds along with some Pro Users that work for the money as a kind of conference. Closed doors for 2 weeks hard work to get this thing together.

@alan fraser said:

@desertraven said:

@alan fraser said:

Well of course they don't touch... The right tool for the right job.

But that was the premise here. In Architecture ....... And there is no reason why not.

But you said those circles weren't accurate...a.... but certainly one that has radically affected their workflow.

As for your question of whether it is still easy once you get beyond rectilinear shapes; well, as I routinely use it for modelling eveything from tufted sofas, through all manner of organically shaped furnishings to entire human figures and trees, I guess I'd have to say "Yes it is."
That's not to say it can't be frustrating at times; and there are certainly some processes that are much easier in other programs. But taking the broad view, it is still much faster and easier than anything else out there. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be using it.

They may be accurate in a way, but in the sketchup world they need to touch or intersect.
Because those small gaps will cause a problem down the road.
And in my experience there is no speed gain with inaccurate geometry, only long hours of fixing and finding those minute little gaps. I tell this my guys who build models for me and I'm very strict about it, models created with sketchup need to be water tight. No gaps, no just a wee bit off.

I used to work with AutoCAD and 3D Max for Arch Vis, Sketchup has sped up my work flow.
Don't get me wrong, I won't compare these programs.
All I'm asking for is to fix some bugs that have been around from the beginning of "sketchup time" and as I said before, just a few fixed will make SU an outstanding tool. And I do not understand why anyone would be opposed to this notion.
Also I would vote for a constraint override.
The inference engine is one of the most limiting aspects of Sketchup. It is convenient for square geometries, but strongly impairs tasks like tracing and any 3D geometry that is not square.
I'm sure it would not be that easy building organic geometries using only native Sketchup tools ...

@unknownuser said:

@gilles said:

Just a basic, try to draw 3 tangent circles with native tools and tell me how much time you spend.

Of course they must intersect.

added a 4th into the mix in under 12 seconds..

I love rhino

@alan fraser said:

Well of course they don't touch...they're not bezier curves, they are polygon approximations of circles. SU still understands them as circles with those properties...and if you increase the number of segments (to say 120) to get rid of the facets, then the edges will touch.
Criticizing SU for not displaying true curves is like criticizing and Abrams tank for not being able to do aerobatics. The right tool for the right job.

But that was the premise here. In Architecture we like circles; So are you saying sketchup not the right tool for the job?
I'll tell you with a we bit more sophisticated options it absolutely would be.
As I said before some issues just need to be fixed. And there is no reason why not.

@gilles said:

The real question is why people like Tig, Thomthom, Fredo,and and and and ............... are able to create missing basic tools while Sketchup Team does not?
Aren't they paid for?

One of the pressing questions about Sketchup is, is it really that intuitive and easy to use once you leave the simple square?

Edit: and even the simplest of pitched roofs become an instant challenge without the help of those people like Tig, Thomthom, Fredo,and and ....

@alan fraser said:

Three different sized circles touching tangentially. Radii of 12', 9' and 6', giving center to center distances of 21', 18' and 15', all done in SU using only native tools. Do I get a cigar?

Looks good but not good enough for a cigar my friend. the corners don't touch and there are two gaps ...

@khai said:

you need to tone down the adblock detection guys.

right now, it's triggering if it even detects adblock is installed and enabled.. even when the site is whitelisted! and sorry. I am NOT uninstalling it just to come here. I make an exception for you guys alone. I've actually had to install a secondary browser to use here with no adblocks installed to test but thats not staying for long.. I dunno what you changed but...

(I have an aversion to flashing things constantly extorting me to buy crap, rogue adverts trying to install malware (right now there's a lovely ad that pops up on Notalwaysright that keeps trying to install something on my Nexus 7 tablet if I use that to read the articles...) etc. )

Thank you! I have an adblock active for the same reasons, always had and I don't want to waste my time cleaning up malware.

@gilles said:

@unknownuser said:

a few times i've seen the idea of construction circles being in sketchup which would be great to have as well.

That is the reason I am looking to Rhino, Bonzai and Moi.

At this point I really need to draw accurately.
It has been a long time we were asking for fix in sketchup with poor replies.

I would recommend Rhino; for precision and for architecture.

@gilles said:

in fact , what I was pointing is that you cannot draw accurate or precise with circle or arc tool, like bisector tangent etc... all things I learnt to draw by hand long time ago which is called geometry.

You can get somewhat close with the arch tool, since it shows a tangent continuation. But of course far from accurate not only because of the segmentation.

So I still wonder if someone could write a compass plug in for Sketchup? To create circular construction lines?

Or is that just a nice fantasy?

@massimo said:

@gilles said:

Just a basic, try to draw 3 tangent circles with native tools and tell me how much time you spend.

Of course they must intersect.

10 sec?

If they are the same diameter, it's quite easy, draw a 3 sided polygon, make it a component, then draw a circle with e.g. 24 segments from each corner to the mid of each side of the polygon, voila!

@thomthom said:

@desertraven said:

I was wondering if the core problem with arches and the resulting shortcoming geometry is in fact what is keeping, or has kept, the developers from creating tools for curved surfaces?

hm... you where perhaps talking about the developers of SketchUp instead of plugin developers?

Yes the SU developers. You guy's are doing a great job

@thomthom said:

Well, in theory we can create ourselves what SketchUp doesn't provide. Except some fundamental things such that we cannot introduce true curves - we cannot introduce new entity types. We can create abstractions. Like, in order to map curves surfaces and create ring and loop selections I wrote QuadFace Tools - which tries to build a toolkit that will let you create and manage non-planar quads. Similarly I'm developing BezierSurface, which allows you to create and manipulate (and UV map) quad-bezier-patches.

However, since there is no way to hook into the native tools to make them understand these new abstractions I'm doing, I need to write a complete set of tools for everything.

Mind you, aside from SketchUp's way of dealing with arcs, I find it's lack of the "quad" concept the most limiting. Everything becomes so much easier of surfaces are built up on units of quads. Mapping and traversing becomes logical and rational in terms of a computer - which doesn't have the insight to understand what the whole mesh really represent, only understanding the geometry on a the most naive level of vertices, edges and faces.

I agree, there is alack of SU to create clean usable geometry. I used your quad tools and also some of TIG's tools to save the day.
I had a thought that I would like to convey to you guys, and that is SU has a tape measure tool, a protractor tool, to draw straight construction lines, BUT it does not have a compass tool.
Such a compass tool could help to snap on centers of any round geometry or it could help finding accurate intersections.

Anyone who works in architecture and has ever measured a house "as is" knows that you have to make diagonal measurements to verify a floor-plans squareness or to measure a floor-plan accurately that is at any given angel.

Maybe that would be a do-able plug in? just a circular construction line consisting of a dotted line like the straight construction line with the maximum accuracy that SU can give? With a radius as parameter and that is able to intersect lines and construction lines?

I was wondering if the core problem with arches and the resulting shortcoming geometry is in fact what is keeping, or has kept, the developers from creating tools for curved surfaces?
Like e.g the in ability to provide any mapping for curved surfaces or the native lack of the push pull tool to perform an extrusion on a curved surface?

@ TIG Out of an architectural standpoint, this is what I expect of how it needs to be.

The respective pieces of my arch need to be consistent and not perpendicular. Be it round or segmented same thing.

This is what you get in Palm Springs , CA. mostly old copper lines but it's one of the nicer quieter places in SoCal.

I've noticed some of you Guys have blazing fast download-speeds but your Ping is way up?

@mwm5053 said:

I don't mind seeing the ads here I kinda enjoy them but ever since we changed to the new forum look it takes for ever to load a page. I made mention of this months ago and I don't understand why I seem to be the only bugged about it or the only one with the problem. rant over sorry

Yes it is way slower then as it was. It is faster though once the ad- block is active.

@alan fraser said:

Chill out guys. I'm not defending the behavior, merely explaining the logic behind it. As TIG says, the Offset Tool works accurately in it's own way. ......

I don't want to miss pointing out that I am, for my part, talking about SU "PRO";
Pro as in Professional. So I'm up for a fight and I will un cover more of SU's so called shortenings, at least that way I can say I did something instead of letting it just slip.
Anyone here who is serious about doing professional work here should join in to the fight for fixing SU.

There is also the promise of an easy to use easy to learn application, and until certain shortcomings are eventually fixed or at least recognized by the developers, this promise is not being met.