Posts made by jgb

I love to draw technical stuff; airplanes, boats, houses, etc. But I am more into the details of the internal fabrication, than just a simple outer view. I have gone though several versions of ACAD 2D and then into ACAD 2 1/2D (they call it 3D, but it isn't), and was totally baffled by the so-called 3D interface. Never got a good render of anything, especially on my big cargo airplane concept, and it took forever to get anything right. Books and tutorials were no help either.

I tried TruSpace, also a dud in the interface area. And a few others that lasted maybe 10 minutes on my PC.

I subscribe to ZD-Net and 2 years ago they had a brief ad for SU. It looked interesting so I loaded it and tried it, without any tutorials to start me off.

In less than 2 hours just playing with it, I accomplished more than I could with ACAD in 2 weeks. By the end of day I had a decent 3D view of my big airplane, for the first time. I now have over 300mb in 15 files of that airplane as I design the internals; landing gear, fuel system, passenger cabin, cargo deck, cargo handling components, etc. All fit back to the master drawing, and each drawing is details on some set of internal components of the airplane.

Yeah, I know SU is a sketching tool, but with some tradeoffs I use it more like a 3D CAD.

Plus there are dozens of drawings of other stuff. One of the latest was a rendering of my main bathroom reno, which worked wonders in explaining to my contractor what I wanted, and to the cabinet maker.

Then I had to revamp our laundry area, as the new front load washer and drier would not fit in the space where the 28 year old top loads went. I carefully measured the space, and played with 7 options to place the W&D and move the laundry tub and shelving. I showed the "boss" the options and she said "that one". That one also showed an interference of 1 inch with the furnace relay box mounted on the side, so I had to move it to the inside, well before delivery. Then I completed the plumbing, electrical and shelving layers and from that made my hardware shopping list. I attach the SU file of that, and a photo of the laundry area, with some minor shelf changes requested by the boss and a view from the SU model at the same angle.

Next is the kitchen. With SU I can quickly depict many ideas and alternatives, for the boss's approval, then flesh out the final choice for the contractor and cabinet maker, rather than trying to repeatedly explain what is wanted, with restrictions and problems/suggestions to work around.

All you need to start is a very careful measurement of the area to make the basic layout, with at least one layer to show the existing for comparison. Taking photos of the existing helps a lot. Then get measurements of the various cabinetry and appliances you will need, and make simple outline groups/comps that you can place or move about. Make a layer or 2 for each alternative so you can quickly compare one to another. Then all you need to do is pan and zoom and display/hide layers to describe them. When the final layout is selected, add the plumbing and electrical components (on separate layers) for a real virtual fit and fiddle before anything starts up. Even paint schemes can be placed on layers to play with. Try all that in ACAD.

SU-6 file SU drawing of laundry area revamp with various layout options and final layout with details.

Mice, for some time now have more than 2 buttons. My new Logitech MX-600 has 11, 9 programmable via the Setpoint S/W. However, any of those buttons act the same in almost all apps, and a very few apps allow for some redefined buttons within the app, exactly like SU's keyboard shortcuts.

However SU does not allow mouse button shortcut redefinition. It should.

I know that is tougher to do than KB shortcuts, as different mice do different things with the extra buttons vrs. a very universal KB key set. But that can be circumvented by simply listing a set of (say 10+) button numbers and allowing SU to learn what each and every mouse button does when pressed, then allowing an SU shortcut redefinition for that button.

@d12dozr said:

@jgb said:

Now if only SU allowed mouse button shortcuts, I can make use of the many extra buttons on my mouse without interfering with other apps use of those buttons.

Ditto that! heads off to Wishlist

Good idea, good thing I thought of it. Kidding.... Posting it there now.

@dtrarch said:

Real and available stand alone fuel cel module.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/blogs/postdetails.aspx?BlogId=opecoblog&PostId=92903
http://bloomenergy.com/products/solid-oxide-fuel-cell/

100 MW that will fit in a parking space.

No info on cost but looks very interesting.

dtr

I checked into this "BloomBox". Nowhere does the inventor divulge what fuel it uses. In fact he says in different articles that it A) uses solar energy, B) emits no CO2.

The only thing that is constant in any report is that it uses sand (cheap), is stackable (innovative?), and costs a lot.

Well, Fuel cells do not use solar. Fuel cells combine oxygen (from the air) with a fuel, either hydrogen or hydrocarbon based in the presence of a catalyst. If the fuel is hydrogen, then yes, no CO2 emissions, only pure water. ALL hydrocarbon/oxygen reactions produce CO2 and other gasses, as well as heat. That is Chemistry 101.

It uses sand. So does your computer. Sand is mostly silicon. He uses a wafer made of sand and some catalyst material combined in his proprietary way and that is the fuel cell reactor. Big deal. ALL fuel cells use a wafer or matrix of some kind with a catalyst to enable the reaction.

ALL fuel cells stack their wafered reactors to multiply the power output. Some are big (like Ballard Power) and some small, like his. The size itself is not the issue, a wafer can be just about any size, governed by manufacturing and cost considerations. And stacking is fundamental to achieving desired power output.

The fact it costs a lot does not surprise me. But if sand is so plentiful and cheap, why does BloomBox cost a lot?

So when they come clean on how a BloomBox actually works, what fuel it uses, its efficiency and life cycle costs, plus why his is better than, say Ballard, then he may have something to sell.

@arjunmax09 said:

I'm using Google SketchUp Pro 7.1 If I want to constrain the movement of a group over an axis... i use the shift key while movin' it up, right or left [ i.e. the x,y, z axes]... Sometimes this shift function fails.... is there a way to fix this???.... i'm uploading a video of my problem...

Apart from what seems to be a gluing problem, there is another instance that SU will seem to behave as you stated.

If you move any object(s) along an axis (locked by an arrow key) from origin to destination, and the destination is off screen at the start of the move, when you pan during the move to see the destination, the axis lock is lost. To regain the axis move, you need to move the object(s) back on axis (this should be a dotted axis line) and then hold down the shift key for the remainder of the move.

To avoid that, for long moves, orient your view such that you can see both origin and destination on screen, then as you approach the destination, zoom in for finer placement.

@unknownuser said:

Set middle mouse button you want to use as orbit to Middle-Click in the Logitech software.

On my mouse (Logitech Revolution) the software allows me to assign keysstrokes to the middle wheel left and right button as you are requesting.So for example I push to the right for Move and to the left for Rotate.

Dylan; I wished I had read that first part more carefully back then.

I sent this problem to Logitech Support and they suggested to reinstall with an updated driver. To make a long story short, that didn't work.

Then I started playing with button settings, and Lo & Behold, assigning wheel down to "Middle Button" worked.

I am now a happy camper, in this instance at least.

Now if only SU allowed mouse button shortcuts, I can make use of the many extra buttons on my mouse without interfering with other apps use of those buttons.

Yes, I only need the exterior mold (shape) of the plane, with very few internal (structural) elements. It will be used (at 1/12th scale) for planning the manufacturing stations (sizes and locations) in the facility. Once that is firmed up, I have a partial full scale detailed version of the facility that I will modify and use.

I went to a scaled version because it is easier to navigate and change than at full scale, even if the full scale planning model was low-poly. There is very little detail in the scaled version, and a full scale version would entice me to add details.

I will try "polyreduce".

As for the footprint, I cannot figure how to set my geo to the equator at noon (time I figured). But you got me thinking about scaling the airplane model down flat i.e: 100% scale down the blue axis. Then I'll intersect it on a flat plane (no pun intended ) and trace that outline.

I'll get back to you on both.

========================================

Well, scaling on blue to "flat" did not quite work. First, "scale" only allows a "-.11" scale factor so I tried ".01". It was not flat enough, even doing it twice. Also my dwg was too complex. Scrap that.

Still can't see how to set my Geo to the equator, so I can trace the shadow.

However, since I used to draw boats and calculate the heeled waterline, I tried something like that. I made a flat plane group, and successively moved it up and intersected the plane at various "wide" points on the airplane to get a close approximation of the outermost footprint, plus a myriad of extra lines from the airplanes internal structures that I could not turn off. Spent a lot of time deleting those lines, then hit the old SU 6 problem of non-intersected crossing lines, coupled with Intersects' bad habit of not keeping lines on face as well as omitting a lot of intersecting lines. A LOT of cleanup to do before I can get a cohesive footprint.

Back later....

==================================

Frustrated!!!!!!

I cleaned up the outline, but it will not form a face within the outline. Many lines are just off the z=00000 level, so that the face won't form. Then as I was replacing 2 short lines with one, SU crashed.
Fortunately, SU autosaved just a few minutes prior so I lost almost nothing.

Back on this tomorrow, as I gotta pick up my "warden" at the subway.

2 part question

1st part....My big airplane project. I am creating a rough floor plan and building shell of the manufacturing facility at 1/12th scale. I now need a 1/12th scale model of my big airplane, but I don't need most of the detail in the scaled model (separate drawing).

Scaling down is not the problem. How do I create a scaled model with significantly less entity detail?

If I just scale it down then I will end up with an overly complex model with a lot of extremely small entities, which we all know, SU does not handle very well. I have lots of non-flat sections, that I don't care if they look chunky after the scale down.

2nd part....I need a footprint drawing of the airplane. This is simply a directly overhead shadow that I can outline. I turned on "shadows" but I cannot see how to put the sun directly overhead. The sun angle default distorts the footprint significantly in places.

Thanks in advance...

Sorry for the late reply guys and thanks.

I really don't want to redefine the L/R scroll as now I use it in other apps. I tried at first and the codes will work in SU but nowhere else.

Too bad Logitech can't develop a mouse with an app sensitive button redefinition. Logitech has a bad habit of messing with success and not providing upgrades with the ability to detect what you have now before replacing software (assuming you are upgrading an old Logitech mouse). This is my 4th Logitech mouse and I've had to relearn (and redefine) every one of them. My new MX-600 mouse has 11 re-definable buttons, which I have set as best I can to come near my old MX-70 with 10 buttons. The only major difference is the MX-70 did not have a side scroll wheel function.

Too bad SU does not provide for advanced mice button settings also. Then you can redefine any button input to perform a specific SU function, without having to redefine the mouse itself.

Anyway, specifically, Gai; my new Logitech "Setpoint" s/w does not have a "Generic Mouse" setting.

Likewise Dylan, there is no "middle-click" function. Currently my scroll wheel depress function is set to "O" to initiate the orbit tool, akin to what my old MX-70 did.

The critical difference here is the old MX-70 initiated and maintained the orbit tool while the wheel was depressed, and released the orbit tool back to the tool you were using when the wheel was released, with an implied "exit". The new MX-600 calls the orbit tool when the wheel is depressed, and you need to rt-click to select "exit" to release it. Pressing the wheel does not release the orbit tool. And in SU there is no shortcut key for the orbit tool "exit" function. It HAS to be clicked on.
I'm just not used to doing it that way after 2 1/2 years of ingrained autonomic function.

And Mitcorb, I will try that route. Thanks for the suggestion.

A few days ago my trusty mouse died in a spectacular fashion. It was a 5 year old wireless Logitech MX-70 with 8 buttons. First the cursor took on a life of its own, then the buttons went haywire, then it died, cursor dead center of the screen. I really liked it, and used almost all the buttons.

I assumed the way it operated in SU was normal, because I did nothing special with it or SU when I installed SU the very first time 2+ years ago, nor since. When I depressed the scroll wheel, SU would assume the orbit tool, till I released the wheel. Spinning the wheel zoomed, and moving left/right panned. With a finger on CTRL or SHIFT it would rotate or spin. This really made navigation super simple and fast.

I spent a day looking for a replacement, finally settling on a new USB KB/Mouse combo from Costco. The KB & Mouse combo cost less than a similar mouse alone elsewhere. The mouse is a USB Laser Logitech MX-600 which has most of the buttons the old one had. It does NOT behave like the old one in one very important area.

At first the scroll wheel would only zoom. Pressing the wheel did nothing. So I programmed the wheel to "O" (orbit tool) when pressed. However, it now only selects the orbit tool, where the old mouse engaged the orbit tool only while pressed. Plus I need to press the left mouse key to actually orbit, while the old mouse would orbit while just holding down the wheel and moving the mouse. As a result, a change of view is now a multi-step function, not seamless like the old mouse.

This also affects the move tool in a very similar fashion. I cannot drag an object past the edge of screen. It is now very difficult to move an object to a precise position as the pan/orbit functions are disassociated from the move tool.

Aside from having to relearn how to navigate in SU-6, I was wondering if there may be a better keystroke to reprogram the mouse wheel with, and better yet, is there any way I can make SU respond to the side-scroll wheel function? The side-scroll works in a narrow window, such as the layers window, but not in the drawing area.

Got it, thanks, TIG.

I'll Try it on Wed as I gotta take the Mrs out for a quick dinner (she was too lazy to cook) and tomorrow I am out most of the day.

That's better Wo3Dan, I will keep it in mind.

But, TIG's fillet tool looks more like what I want, but hey TIG!! Where's it at?

@wo3dan said:

The arc you just made is tangent but not yet the right size.
The nice thing is you can adjust its radius in entity info, still letting it stay tangent to both edges.
Wo3Dan

Yes, that is a neat way to lay down a tangential arc of a defined radius, without guides or inference points. However, it is too many tool changes, clicks and a keyboard when I have a few dozen to do at one time.

@thomthom said:

And quarter-circle snap would be nice.

Agree.

But better yet, arcs at a defined radius (and segments) between 2 selected intersecting lines and a tangential arc forms.

@cmd said:

jgb,

yes... it looks like the Arc tool does not analyze the edges when you are going from Construction Point to Construction Point .... or when creating edge tick marks (my personal habit)

jgb... perhaps line segments or construction LINES instead of POINTS may help in your work.

CMD

Yes, construction LINES do work, Thanks. I too tried tick marks and I was surprised they do not work when a crossed line intersection does work. But ticks are work to create, as you have to measure where they go first, so it's a double step, unless you need the tick to make a line break or it is needed after you delete guides.

I noticed that with only a single guide line, I sometimes do not get the magenta cue at 45 deg, unless I trace the arc tool from the guide line intersection to the apex and then to its' diagonal inference. And even that does not work when you do a second arc on the same pair of lines.

So, lines work, points don't. that is an easy workaround, and Pipe-along-path happily makes seamless joins. But, as Thomthom said, it would be nice if the arc tool was consistent with construction points as are the other tools.

Nice explanation Gai, but sadly does not address my problem.

First off I have dozens to do in this model (heavy cable electrical runs), almost all at the same symmetrical arc radius of 3 inches, so drawing "any" arc then scaling it back is not practical. That's way more fiddly work than cleaning up the join lines after the P-A-P runs.

The problem is that I do not get even a magenta 45 deg line if I start from a 3 inch guide point on 1 or both lines. I only get it from a midpoint or intersection or from any unmarked point on the line(s).

And I am testing every statement here as I write.

I have 2 lines perp to each other on the blue/red axis, each about 100 inches long, but not equal.
From midpoint to midpoint I get the 2 cyan tangent cues.
From any point on 1 line to the magenta inference on the other I get a magenta tangent cue.

But if I make a guide point on 1 line at say 30 in, I do NOT get a magenta inference. And if I click on the midpoint on the second line, I only get the cyan tangent cue tangent to the midpoint line only, but NOT the tangent to the guide pointed line.

2 guide points at any equal or different distances and I get NO cues for tangent at all.

I also played with a rect. tool created face, and got very similar results. 2 guide points = no tangent cue.

Me thinks there may be a bug in SU here (don't tell Gully ) Again, this is SU V6.

In order to reduce my labor in most of these arc generations, and considering almost all my arcs are same size and between 2 perp. lines, I create 1 arc as best I can, and copy it to other intersections oriented in the same plane (flipping as required) and repeat the same for the other 2 orientations. Then I clean up all the corners, select the whole line, P-A-P and finally soften/smooth each join.

Having the arc tool perform with proper tangent cues from a single guide point would reduce that workload considerably.

When I have a high-poly repetitive item that is essentially for final show purposes, like a tree, I make a very low poly flat representative component, with the "always face camera" attribute. Then I put the high poly trees on their own layer, and the low poly trees on their own layer.

When working on and navigating the model I turn on only the low poly layer. (if I really need it)

When I have a scene that needs to be viewed in detail or printed, I switch layers.

I use the arc tool a lot, in conjunction with pipe-along-path.

However there seems to be either an inconsistency or, I'm doing something wrong.

When I make an arc between two joined lines, usually at 90 deg, I use the tape tool to create guide points on both lines equidistant from the apex in order to form a smooth curved join. Then with the arc tool, I will create an arc between the 2 guides and (try to) form a tangential arc. Then I delete the 2 line stubs and face formed by that arc and run P-A-P on the formed line.

Here's the problem. Sometimes, maybe 1 in 20 tries, the arc tool will show a magenta tangential arc. Most times it will not. When it does not, P-A-P will leave a join line between the curved and straight "pipes" which have to be softened and smoothed.

When the magenta line does not appear, the arc tool seems to first snap (on edge) at a point that causes an excess bulge, and is not tangential. I then have to eye the curve to what seems tangential to me, and that always leaves a join line in the pipe.

It does not matter if I do the arc on a temp face at the apex, or just the 2 lines alone. But I do seem to get a better quality first snap on lines that are not perpendicular.

The only times I can get a consistent tangential snap is when I do the arc between one or both of the mid-points of each line, which is no use if the line is 10 feet long and I want a 3 inch arc.

I get the tangential snap (but tangent to only 1 line) if I do NOT use guide points to place the arc. If I use guide points, I don't even get the snap at 45 deg.

Still on V6.4.112

@dolphus said:

My latest daydream a futuristic freight locomotive still under development

Neat models. I'm not into trains, but I am into airplanes. A minor critique of your freight loco is it's aerodynamic shape at the front end.

Depending on its speed, say anywhere over 90 mph, the rounded nose will create a lift and potentially unload the front bogies enough to be a problem. This lift is more from the ram air effect on the lower part of the nose and not the winglike lift from over the top. My suggestion is to drop the leading edge down closer to the track, more like the loco in your first model in this topic.

Also, what practical purpose is the very aero shape on a freight loco? It won't offer enough anti-drag to pay for its complexity to build considering the amount of aero drag on common freight rolling stock.
I can see such shaping on fast passenger trains, not lumbering freighters.

Sexy shape though.....

Does anyone know of a script; or if not; could someone please write a script to do this?

From the vertex of 2 lines joined in space, draw a tangential arc at a specified distance from the vertex, then delete the resultant stubs at the vertex. Length of lines and contained angle should not matter. The arc ends should be welded to the line ends creating a 1 line object.

In operation, user selects 2 joined lines,
selects pluggin tool/key, (preferably Right Click)
dialog or VCB asks for arc distance from vertex,
-or- mouse click on 1 line at arc point,
pluggin draws tangential arc,
deletes stub lines at vertex,
and then welds ends.

I'm doing cable harness's with dozens of wires and multiple bends, so I need to do hundreds of these. Manually each bend now takes 10 clicks. I then use Pipe-along-path to create each wire, or wire bundle.

Thanks