https://sites.google.com/site/3dbasecamp2008/all-sessions-2008/sketchup-and-autocad

I remember this talk as being incredibly useful. I also am first brained autocad but have now trained myself to be kind of dual brained. I have found that staying efficient in both means perhaps being less than optimal on each particular program. I find myself doing a lot of copy/move in sketch-up so the ends don't stick together. I then go back and erase the original. I think there must be quite a few sketchup for autocad users tutorials out there but if not I will dig out the stuff I posted to youtube when I was teaching and Autocad class with sketchup thrown in as the sweetener.

If I apply a transformation to the separate vertices in an circle or arc it acts differently than if I have exploded the curve. Any insights? When the vertices are a part of a circle the circle seems to dilate about the center even if the transformation is defined as

tran=Geom::Transformation.new([0,0,10])

If the curve is exploded the transformation does the expected shift of 10 in the "z" direction.

Thanks for any immediate insights.

AshCott, can you describe a little more your experience with joytokey. Looks intriguing.

I'm glad to see Chris is still hanging around. SP and its elegant use of Ruby is way too cool to give up as this Sketchup Bus makes the connection at Trimbleville. Of course the Blender thing is also worth a look but here's hoping SP is rejuvenated.

There isn't any sketchup stuff there but their Computer Science stuff is very visually based. As an engineer who really cut his adult teeth on Ruby I would have loved this interface when learning ruby. You make the change to the code and immediately see its effect.

The new Khan Academy Computer Science Framework based on Processing JS....Sketchy Physics....and Ruby Scripting. Is anyone else? (in other words.... a very quiet site does not mean we have forgotten what a tremendous resource sketchy physics is).

I have mixed memories of dealing with Trimble software. Way too many locks however they did have some nifty on the fly topographic tools in the trimble office software. I guess it may be time to roll from ruby to python to cover my bases however. And what will happen to sketchy physics?????

I think I recognize that servo....Who else is drawing the links between Arduino and Sketchy Physics?

http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html

I'm sure you will see this a bunch but it was too cool not to share.

From TED 2012.

Nice work though I'm not sure it is quite there. If your intent is for the platform to rotate about a fixed axis you have a problem in that the distance from the top fixed rotation point on the linkages must vary as the device rotates. If you intent is for the platform to both rotate and go up and down you probably need a slider (or piston) on each side. I'll try and take a stab at this this weekend. Keep plugging away.

What a nice Holiday present. Can't wait to try it...(once I understand it (:)).

Can anyone tell me how to get a list of all of the methods attached to
MSketchyPhysic3::
like
MSketchyPhysics3::getCursor()

Thanks(:))

Push works well. Something like this inside the Sketchy Physics UI for the object.

xpos=0.0
ypos=0.0
xturn=150.0
yturn=150.0
ontick{
if frame%60 == 0
    if xpos < xturn || ypos > yturn
      push([1,0,0])
      puts ("pushx")
    else
      push([0,2,0])
      puts ("pushy")
    end
    xpos=position().x
    ypos=position().y
    puts(ypos)
end
}

This will push towards the x direction for awhile then push towards the y and then back to the x. You could also change the logic so the push direction changed based on touching the bumpers using the ontouch event.

downtrack.skp

I like the design on the wheel assembly. Seems to work well.

It does appear that the Sketchy Physics posts have fallen off a bit; I think there is another forum that has emerged on the web perhaps. Sketchy Physics remains an important tool if only for bringing students into a world where they can visualize their mathematics albeit in a not perfect modeling engine. Perhaps many of us are just waiting for Chris Phillips to regain some coding steam to take us all further along the journey.

Sketchy physics has a hard time with "voids". This means that if you want a "hole" in something to act as part of a whole you need to essentially build the "whole" by grouping together other shapes like boxes and convex hulls and leave some out for the hole. . Depending on your computer and its processing power you can build things out of pretty small strips which like with calculus, approximate reality...or at least a good facimile thereof. To get the idea I suggest starting with two rectangular boxes bound together by two squares leaving a void in the middle. Take those shapes and group them and wallah (sp). The good thing about rectangles is that they "scale" a little better. The attached model takes this two steps further by they grouping the groups together and then attaching a motor.

holes.skp

It probably is bad form to reply to your own post but I'll do it anyway. The fix is to use setVar and getVar as often as possible and also to use the @@var form of variables and to avoid global variables ($var)whenever possible.

I was trying to pass some timing information from the global variable stored in the static floor to some blocks and came across some strangeness. If I open the model and unclick and then reclick the scripted checkbox in the blocks then it works. If I just run the simulation after opening it I get an error. Any insights?

khan_example_2.skp

Whenever I miss the brilliant things that CP drops out of the sky every now and then I just go back to the Sketchy Physics Piano and try plunk out a little tune. I hope all is well.

What an excellent post!