On 4/11/2010 2:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 4/10/2010 8:49 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Tracing an image and skipping definition of contoured surfaces don't
work for me.

The "tracing" of a component, imported into a project from an outside
source, is routinely done as a matter of convenience and is a common
practice to speed up a project, with any design software, and is one of
the reasons for an "import" feature.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that if the software contains the tools to
effectively "trace" a component, it therefore has the tools/ability to
"draw" it instead, should you chose to do so, as this software indeed does.

Your argument in that regard falls flatly on its face ...

Yeah fine. Give this easy one a whirl:

Draw parabola with curve length of 96" between intersections with the
latus rectum (a line through the focus perpendicular to another line
passing through both focus and vertex). Points separated by 0.0100"
along the x-axis, and accurate to +/-0.0005". I don't care whether you
draw or trace, only that all requirements be met, so that I can export
it as a DXF (the format needed for my 'Bot) and machine it accurately.

With regard to the 'seat", it was plainly stated why it was not
contoured ...

Oh really? I just re-read the entire thing (4th time) and still don't
see that. Perhaps you would quote that plain statement to make it easier
for me to find.

and, even then, for you to bring it up and pretend/insist
that a shop drawing be a photorealistic image to have any value in
woodworking is misleading, irrelevant, and a ploy to bolster a feeble
argument.

I not only didn't "pretend/insist" - I never made such an assertion. I'm
not sure what exactly your problem is, but please stick to the truth.

The fact is that I don't care at all about the graphic presentation -
only that the exported DXF meet accuracy requirements. If you assumed
that I was after a pretty picture, then you assumed wrong.

On 4/10/2010 7:42 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a
substantial following.

(Well, duh! I never said SketchUp was /limited/ to boxes.)

OK, then ... it was an ignorant attempt to imply it.

No. There was no such attempt - ignorant or otherwise. That issue was
your contribution to the discussion - not mine.

In short, I gave you a clear, factual and accessible example containing
nothing remotely resembling your "...things that are essentially
boxes...", and which nicely illustrates the ignorance of the software
behind the remark.

Let's see. I said:

"For things that are essentially boxes - like kitchen cabinets and,
perhaps, your entertainment center SketchUp has acquired a substantial
following."

Which part is false or misleading? - or are you in a snit because I
omitted other capabilities you think the OP is likely to need for his
entertainment center?

Your arguments thus far do nothing to disprove that.

Eh? Why should I have any interest in proving or disproving anything?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/