Hi TIG, I am Ruturaj Patil. from Kolhapur. this Vertex+.rb its really nice Now i am Work really well. Thanks

quite useful. Thanks!

The component cylinder idea works. Thanks so much for figuring this out. I have this problem a lot. Best, Ken Harstine @howard leslie said: Jim, Thanks very much for your reply. ......... Yes, its a very tricky problem The main problem is trying to create something that doesn't exist - a hole !!! ......... A Possible Workaround I'm thinking along the lines now of creating the holes as solid cylinders on a layer that can be turned off eg called "Hide" and the main body as a solid rectangle (as before). (Not REALLY solids obviously but you get the idea). That way you can repeat the holes (cylinders). (Cylinder = Potential Hole if you like). Once the components length has been defined and cylinders automatically repeated, edit component by selecting all cylinders. Then use Bool Tools (Thank you Dale) or manually cut out the Holes ........... Long Term - possibly add a behaviour to DCs for Holes ??? Is this possible ??? ........... Just some thoughts anyway Thanks once again Howard L'

@dropout said: And we get it where? See the first post in the thread. Sort of the standard here for plugins and components: The download is usually in the first post--even for updates. I am downloading this one. Fantastic work! Thanks so much. Peter

The 'Redefine Thumbnail on Save' control checkbox is in an unnatural location (at least in my opinion.) It is currently on the 'File' page, of the 'Model Info' ToolDialog (beneath the 'Description' textarea.) This space (on the ModelInfo dialog,) could be better used for text input controls for the Model.name and Model.tags attributes (which it seems can currently only be set thru rubyscript.) THIS thread should discuss where the **Model.name** and **Model.tags** attribute edit controls should be located, and the use of these attributes. It would be better (or more natural) if the 'Redefine Thumbnail(s) on Save' checkbox, was located on the 'General' page, in the 'Saving' section, of the 'Preferences' Dialog (ie: it would/should be a global setting for all models.) To discuss where and if the 'Redefine Thumbnail on Save' control checkbox should be / or shouldn't be moved to / or IF it shouldn't be moved / and whether it should be a global setting for all models (or not.) Please go to thread: "Thumbnail Checkbox / Model.name / Model.tags"

Mike, If you look its actually already IN the Tutorial area of SCF... ... Also, how do you print out a Video ??? I think the ability to print out a Tutorial is quite useful so that you can have it on your desk next to you when working - for quick reference. (See Fredo's brilliant documentation [PDFs] for the scripts he's produced - excellent). ... Howard L'

Dear Jean, Okay, I took an Inventor model and saved it as .sat; then imported it into AutoCAD; then scaled it x100; then exported it as a .dwg; then imported it into SU; then scaled it x0.01. The model is a quick one, and done to test the process (lots of small features, curves and holes close together). Here are the results: Seems to work. Now, about going the other way...... Kind regards, Bob [image: CjUU_Box1.jpg] [image: L1gO_Box2.jpg] [image: 6OD4_Box3.jpg]

Thank You Howard, and thank You Josef. Now I can go sailing.

Was very usefull..

Bookmarked and thanks.

Charlie / Anssi, Thanks very much to both of you for your help with this. I tried both methods and they work really well - just what I needed. ... Regards Howard Leslie

Hi D... Do the other way round (provided that those components er the instances of the same component definition) as the order is important: Edit one of them (double click) Set the centerpoint inside in that component - now if they are all the same components, each should be updated instantly with this centerpoint in them delete the geometry - i.e. the "crosses" - leaving only the centerpoint inside the component NOW exit the component and explode all...

Hey, I tried this tutorial a while ago and liked it a lot. Then just today I thought: Hey! let's see what Chris' SketchyFFD can do with this. So I used it to make the skirt a little thinner at the middle, and give it a little whirl, and here's the result: [image: BYXT_skirt.jpg] First I had to rotate it 90 degrees, then drape a few parallel lines over it, then rotate it back up again. This is in order to make it "sliced" transversely several times, so that SketchyFFD would work. This same slicing can be also done by intersecting the skirt with some horizontal planes on top of each other (I don't know why I always forget I can do that), or with Dale's knife tool included in his SDS plugin, but I don't have it yet .

To use simple scaling to taper something like a column, you can pushpull a cylinder as in the first example tut, then select the top circle, scale it by pulling a corner handle WHILE you are holding down the Ctrl-key, this is so the centre-point becomes the scaling origin, then pull it in a little inwards, THEN type 0.5 in the VCB to make the original 800mm into 400mm [OR type 400mm - note units suffix]... The two tuts below and this scaling way are all pretty easy and straightforward...

Nothing to do with Excel Tables ! Purely Modelling. ... Yes, currently you can Intersect with Model. This works well. However, afterwards you frequently want to delete some unwanted portions of your model. This can sometimes be very fiddley and intricate to make sure you select only the parts you want to be deleted and nothing else. ... A Boolean type tool would essentially do the Intersect with Model and the Tidying up afterwards in one operation. It would enable you to very rapidly create complex geometry from simple geometry eg by using one object to clip another ... Solid modelling with Autocad and other programs has this ability. My initial post points to an add-on for Autocad that suggests this may be possible with meshes and faces also. ... Howard L'

Remus, See: http://www.sketchucation.com/forums/scf/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3285 ... Howard L'

TIG, Thanks for pointing me in the direction of yet another of your fantastic scripts (ExtrudeAlongPath.rb) Works perfectly. I've never seen this one before. ... Thanks once again Regards Howard Leslie

@unknownuser said: TIG, Would it also be possible to add the following... ??? ... If the user had the option to choose either Horizontal or Vertical Volume slices it would make the Volume Calculator more accurate. Not sure if its possible but would be brilliant. (See attached file which illustrates the problem). ... To Calculate Volume on a Selection of Several Groups / Components at once... eg User selects 12 Groups or Components... Volume Calculator then loops thru each Group / Component in the selection in turn calculating volumes for each individual group / component that was selected based upon the users settings in the Volume Dialog box eg Layer for Volume Slices / Hide Edges / (Vertical or Horizontal Slices) etc ... Hope this all makes sense. Anything you can do hugely appreciated. ... Regards Howard Leslie Edit 1 / Ideas Thoughts: Script could actually make true Vertical Slices (or any angle) or Temporarily rotate geometry in the background hidden from user and then turn it back again ??? or Produce both Horizontal & Vertical Slices for each Group / Component and Delete the lowest Value ??? (might be slow) Edit 2 / Ideas Thoughts: Vertical slices may be a problem - how would the script know the best orientation to draw them in ??? ie Vertical slices can be drawn to be parallel to either the red or the green axis - how would any script choose the best way to draw them ??? Poss Solution - Draw Volume Slices Parallel to all 3 Axes !!! Delete lowest Volume that was computed for each Group / Component (Could be VERY slow). Edit 3 / Ideas Thoughts: Best Solution may be to forget Vertical slices altogether ??? Working out Individual Volumes in Turn (Looping) for Several selected Groups / Components would be good though. That way, for any "problem" Groups (eg similar to attached file), the accuracy could be turned up to say 1% - the Script could then be left to run eg over a lunch break or over night if required. AdamB has just fired a broadside through the current ideas behind Volume Calculator with an ingenious method the calculate volumes from faces... I wrote my volume calculator based on totting up areas of slices - somewhat like calculus - which was a few years ago after TBD said it couldn't be done... It's taken till now for someone (AdamB) to come up with a method that does it properly 'mathematically' - his '.dot' method was the answer. Adam's way returns a more accurate result very quickly, but the downsides of his method are that it gives no 'solid' artifact of the volume - although it could have a text-tag made with a volume attribute so that csv making was eased: a copy' group of the entities could be made coloured as desired too. Also his gives unexpected answers for volumes with missing faces, whereas mine only fills up to the top level and then overflows so to speak - like a tilted glass; and I not sure how his method copes with having some faces reversed as it uses face normals during the maths - I need to test that... I intend putting a a new version 'to the vote' and if there's sufficient demand and Adam agrees I'll look at v2.0 using his methods, but adjusted to suit whatever the 'users' want of it - clearly it'd need alternate volume options, csv listing etc... His method would allow multiple selections and I can contrive it so that you get much of what you do now but more accurately and faster... Watch this space...