@richard said:
BTW mate, it's funny that they ask immigrants to Australia if they have any criminal record, I'm not sure if that means it's still a requirement?
Bit like last time I entered the US; I was asked "got any guns on you?"
"No" I replied, since I rarely use small weapons.
"Want some?" they asked.
Well I'm no expert on Aussie legal matters - indeed I assumed that being a land composed entirely of convicts that they wouldn't actually have a legal system* - but that sounds like it ought to be a criminal matter rather than just something to sue over.
[*]That's actually a joke. Noted because I know that Aussies have no sense of humour...
So, you think there's something wrong about teaching kids to be responsible? How odd.
Anyone that thinks Apple are the only company suing competitors over claimed patent, copyright or trade-dress really hasn't been paying attention. It's part of the business world and has been pretty much forever.
Every company large enough to afford it either is, has, or is about to sue some competitor. If you have a patent or trademark you have to sue in order to protect it from being lost; not fighting for it can be used as an argument against you later.
And really, if you think $1b damages is even really noticeable in the smartphone market then you haven't read the sales figures. It's the dust left behind from peanuts.
@dave r said:
It isn't a bug just because you didn't expect the behavior.
Y'what! If it doesn't work exactly the way I want it to, that's a bug.
Why yes, I am the centre of the 'verse, thank you.
That's a really interesting way to associate the symbols and their referents, especially for a scrapbook/catalogue view of things.
I'm not going to claim to be sure, but I think that there is a way to add extra data to Ruby objects, so I'm wondering if it would be possible to do some trickery to
a) design components like these
b) design the symbols for them
c) add symbols as meta-dat to the objects
d) drag the symbols out of the objects with an appropriate gesture
e) profit!!!
I'd strongly urge the customer to go for drawers only; that looks like reaching into the spaces behind the doors would be really tricky.
Is it intended to go against a wall or be free-standing in the middle of a room? If so, you could go for half-depth drawers for the bottom and pull-throughs for the top. Keep really common tools in the top drawers and access them from either side, keep less used stuff in the bottom deep drawers.
Not directly related to SU but certainly in the general field of interesting 3D stuff - http://viterbi.usc.edu/news/news/2012/jernej-barbic-releases.htm and http://run.usc.edu/vega/
Anyone for a plugin 
?
Wow, thanks much for all that explanation and work Dan; it's amazing how much hassle can be caused by a simple seeming issue. At least this is merely a minor irritation rather than a life threatening disaster!
I get the impression from reading a lot of postings in this forum that SU needs a great deal more of the api exposed so that, for this case as an example, one could actually create a blank page and set it up as needed rather than having a rather cockeyed 'new' message that actually creates, does setup that isn't wanted and then leaves one to work out how much to undo… right now it isn't 'new' but 'copy'.
I guess my first port of call is thoroughly to test out the interaction of LO with what I have working in the plugin, since that was what triggered my attempts.
@mike lucey said:
I imagine a company with Apple's resources could come up with a better fixing solution other than industrial glue .... seems to be a crude solution!
Really? Glue is simple to apply, generally reliable, has no moving parts to break or get lost. It is generally a very thin layer. It is quite possible to obtain glues that are trivial to 'disassemble' (if that's the right word for something like glue) such as the 3M 'command glue' stuff.
I've no idea what glue Apple might have used in this case but to blanket condemn the idea is silly. For a similar situation I would happily specify something like http://www.command.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/NACommand/Command/Products/Catalog/%7E/Command-Mini-Refill-Strips?N=5922782&rt=rud. Pull the right tab and it simply comes undone. Seems pretty green to me.
@dan rathbun said:
When a new scenepage is created, a COPY of the current page is used to create the new page. So whatever Axes are set for the current page, will be dup'd into the new page.
So.. sounds to me like you may be inside a group or component editing context (and so that parent's axes is current,) when you create the component-copy-scenepage.
Ah; right, that's the crucial bit of info I was lacking. Yes, the annoyance occurs when we have a component with sub-components, are editing the outer component, and thus have the outer component's axes on display. I hadn't ever really noticed the jumping around of axes before...
@dan rathbun said:
If that's the case.. just get a ref to the nested component... then back out of the editing context(s)
model.close()until the context is at the model context ??
I could do that I guess but it seems like it would be a pretty annoying thing to have messed up the user's edit situation, especially if it had involved descending a dozen levels into a complex model. Hmm, I suppose it must be possible to record the chosen components that are 'open' on the way up and then do the component scene creation, then re-walk the list to get back to where the user had been.
Ta.
@dave r said:
I didn't think anyone ever read my signature anyway. Is it really that bad?
I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror, Dave.
But on topic, a script or dynamic component etc that could do space filling physical patterns would be very useful. Roof tiles/shingles, metal roof panels, board and batten siding, bricks, anything repetitive. The ideal would obviously 'just work' when the face changed size or shape, just as pattern filling does now.
I can sort of see vague hints of the technique floating in the aether but I don't have anything like the available time to even try a simple example. And a really clever one is certainly beyond me right now.
As part of my ComponentScenes plugin I've been trying to change the code to insert the component into its special view centred nicely; in the hope that Layout will behave a bit more pleasantly when zooming/scaling (but that's another story).
I've successfully got things so that the component is indeed centred correctly on the global axes; at least, I think so. If one turns on the layer for the single component it appears in the place I expect however on the page added to display the component the axes are not in the same place. This is very vexing. So far as I can tell the 'false' axes are actually the axes of the component to which the singled out component used to belong, which makes no good sense to me at all. After all, I'm inserting the singled out component directly into the top level of the model, not back into its original 'owner'. At least, I hope this code does that -
newItem = entitiesList.add_instance(thisItem.definition, transf)
A top-level component that is chosen will appear correctly centred, presumably since it is considered to belong to the same owner as before.
Example:
@unknownuser said:
I changed my iPod name to Titanic . It's syncing now.
I was once an IBM Research Fellow in the UK. I worked with an experimental CAD terminal - real high-resolution, a whole 1024x1204 8bpp, but this was after all in 1981 - which was developed as part of an internal company competition to produce the next IBM CAD hardware product. It was called the Titanic because everyone knew it would never cross the Atlantic...
@unknownuser said:
Actually, I'm a recreational Pilot with a wish to build my own plane.
Be really, really, careful with putting your body in between the two wing leading edges. Imagine a firm intersection with terra firm (aka 'crash landing') and what might happen as the inertia of the wings causes them to fold forward and those root ribs rotate…. 'head in a vice' seems like an unpleasant phrase to have in an obituary 
@jason_maranto said:
According to wikipedia:
@unknownuser said:
CAD refers to a specific type of drawing and modeling software application that:
- Is designed for creating technical drawings for distribution electronically and on paper
- Uses the accuracy inherent in a floating point, as opposed to fixed-point drawing database
Well someone in wikipedia-land is an idiot. Two reasons (limiting ourselves to this one clause)
New version uploaded 15 Jun 2012; try to make the zoom setting for each component scene actually work. Yet again, the API does't do what it says in the docs.
@dale said:
Tim this looks like a really helpful tool. Thanks
Thanks - do please add any problems or suggestions to the relevant thread -http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=45790&p=410067#p410067
@rich o brien said:
It's somewhat similar to this....
Yes, it has some important similarities to both the viewports and Comp2Layer plugins including the fact that they jointly inspired me to try something oblong the same lines but more suited to my own needs. ComponentScenes works with nested components though, which viewports seems not to handle. Comp2Layer actually moves the chosen components to new layers, which I found annoying.
Most importantly to me the process of writing the plugin is a learning experience; the possibility that it may result in something useful to other people is a nice bonus