Damn... don't let Google get a hold of these, or instead of Streetview, we will have these little pests mapping our houses to model for Google earth

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.

Works like a charm! As always I am enthusiastically grateful!

Thank you for the explanation, Kev. It was really helpful. However, I would like to know why when you calculated the acceleration you multiplied all by 1/4.

My intent here is mostly for those who do not have use of one or both of their hands/arms. Perhaps it is as simple as Dragon Naturally Speaking??? If Dean Kaemen can engineer the DARPA arm...someone must be playing with this voice stuff in Sketchup. (Finally did my first Segway tour....am now officially a nerd)

I see... Well for internet data transfer you can do it several ways, easiest being opening up the web-dialog and reading data from that, the interactivity is a bit limited but it has all sorts of uses . I used it for automated plug-in updating, so when I upload a new script the plugin on users end can update itself without file transfer. Another way is direct UDP/TCP connection, if you add another file to SU then Ruby can connect to other people directly. I used this for a small multiplayer game experiment, and it works quite well, tho setting up p2p connections it not without it's faults. But a friend is doing an upgraded version with a user database where people log-in, chat, multiplayer game lobbies/lists/scores, that may take a while tho. There was also quite some talk of interactive modeling, but the biggest problem is Ruby still hasn't got the full access to SU, so the synchronizing would probably haveto rebuild the full geometry on the other end(not an ideal solution with bigger models).

It's in the Standard (ie Extended,) Libraries for 1.8.6 (not in the Core.) In Files lib/complex.rb lib/mathn.rb You need a full ruby installation. You need to add paths to the $LOAD_PATH array. I have a topic on this and a utility script called !loadpaths.rb Addenda: -See these posts: for the !loadpaths.rb script: [code] Ruby LOAD PATHs script for (Win32) and for info: same topic near the bottom.. for the complete Ruby libraries (with precompiled .so files,) direct from ftp.ruby-lang.org: to match SU 8.0M0 & M1: ruby 1.8.6-p287* for Ruby 1.8.6-p369 (latest as of this posting.) requires you replace DLL in Sketchup program folder if on Windows.* See instructions: Ruby Interpreter DLLs (Win32) Also see: Ruby Newbie's Guide to Getting Started

I am afraid that isn't right. Think of it this way. 1 is slow mo, 3 is normal speed and 6+ is fast forward. The framerate is the number of physics steps that happen before Sketchup displays the frame. A physics step is 1/60 of a second. The default is actually 3 and with it goes like this Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. etc. if the framerate is 1 Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. Advance physics simulation by 1/60 sec. Update Sketchup object positions. etc. Here is where it gets a bit tricky. By far the slowest part of this cycle is the Update Sketchup Object part. That means that the lower the framerate the slower the model appears to run even tho its actually running at the same speed as if you were using 3. With 3 you will just get more simulation time in the same number of real time seconds. Hope that helps. Chris

@sgt.a.johnson said: I still run vista but i thought it wasnt possible to run windows on mac hardware and vice versa. Does it work well? Since Apple moved to Intel software it was possible to run Windows on Macs. Running Macs on PC hardware is another deal though.

Well, I don't think anyone simulates with a realistic number of molecules. The least realistic fluid animations use a particle emitter, where the particles use a 'blobby' algorithm to simulate a fluid surface. A single particle looks like a polygon-sphere, a droplet. A tight line of particles looks almost like a true fluid stream. The major downfall is that the particles don't have any expression of 'surface tension' or volume, so they freely scatter and also can flow to a single small spot. Scriptable particles have partially overcome even that drawback, if you can script in a kind of attraction that has a min. standoff distance, and still incorporates friction between objects, damping, and so on. True fluid simulators that do all the work internally still operate on a mesh that you produce which has a relatively small number of vertices. Just like Finite Element Analysis (FEA) used to simulate the failure of a given part design that uses a given material, such as acrylic plastic or a certain aluminum alloy. The part model, usually created in software like Solidworks, is broken up into elements, small blocks, so that the part looks like it is made of tiles, like the space shuttle. (It also has a resemblance to a quad-only polygonal model where all the quads are the same square area.) But the tiles are blocks, and the entire solid has been 'blockified'. Then the expected 'force' is applied to the part in a specified vector, and based on the material selected, an analysis is performed and a report is produced that details the amount of force that produces deflection and ultimately failure of the part. Usually an image is generated that shows which areas of the part are stressed the most, allowing the designer to rework it to improve his design. The point is that these sims usually work on mere hundreds of elements, maybe several thousand at the most, not tens of thousands, and certainly not millions. You might be able to make something that looks like flowing sand or wheat, or maybe even 'like' a fluid, if some more advanced physics scripting is added. But since SU doesn't do any special rendering, the best is could probably look like is 'watery particles'.

@mptak said: Chris: Of course I am really just looking for an excuse to use sketchy physics(:)). Who needs an excuse. Just use it anyway. Im finding its useful for my tech coursework making a rat trap at the moment because i can use it to see how everything works. Only problem im having for that is no elastic bands and springs dont do the job right

That model is stupidly immense, in a good way. Man I am new to SketchyPhysics compared to you guys, and I thought I was good!

Very old topic i'm replying to...but relevant still. I was looking for a method to control the Sketchy Controllers via a web dialog box in sketchup. I basically want to change the interface of the sliders to other controls....drop downs, or some other html control...and have it control the sliders or directly control the joints themselves...either way. I'm sure this is possible now...but, I can't seem to find any references to it. Thanks, Joe