@unknownuser said:

We have updated docs pending for release.

That's awesome news!

@unknownuser said:

entities.fill_faces_from_mesh(mesh, true, 2 |

Right. Will try that.

I persume you mean one can choose between 2 or 8, not apply expression in argument?

Yeah, I noticed some "irregularities" during some tests. This won't cover all scenarious, and to add many validychecks on top of fill from mesh would be to compute intensensive when dealing with plenty of geometry.

Since TIG is not a "mindreader" ( or is he ), I probably should have mentioned that the motif for creating this method is to try to restore a polygonsmesh to it's true geometry when baking. And the true meaning faces from a Component or Group.

Unfortunately if having faces with holes they don't come out well when baking the mesh unless I triangulate the faces. And since I probably will do something to the Mesh, the original face-Component cannot be used as a reference for removing holes after an intersection. At the moment I'm only triangulating faces with 5 or more vertices..
A face with a hole have minimum 6 vertices (?)

edit: removed some irrelevant...

The polygonmesh class is really a piece of art filled with mysterious behavior.

Dug up this old thread:

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=180%26amp;t=27470%26amp;p=237996%26amp;hilit=PolygonMesh#p237996

It does not seam to be accurate what says there.

I'm using Thomthoms example for hidding edges with negative index values.
Creating a Group and adding entities with add_faces_from_mesh or fill from mesh.

Following that example mesh.add_polygon(1,-2,3) etc. Using positive values VS negative values has no effect.
No smooth_flags argument sets default to (12 ?)
So using mesh.add_polygon(1,2,3) gives same result as mesh.add_polygon(1,-2,3)

Am I missing something ? There's no follow up in that thread stating what I'm experiencing here..

This gives a little more flexibility if put as options. Could be better written..
Bit dangerous deleting edges like that..

edges = bake_group.entities.grep(Sketchup;;Edge)
		
# Options for ex dialog
delete_coplanar = true
angle_a = 0.001
angle_b = 35
		
for e in edges 
  next if e.deleted? 
  next unless e.faces.length == 2  
  ang = e.faces[0].normal.angle_between(e.faces[1].normal)
			
  case ang
  when delete_coplanar && 0.degrees 
    e.erase!
    next
  when [angle_a, 0.0001].max.degrees...angle_b.degrees 
    e.soft=true && e.smooth=true 
  when ang > angle_b.degrees
    #e.material = "red" #debug!
    e.soft=false && e.smooth=false 
  end
		
end

Yeah, that works for me too.

rest of code ? I'm just grepping edges after add_faces_from_mesh.
And then running the code you provided.

Had to use add_faces_from_mesh not to get smoothed edges (?).
Strange.. Must have broken something cause did not have any problems with fill from mesh before. Need to laborate with the fill_from_mesh parameters..

edit: must have removed the second parameter in fill_from_mesh( mesh, true, 0)
accidentially. now it works, and much faster!

edges = bake_group.entities.grep(Sketchup;;Edge)
for e in edges 
   next unless e.faces.length==2 && e.faces[0].normal.parallel?(e.faces[1].normal)
   e.soft = true && e.smooth = true 
end

If I remebered correctly Thomthom recommended JSONP for that. Have tried yet, but I have seen the recommendation in other places.

Edit: Here's the thread. but when rereading the post I realize this may not be relevant

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=180%26amp;t=54288%26amp;p=492113#p492113

Works well if I add:

next unless e.faces.length==2 && e.faces[0].normal==e.faces[1].normal && e.faces[0].normal.reverse==e.faces[1].normal.reverse

Could be something messed up in my mesh, but face down faces at ORIGIN plane got ignored.

An API method might have been faster, but this will do well.

Thanks!

Thanks TIG! I'll try that.

Although I wished not having to loop Everything one more time

Hi.

Is there anything like Sketchups native soften coplanar in the API ?

It would be convienient for when baking Polygonsmesh with triangualted faces.

try changing matl = Sketchup::Color.new(0,250,154) to (0,250,154, 100)

and

faces.each{|face|
	  face.back_material = face.material = matl
	  face.material.alpha = 0.5
    }

edit: Updated code for backface as you wanted. And the 4rth argument is actually not needed in th Color object..

Heh, it was like this for 100 puts statements in the console.

to_s_to_l: 2.884
using send: 2.915

Rookie premature refactoring gone bad

Your right!

I wrongly assumed using send instead would be faster, which it isent.

Normally the user would like to work in current set Units.

To convert numbers to that, you could use this for starters ?
Someone else may come up with better idea, just a rough idea..

edit: ah! I missed Thomthoms SketchUp-Units-and-Locale-Helper

 #default
@su_units = ;inch

def set_model_units
	current_unit = Sketchup.active_model.options["UnitsOptions"]["LengthUnit"]
	return case current_unit
		when 0 then @su_units = ;inch
		when 1 then @su_units = ;feet
		when 2 then @su_units = ;mm
		when 3 then @su_units = ;cm
		when 4 then @su_units = ;m
	end
end

# init 1 time in your module
set_model_units

puts 5.to_l

puts (5).send( @su_units )

Not too much code either.

That's a bug. Won't intersect either.

I wonder if it's related to this problem.. Some funny thing going on here,
although this is done by hand.

Face is recognized somehow although deleted..

What the heck

What's up with that ?

Strange I don't seam to be able to paste the link properly. Never mind. The topic was called UI.timer or something like that.

From what I understand the outcome from that topic was about the same as you says.

I think I misstook c++ threads for Ruby threads. You could probably say anything regarding C code, and I believe it..

That doesent confuse me less

About threads, I was under the impression Sketchup threads was a bit shaky ? Although I can't really tell the outcome from this topic.

http://sketchucation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=180&t=51701&p=467287&hilit=threads#p467287

Right, that was my opinion too. Not Always good printing result.

There may be a possibility to pull off a few simpler pattern combinations in code.
Which would be faster to intersect.

OK, I pull up this one a notch in priority then. No promises made. Gotta try and finish some projects and not just start new ones

Aha, interesting. Will chew on it a little..

My brother is a .net developper with quite a bit of knowledge of C++, so I could probably get a big kickstart and set up. Otherwise I woulden't even consider trying..

Anyway, thanks again! I'll keep an eye on you projects