I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry, I could have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for someone just itching to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to contribute to the Sketchup library of add-ons. Spin a cone and intersect it with a face describing the curve, or just calculate the points and connect them. More generally, maybe just import a list of ordinates from a spreadsheet and plot them. This would be generally useful for lofting a canoe hull, for example. Is that getting too far out of the realm of woodworking?
Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought the version that has at least a little bit of functionality. Let's see if you can sell him.
Tell you what. Let's take up the subject of CAD again when you get one of these:
formatting link
the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0. The last one 3.87. That one was tough. No SU support.
I quite arguing this a while back, but I will say, once again, that anyone with a cursory familiarity with both versions will tell you that you are dead wrong in that supposition.
Wail away at will, but it just simply ain't so.
formatting link
> BTW, the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0.
That's is indeed quite an accomplishment, Rob ... my hats off to you. Well done!
Problem is, we have not been discussing a "CAD" program ...
I took a quick look at Ruby. It looks a helluva lot more fun than autolisp, which I had to learn many moons ago but have happily forgetten, except that I just about wore the ()'s off the keyboard. That was a miserable experience. I don't particularly want to learn it, but if I was starting from zero it doesn't look like a bad environment to work with.
If woodworking is "making something out of wood", then the realm can become awesomely wide as soon as "design" becomes part of the picture.
As far as the length of curve problem is concerned, there are at least three ways to approach the problem:
[1] Set up a relation L = f(a), where L is the curve length, a is the focal length, and f(a) is a definite integral representing the length of the curve between limits - and work "backward" to produce the relation a = g(L). Once a is known, all the rest is "duck soup".
[2] You can also set it up as a limit problem, but that's really just a way to sneak up on the integration method without getting your hands dirty with calculus.
[3] You can also "cook" the geometry (locate the vertex at the origin, choose a convenient value for the focal length, etc) and compute the sum of the lengths of segments of some tiny constant value (say, a millionth of a unit). Then use the ratio of that (cooked) length to the desired length to arrive at the focal length of the parabola you want to produce. This method requires a certain measure of care in avoiding cumulative computational error, but would probably be easiest for folks who aren't comfortable with integral calculus or limit theory.
I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one programming language for which I implemented/published/sold a compiler). I browsed the Ruby programming pages and decided that the benefits just wouldn't provide an adequate return on my time/energy investment; and I attached a higher priority to completion of the solar engine project than to adding yet another "wart" to SketchUp.
Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house? :)
The two thoughts were unrelated. Thinking of a generalized import solution, with the hull profiles as a further example beyond just the parabola.
Which language? AutoLisp put the bread on my table the entire latter half of the 80's. Since then, I've more or less stuck with C++. Dr. Geisel would be pleased, I think, with just how nicely that language can read when written in iambic pentameter. Not in CAD systems, though. They're just part of a multitude of hobbies. I build financial data systems by day.
PL/C (Programming Language for Compilers) was based on and extended BNF to include output, external references, and inlining of other code. It was a tool that could be used to produce interpreters and translators (from any langage to any other language, including spoken languages); and was written up in the March '84 issue of DDJ.
I've done a bit with financial systems. If you're interested you're welcome to peruse a (somewhat sketchy) resume at
formatting link
never occurred to me to write code in a poetic form. :)
Of the languages I've used, I've liked C and APL best.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I upgraded to the Pro versions for two reasons only:
~ The added import/export features in the Pro version of the program.
~ The included Layout "presentation" program, which allows me to develop and print industry standard construction documents, based on the models created in the base program, for both and bidding and building purposes.
The ability to create dynamic components with the Pro version was an added plus for the kitchen/cabinet design part of my business, but was not considered in the justification for expenditure to upgrade from free to Pro, which was based _solely_ on import/export/presentation capabilities in the Pro version.
AAMOF, *ALL* the modeling work in the current construction project was done with the free version, the Layout program used only to import, layout, and print the actual construction documents.
Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.
Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at least the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.
There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which hundreds of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming literate" which most of the computer literate folks aren't...
...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.
Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big deal
- but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of understanding of what it's all about.
A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is just baggage to be carried from success to failure.
Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I am interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout included in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.
What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns it into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil, chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is a presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy fartsy kinda thing.
But for certain audiences, it will get the deal where the more technical drawings will not. And that is the sort of thing I need to do. These kinds of tools used to be quite common. I have used them before. Then they got bought up and became part of big, expensive graphics packages. It will be worth $500 to me for this capability alone.
Besides I used to do my drawings with a T square and triangle. And I sketch constantly on graph paper. The Layout module is a nice touchy feely thing that breaks down communication barriers for certain audiences. It will help secure funding for a couple hard sell projects.
I know that this is NOT what you were talking about Swingman. I just thought I would contribute this comment. Primarily because of all this discussion, I am looking at Sketchup more closely now. And this Layout functions looks like a winner to me.
I am really curious as to why google included this feature. I haven't seen it for awhile. It is good to see it back.
Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was a cheap good full featured interpreter for it.
Well, actually it does make one an expert. Writing compilers is not simple--a lot of students in courses with textbooks and being pretty much stepped through it have trouble with them. Pride may be baggage, but so is excessive humility.
You're selling yourself short--it doesn't matter how you developed the skill, you've got a lot more than you think you have.
Oops, I checked and the features I was talking about was in the Stylebuilder module (not the Layout module) of Sketchup Pro. To quote the website, "We put the Sketch back into Sketchup."
You are talking about "Style Builder", not "Layout":
formatting link
indeed is a standalone "program" included with the Pro version that allows you to create custom styles than can be **applied to** a model drawn in the base program (actually removes detail from a drawing to give it a customized "sketchy edge" ).
You're correct, it is not something I've much need for as a woodworker or builder. Style Builder no way alters the statement made above as to functional difference in the drawing of 3D/2D models.
It is important for users to understand that the tools for the actual drawing/modeling are the same in both versions. The difference being in Export, Import and Presentation capabilities.
Once again and simply put, and for all practical purposes, if you do not need these added capabilities which have nothing to do with the actual drawing of models themselves, you do NOT need the Pro version.
Very impressive. I mentioned that I got addicted to computers long ago when I thought it might help me some in drawing up some of the stuff I was making in my shop. Actually, I couldn't draw stick figures very well and I had managed to become rather adept at drawing 3 dimensional desks, cabinets and so on. When I started computing in earnest it was programing that grabbed me the most. I learned 6 or 7 languages, mostly high level text processing stuff like AWK/GAWK/REXX but also some lower level stuff like C. The connection to woodwork is pretty neat, and I learned to build stuff with programing that *I* found useful, just like building stuff out of wood. The same sort of creative juices were being satisfied.
One of the first "languages" I learned was SALT, which came with a communications program called Telix. This was before the internet and people were using 1200 and 2400 baud modems. The guy that wrote Telix also wrote the programing language that went with it. I was impressed.
Reminds me of the guys that wrote C actually wrote it as a tool in developing UNIX, the worlds greatest OS... again, I was impressed. Knowing you wrote your own compiled language tickles the heck out of me... and again, very impressive.
Today, I'm obsessed with neither programing or woodwork. I tend to waste a lot of time just fighting with people like Robocop just for kicks. Not sure why I enjoy it, but I do, and have ever since the FidoNet days...
When I was a kid of around 10 or 12, my brother who was 17 built a canoe out of orange crates. This was in the early 50's, and the canoe is still hanging in our garage, and it is a perfect wood canoe with canvas wrap. Orange crates were made of 1/4 wood slats in those days. I'll get a picture of it one of these days, it is really impressive. People used to laugh when you would tell them you made a canoe out of orange crates, until they saw it.. Anyway, the neat thing is he used a neighbors band saw to do some of the curved cuts, and when I got married, I bought the neighbors bandsaw, and all of his other Rockwell/Delta tools which I still use to this day... They sure made nice tools in those days.
Simpler question: Why would you ask this question after it has been explained to you and after you've read what the differences are at the SU page?
Even you can't be that thick headed... wasn't it you that carries around the thickness meter? If not, go back through the threads and find out who has the meter and stick it between your ears, or some other appropriate place...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.