@du_pmm said:
I have to conect three lines with specific dimensions
you could do it with dynamic components..
select then Window-> Component Options
there's no error checking in there but if the thing doesn't make a triangle then the entered numbers aren't valid.
@olishea said:
And it's already outdated by the time you buy it. Plus you have to see a "genius" to fix it.
that's not true.. the new mac pro is the most user-serviceable mac to date.. ifixit gives it an 8/10..
..you can change the ram, ssd, cpu, gpu (though it's yet to be seen what type of upgrades will become available).. nothing is soldered.. everything is very modular..
https://www.ifixit.com/Device/Mac_Pro_Late_2013
imacs aren't super locked down either.. you can change drives, cpu, ram on them as well.
(fwiw)
@mistro11 said:
BOX- It happens when rotating the view. Zooming in and out have no effect.
then this is something different than the thing i was talking about.. they would stay disappeared when not even touching the mouse.
to me, yeah, that's a heavy model.. it feels too much like fighting the program with models like that.
maybe something to do with it though.
do you use layers? or, does all the geometry need to be visible at once while working on it?
this is an old problem (or, sounds very similar) from su7 or so..
i thought it was fixed though.. haven't seen it happen in quite a while.
does this happen to you a lot or is it only happening in a certain file?
.
you could try using FredoScale's radial bending for this
it will probably take a couple of bends to get it to look like the picture you posted.
i think he's mostly a wirehair jack russell but there's something else mixed in.. he pretty much looks like falcor from the neverending story.. but one of his eyes sometimes points in a different direction than the other.
i think more of my point is showing i have questions which could go to either side of the debate.. and really, it seems if i want the answers, i might as well go back in time and begin my course of being an expert climatologist since age 15..
but, aren't those people already out there? as in, really smart people who actually are experts in the field? if so, where in the el to al gore, and adolf hitler, and the communist party, and barack obama, and left and right etc fit into this?
why are these the people who are meant to solve this problem or determine if there's a problem in the first place? i've probably studied climate just as much as some of these people and i feel i have approx zero qualifications for guiding the world on this issue.. so why are their voices so prominent? in the u.s, most republicans think global warming is a hoax and most democrats think it's a real issue.. what is wrong with us?
i'm skeptical about either side of this debate.. it always seems as if either side has some sort of vested interest other than "is this happening or not?"
i kind of wish the scientific community (and other nerd types) could somehow replace the current power structure.. at the very least, news etc would be a lot more believable then.
to me personally right this minute, global warming seems real since our last few winters have been fairly mild.. (but then again, last summer was really sweet/mild too).. but that doesn't matter on a global scale/timeframe.. it's not enough to claim a pattern of global warming is occurring which is why it struck me sort of odd to hear the Lord saying "well ask those people in nyc & boston how hot it is" ..big deal, we had a snow storm 
..tell the lord about 2 winters ago when it didn't snow once and was 45º every day.
then you look back to certain prehistoric times when the earth was way warmer with way more CO2 etc than now.. or the ice ages when the opposite is true..
i mean, the climate does change drastically on a planet, right? i'm sure the dinosaurs contributed at least somewhat to warming trends just like humans are probably doing the same.. does that mean it's a bad thing? are we killing the earth by warming it? we live in this century and maybe close-mindedly believe current climate is normal or right for the earth but maybe its not.. our own species crossed ice bridges connecting today's continents.. maybe that's normal?
i don't know.
ok.. gonna go walk the dog (who sort of looks like the Lord.. similar eyes 
)
@nwarner33 said:
Jeff, was it rhino that you would use to do it as a one time thing? Is there any chance you tell me the tools you would use, if so?
right.. rhino
assuming you have the shape already (which is just drawing the profile curve then using the _Revolve command on it)..
the spiral can then be drawn with _InterpCrvOnSrf (via menu: Curve-> FreeForm-> Interpolate on Surface)..
with that command, you can set the start point then just keep spinning the cursor around a revolved surface...
@roland joseph said:
we have moved into the upper woodland forest on property
how far out there are you roland?
sounds fun to visit.. not sure if i'm ready to live that way.. (both of my parents live in bfe though.. mom in a one stoplight town.. dad is situated on some acreage about 10miles down a dirt road in n.florida)
@nwarner33 said:
[attachment=2:1aisadoc]<!-- ia2 -->Screen Shot 2015-01-29 at 17.47.17.png<!-- ia2 -->[/attachment:1aisadoc]
Sorry I dont know how to describe it. But I need to be able to draw spiral, going around this shape. I tried to lay on a texture to give you the idea. Even that I struggled with.
that's going to be pretty tricky to do in sketchup.. does it have to be geometry or is a texture ok?
if geometry and you only need it for a one time thing, i could do it for you in a different application really quick.. (would need the base geometry then how many revolutions you're looking for)
[attachment=1:1aisadoc]<!-- ia1 -->Screen Shot 2015-01-29 at 2.30.53 PM.png<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:1aisadoc]
EDIT
or, i guess in sketchup, with the proper setup geometry and a bit of experimenting with segment count etc, you could just draw the spiral manually using the hidden geometry as a guide?
[attachment=0:1aisadoc]<!-- ia0 -->spiral.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:1aisadoc]
@tig said:
@d12dozr said:
Even easier than using Intersect with Model would be to make the elbow a solid group, the select all 3 groups, Right Click > Outer Shell to combine them into a solid group.
But, isn't that a Pro only Solids feature ?
outer shell is in suFree8 and suMake.. it's the only solid tool which is in both free and pro versions.
(it's the same thing as Union in suPro.. though for whatever reason, i find it more reliable than union in pro so i use outer shell.. but really, i can't figure out why suPro includes both OuterShell and Union 
)
EDIT
well, apparently there is a difference:
http://help.sketchup.com/en/article/1004163
@unknownuser said:
The result of an outer shell is similar to the result of a union. However, the result of an outer shell can only contain external faces while the result of a union can also contain internal geometry.
there's an example image of the difference between the two at that link.. i guess i've never encountered a situation which would require union vs outerShell.
@hirokamatsuiko2015 said:
im using curviloft right now for bridging
but im looking for quick bridge ( no command bar / prompt ) similar to this GIF image
it will bridge instant with if only have same amount of vertices / edge
hmm.. idk.. i thnk curviloft is your best bet for this.. you can window select all those at once and loft it..
set it to straight (junction by connected lines) with segments set to 1 for the results your showing in the gif.
@oceanembers said:
If I haven't misunderstood, he's got the yellow component nested inside, and made the yellow material an emitter.
@cotty said:
That's right! The yellow component is a little bit smaller than the blue part and acts as Indigo emitter
ah..ok.. i see now 
@olishea said:
The machine is almost silent, its a big step up from my iMac!
heh, the latest macbooks are a big step up from a 7year old imac
(i'm just ribbing.. congrats on the new machine oli.)
@mluy said:
I did download curviloft but had a lot of issues with "leakages" and was difficult to get solids.
the skin created by curviloft will be in it's own group.. if the surface is meant to be a part of a solid, you will need to explode the group (right click -> explode) in order for it to merge with the other pieces. when all pieces are merged at one, it will then be a solid (assuming there aren't other problems.. but curviloft itself isn't creating hole_y surfaces)
cool idea.. the renders look great too 
(and here, i'll plug indigo for you-> Indigo 
)
did you put a light inside or are the windows emitters? or something else?