Here's my first 3D effort with Sketchup ... just for practice, a rendering
(after the fact) of the owl nesting box I built last weekend for a neighbor.

There are some good sources with a wood working bent, like Gary Katz's site:

http://www.garymkatz.com/charts_drawings.html

Along with FWW and podcasts on iTunes.

I think I'm going to enjoy this program ... and you can't beat the price.
Also attached is the skp file for those who have the program loaded up.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Here's my first 3D effort with Sketchup ... just for practice, a rendering
(after the fact) of the owl nesting box I built last weekend for a
neighbor.

It is not uncommon to see some very small owls here in NW Houston
(Beltway 8/ 290) and I suppose they can squeeze into some small openings.
But I would have thought a 1 5/8 inch opening would be more in tune for a
purple martin or somesuch.
So, the question is what kind of owl is this box intended for?

BTW, I bought the pro version back before Google bought out @Last
Software and upgraded to Version 6 over a year ago. As luck would have it,
the Bolder, Colorado architect who did a timberframe design for us was part
of the @Last Software team and that his was the voice that narrated the
Version 5 tutorials which I believe are still available for
download/viewing.
I use Turbocad far less now and then mostly for dimensioning purposes.

Dave in [NW] Houston

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:58:08 -0500, "Dave in Houston"
wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
m...

Here's my first 3D effort with Sketchup ... just for practice, a rendering
(after the fact) of the owl nesting box I built last weekend for a
neighbor.

It is not uncommon to see some very small owls here in NW Houston
(Beltway 8/ 290) and I suppose they can squeeze into some small openings.
But I would have thought a 1 5/8 inch opening would be more in tune for a
purple martin or somesuch.
So, the question is what kind of owl is this box intended for?

BTW, I bought the pro version back before Google bought out @Last
Software and upgraded to Version 6 over a year ago. As luck would have it,
the Bolder, Colorado architect who did a timberframe design for us was part
of the @Last Software team and that his was the voice that narrated the
Version 5 tutorials which I believe are still available for
download/viewing.
I use Turbocad far less now and then mostly for dimensioning purposes.

Dave in [NW] Houston


Dave, if you look closely, it appears that the radius is 1-5/8" which
would make the diameter of the hole 3-1/4".

Bill

"Dave in Houston" wrote

"Swingman"wrote in message


Here's my first 3D effort with Sketchup ... just for practice, a
rendering
(after the fact) of the owl nesting box I built last weekend for a
neighbor.

It is not uncommon to see some very small owls here in NW Houston
(Beltway 8/ 290) and I suppose they can squeeze into some small openings.
But I would have thought a 1 5/8 inch opening would be more in tune for a
purple martin or somesuch.
So, the question is what kind of owl is this box intended for?

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius, not
diameter.

The nesting box is for screech/saw-whet owls. There is an identical box (the
one I used as a go-by) down the street with three little heads, and six big,
unblinking eyes, peeping out as we speak, which is apparently what sparked
the sudden interest in the nesting boxes hereabouts, with folks paying in
excess of $50 for white pine boxes ... go figure.

AAMOF, the one I made for me out of the extra wood is already up on a tree
about ten blocks away.

Have you noticed any advantage to having the Pro version? Other than Layout,
and some export/import functions, is there any added CAD functionality, and
would you consider it a worthwhile expense for woodworking projects?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Dave in Houston" wrote in message
...

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Here's my first 3D effort with Sketchup ... just for practice, a
rendering (after the fact) of the owl nesting box I built last weekend
for a neighbor.

It is not uncommon to see some very small owls here in NW Houston
(Beltway 8/ 290) and I suppose they can squeeze into some small openings.
But I would have thought a 1 5/8 inch opening would be more in tune for a
purple martin or somesuch.
So, the question is what kind of owl is this box intended for?

We discussed that last weekend, IIRC Swingman indicated that the box was
"Spot on", so we assumed the "Spotted Owl". ;~)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius,
not diameter.

Ahhhhhhh! I havn't felt this embarrassed since the tick inspector had
me strip naked while standing in the front door and hold my arms out for an
inspection. I felt so stoopid when somebody told me it was a trick to see
me naked.

The nesting box is for screech/saw-whet owls. There is an identical box
(the
one I used as a go-by) down the street with three little heads, and six
big,
unblinking eyes, peeping out as we speak, which is apparently what sparked
the sudden interest in the nesting boxes hereabouts, with folks paying in
excess of $50 for white pine boxes ... go figure.

Screech/saw-whet owls would have been my guess if I'd realized the hole
was 3 1/4 inch diameter. I actually picked one up off the neighbor's
driveway a few years ago and set him on one of our bedroom brick window
sills, afraid a cat would get it. It was gone next morning so who knows? I
have a couple of images I clicked a couple of years ago of one sitting on
ahigh shelf in my garage.

AAMOF, the one I made for me out of the extra wood is already up on a tree
about ten blocks away.

Have you noticed any advantage to having the Pro version? Other than
Layout,
and some export/import functions, is there any added CAD functionality,
and
would you consider it a worthwhile expense for woodworking projects?

The problem is that I don't remember what it was like using the free
version! I may be mis-remembering (that's a "Bushism") but I believe back
then (2005?) it was an eight hour trial version. I paid for and downloaded
the $495 pro version very soon after that and have updated most recently (a
year ago?) another $95 for the upgrade to Ver. 6.

Dave in Houston

"Leon" wrote in message
...

We discussed that last weekend, IIRC Swingman indicated that the box was
"Spot on", so we assumed the "Spotted Owl". ;~)

Don't like them any better than [bald-golden-mexican] eagles. If
anything, they taste worse!
..

Dave in Houston

"Dave in Houston" wrote

Ahhhhhhh! I havn't felt this embarrassed since the tick inspector had
me strip naked while standing in the front door and hold my arms out for
an
inspection. I felt so stoopid when somebody told me it was a trick to see
me naked.

LOL ... picking ticks off each other's nether parts _is_ the coonass
definition of "true love'!




--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
news

"Dave in Houston" wrote

Ahhhhhhh! I havn't felt this embarrassed since the tick inspector
had
me strip naked while standing in the front door and hold my arms out for
an
inspection. I felt so stoopid when somebody told me it was a trick to
see
me naked.

LOL ... picking ticks off each other's nether parts _is_ the coonass
definition of "true love'!



They should never have let folks in that part of the country watch those
National Geographic episodes where the primates groom each other by picking
the lice from the partner's coat - then eating it.

))))) Dave in Houston

Swingman wrote:
"Dave in Houston" wrote

Ahhhhhhh! I havn't felt this embarrassed since the tick inspector had
me strip naked while standing in the front door and hold my arms out for
an
inspection. I felt so stoopid when somebody told me it was a trick to see
me naked.

LOL ... picking ticks off each other's nether parts _is_ the coonass
definition of "true love'!




The Californicator definition of true love is whatever goes on among
five or less consenting adults.
truth is stranger than beauty,
jo4hn

"Swingman" wrote:

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's
radius, not
diameter.

Back to Drafting 101 for youG.

Standard drafting practice, at least where I come from, is to
dimension all holes by diameter since that is how cutting tools are
specified.

About the only time a radius is specified is for a fillet or similar
surface.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:HXW4k.37807$lE3.9937@trnddc05...
"Swingman" wrote:

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius,
not
diameter.

Back to Drafting 101 for youG.

Standard drafting practice, at least where I come from, is to dimension
all holes by diameter since that is how cutting tools are specified.

About the only time a radius is specified is for a fillet or similar
surface.


Correct on both counts.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:HXW4k.37807$lE3.9937@trnddc05...
"Swingman" wrote:

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius,
not
diameter.

Back to Drafting 101 for youG.

Standard drafting practice, at least where I come from, is to dimension
all holes by diameter since that is how cutting tools are specified.

About the only time a radius is specified is for a fillet or similar
surface.


Correct on both counts.


Oups I take that back I was taught to always specify the radius, full circle
or arc.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:HXW4k.37807$lE3.9937@trnddc05...
"Swingman" wrote:

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius,
not
diameter.

Back to Drafting 101 for youG.

Standard drafting practice, at least where I come from, is to dimension
all holes by diameter since that is how cutting tools are specified.

About the only time a radius is specified is for a fillet or similar
surface.


Correct on both counts.


Oups I take that back I was taught to always specify the radius, full
circle or arc.

Am I exonerated or not?

Dave in Houston

"Leon" wrote:

Oups I take that back I was taught to always specify the radius,
full circle or arc.


"Dave in Houston" wrote:

Am I exonerated or not?

A little test:

Submit a req'n to the tool crib and ask for a 3/8 bit.

My money is on a 3/8 dia, not a 3/4 dia, coming back.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:tSX4k.42214$Xu2.13981@trnddc04...


"Leon" wrote:

Oups I take that back I was taught to always specify the radius, full
circle or arc.


"Dave in Houston" wrote:

Am I exonerated or not?

A little test:

Submit a req'n to the tool crib and ask for a 3/8 bit.

My money is on a 3/8 dia, not a 3/4 dia, coming back.

I liked Leon's first answer; arcs and radiused corners are given as a
measure of the radius.

Dave in Houston

"Dave in Houston" wrote:

I liked Leon's first answer; arcs and radiused corners are given
as a measure of the radius.


Go back and read my first post.

Think thst's what I said.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote
"Swingman" wrote:

Probably hard to tell from the jpg, but look closely ... that's radius,
not
diameter.

Back to Drafting 101 for youG.

Standard drafting practice, at least where I come from, is to dimension
all holes by diameter since that is how cutting tools are specified.

About the only time a radius is specified is for a fillet or similar
surface.

Check out the word "woodworking" in the name of the forum.

I, and most woodworkers, will use an adjustable "circle cutter" when faced
with cutting large diameter holes to non-standard sizes in wood.

In ALL cases, adjustable "circle cutters" are set up using the _radius_
measurement of the intended hole.

When _I_ draw woodworking plans, I spec them for a dumbass ... out of
necessity.

YMMV ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:

When _I_ draw woodworking plans, I spec them for a dumbass ... out
of necessity.

Which is why HOLES are dimensioned by diameter, independent of
material and layout tools.

"No Brainer" is a standard requirement when trying to communicate by
drawing.

At least it was, maybe things have changed.

Making a mistake in material can be very expensive.


Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote

Which is why HOLES are dimensioned by diameter, independent of material
and layout tools.

At least it was, maybe things have changed.

Don't give a rosy red rats ass about engineering drawing standards. My
intent was to share one little aspect of an enjoyable, for me, project with
some fellow wooddorking buds, and not get into a ****ing contest.

Making a mistake in material can be very expensive.

NOW you tell me!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:uIc5k.20452$3j2.10937@trnddc03...

"Swingman" wrote:

When _I_ draw woodworking plans, I spec them for a dumbass ... out of
necessity.

Which is why HOLES are dimensioned by diameter, independent of material
and layout tools.

That may be what things have evolved to, I was taught in the early 70's to
only indicate the radius. The rule on dimensioning was to "NEVER" over
demension a drawing. The person reading the drawing was to determine those
measurements that were missing a demension including having to double the
radius to determine the diameter of a circle. You indicated the demension
to the distance that you set your bow compass to, to draw the circle, the
radius not the diameter.


"No Brainer" is a standard requirement when trying to communicate by
drawing.

Not what I was taught, including archetectural drawings, you had to know
basic math to be able correctly read a drawing.



At least it was, maybe things have changed.

Making a mistake in material can be very expensive.

Might explain why manufacturing has been exported to Tiawan, those people
are good at math.

Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter. To not specify may or may not assume one or
the other, but to not indicate what your talking about would be bad form
for most any purposes. My guess is to NOT specify would assume
diameter, not radius, and it would be folly to state a 1" hole and
assume 1" radius... A 3/8 drill doesn't drill a 3/4 hole, but stating a
hole with a 3/8" radius or 3/4 diameter has got to be correct form
regardless. I think I learned radius was 1/2 diameter in 2nd grade. If
you can't figure it out after that, your too dumb to have a drill or a
hole saw in your hands anyway.... Hell, even I can divide or multiply by 2.

IF radius OR diameter was specified, everyone, including an engineer
should be good to go.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Swingman wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote

Which is why HOLES are dimensioned by diameter, independent of material
and layout tools.

At least it was, maybe things have changed.

Don't give a rosy red rats ass about engineering drawing standards. My
intent was to share one little aspect of an enjoyable, for me, project with
some fellow wooddorking buds, and not get into a ****ing contest.

"Jack Stein" wrote
Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter.

Any one else chiming in to quibble for the sake of quibbling should
contemplate the following BEFORE they open their mouths and let their inner
idiot out:

POSTED WAS A JPG FILE RENDERED FROM A 3D DRAWING!

POSTED WAS A CAD FILE!

THE POSTED JPG P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

(download the CAD file, and READ the actual drawing if you want to do that,
the DIFFERENCE between a "radius" and "diameter" dimension on this CAD
DRAWING is OBVIOUS, providing you take the time to LOOK *before* you open
your mouth's to quibble!)

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BUILD FROM IT!

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BASE A "DIMENSION"
ARGUMENT ON IT, YOU WILL LOOK A FOOL!

THIS IS A RENDERED JPG FROM A 3D DRAWING, SO DON'T MAKE ANYTHING FROM IT!

THE POSTED P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

IF YOU DO ATTEMPT TO BUILD FROM THIS PICTURE YOU ARE AN IDIOT. IF YOU WANT
TO BASE AN ARGUMENT ON THIS JPG RENDERING OF A 3D CAD DRAWING, YOU ARE A
BIGGER IDIOT.

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "RADIUS" AND "DIAMETER" ON THE
ACTUAL CAD DRAWING, STFU AND LEARN TO *READ* A DRAWING BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF!

Anyone else! ... if so, politely go **** yourself in advance!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Jack Stein" wrote
Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter.

Any one else chiming in to quibble for the sake of quibbling should
contemplate the following BEFORE they open their mouths and let their
inner
idiot out:

POSTED WAS A JPG FILE RENDERED FROM A 3D DRAWING!

POSTED WAS A CAD FILE!

THE POSTED JPG P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

(download the CAD file, and READ the actual drawing if you want to do
that,
the DIFFERENCE between a "radius" and "diameter" dimension on this CAD
DRAWING is OBVIOUS, providing you take the time to LOOK *before* you open
your mouth's to quibble!)

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BUILD FROM IT!

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BASE A "DIMENSION"
ARGUMENT ON IT, YOU WILL LOOK A FOOL!

THIS IS A RENDERED JPG FROM A 3D DRAWING, SO DON'T MAKE ANYTHING FROM IT!

THE POSTED P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

IF YOU DO ATTEMPT TO BUILD FROM THIS PICTURE YOU ARE AN IDIOT. IF YOU WANT
TO BASE AN ARGUMENT ON THIS JPG RENDERING OF A 3D CAD DRAWING, YOU ARE A
BIGGER IDIOT.

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "RADIUS" AND "DIAMETER" ON THE
ACTUAL CAD DRAWING, STFU AND LEARN TO *READ* A DRAWING BEFORE YOU SPOUT
OFF!

Anyone else! ... if so, politely go **** yourself in advance!


Uhhhh...., Swingman, I wasn't gonna quibble or argue drafting/CAD
conventions.

But with that rant you just posted, I do feel an uncontrollable urge to
poke you with a pointy stick. Soooo...., forgive me.

Poke, Poke

G

Swingman wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote
Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter.

Any one else chiming in to quibble for the sake of quibbling should
contemplate the following BEFORE they open their mouths and let their
inner idiot out:

.... rant snip

Ummm, somebody poop in your cheerios this morning?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Lee Michaels" wrote

Uhhhh...., Swingman, I wasn't gonna quibble or argue drafting/CAD
conventions.

YOU, were NOT included, Lee!

But with that rant you just posted, I do feel an uncontrollable urge to
poke you with a pointy stick. Soooo...., forgive me.

Poke, Poke

G

LOL ... move a little up ... and to the right. Ahh, yess ... you got it!

Actually, I was just going to post the jpg of the 3D CAD drawing of my
"SuperDuper Itch Getter/Mother of ALL Backscratchers" ...

.... but there are no radii or diameters to quibble about, so never mind!

Sorry about the rant ... there is plenty enough quibbling about nada during
this election year to last a lifetime, and the effect is cumulative!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote
Swingman wrote:

"Jack Stein" wrote
Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter.

Any one else chiming in to quibble for the sake of quibbling should
contemplate the following BEFORE they open their mouths and let their
inner idiot out:

... rant snip

Ummm, somebody poop in your cheerios this morning?

Plural ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote
Seems to me when specifying a hole size, you would also specify r for
radius or d for diameter.

Any one else chiming in to quibble for the sake of quibbling should
contemplate the following BEFORE they open their mouths and let their inner
idiot out:

I wasn't chiming in to "quibble" with you. I was "quibbling" with
anyone that stated an assumption should be made that a dimension for a
hole is a diameter. I thought I was agreeing with you, since you stated
you specified radius and someone else missed that fact. I just went
back and looked, and you clearly showed the dimension you showed was the
radius, and no assumption needed made.

POSTED WAS A JPG FILE RENDERED FROM A 3D DRAWING!

POSTED WAS A CAD FILE!

THE POSTED JPG P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

I think anyone here could build that box from the P*I*C*T*U*R*E you posted.

(download the CAD file, and READ the actual drawing if you want to do that,
the DIFFERENCE between a "radius" and "diameter" dimension on this CAD
DRAWING is OBVIOUS, providing you take the time to LOOK *before* you open
your mouth's to quibble!)

Didn't have to LOOK at all, I was NOT "quibbling" with you, I was
"quibbling" with Lew I guess because he said standard drafting practice
is to dimension all holes by diameter. I think standard practice is to
specify what the dimension is, generally with a r or d, but drawing a
line from the middle of the hole to the end also works, now that I look
at your picture.

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BUILD FROM IT!

A rendered picture with dimensions shown is all anyone should need to
build a simple box...

BEING A RENDERED PICTURE FROM A 3D DRAWING, DO NOT BASE A "DIMENSION"
ARGUMENT ON IT, YOU WILL LOOK A FOOL!

If you list the dimensions, as you did, why would anyone be a fool for
using those dimensions? You seem to be some what trust worthy.

THIS IS A RENDERED JPG FROM A 3D DRAWING, SO DON'T MAKE ANYTHING FROM IT!

If the dimensions are wrong, you should say so rather than post them up
for some "fool" to use them to build a box with a hole in it.

THE POSTED P*I *C*T*U*R*E IS *NOT* A MEASURED DRAWING TO BUILD FROM!

Excuse me, it looked like measurements were listed on the P*I*C*T*U*R*E?

IF YOU DO ATTEMPT TO BUILD FROM THIS PICTURE YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

I've built things far more complicated than a bird house from a picture,
including pictures with NO dimensions listed.

IF YOU WANT
TO BASE AN ARGUMENT ON THIS JPG RENDERING OF A 3D CAD DRAWING, YOU ARE A
BIGGER IDIOT.

If you want to "quibble" with someone that was stating the obvious and
not disagreeing with you, then you are an even bigger idiot than I.

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "RADIUS" AND "DIAMETER" ON THE
ACTUAL CAD DRAWING, STFU AND LEARN TO *READ* A DRAWING BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF!

I had no problem reading your P*I*C*T*U*R*E and could build a damned box
from it with the exact size hole AS*YOU*SPECIFIED in the P*I*C*T*U*R*E.
As I stated in my post, would not matter to me if you specified radius
or diameter, I could figure it out from there long as I didn't have to
assume.

Anyone else! ... if so, politely go **** yourself in advance!

Damn, it's just as hard to agree with you as to disagree...

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote

Damn, it's just as hard to agree with you as to disagree...

I hereby sincerely apologize for offending you ... mea culpa (I'm serious!).

Ask Mark ... it was something to do with "Wheaties"?


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote

Damn, it's just as hard to agree with you as to disagree...

I hereby sincerely apologize for offending you ... mea culpa (I'm serious!).

Ask Mark ... it was something to do with "Wheaties"?

No apology needed, I truly was not offended. I generally don't say much
when I agree with someone and when I disagree, I usually do it in a way
that ****es someone off. My post was not clear who I was disagreeing
with I reckon, I was going to mention in the first post I agree with
Swingman, but really wasn't sure who said what, and was too lazy to go
back and see, so I just said my view on the whole thing. I wasn't
trying to get you mad though, so I was a wee bit surprised at all the
yelling:-)

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote

No apology needed, I truly was not offended. I generally don't say much
when I agree with someone and when I disagree, I usually do it in a way
that ****es someone off. My post was not clear who I was disagreeing
with I reckon, I was going to mention in the first post I agree with
Swingman, but really wasn't sure who said what, and was too lazy to go
back and see, so I just said my view on the whole thing. I wasn't
trying to get you mad though, so I was a wee bit surprised at all the
yelling:-)

Thanks for your understanding, Jack.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)