wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
below
the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.

Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
that in. Go to Window - Model Info - Dimensions. Under Dimension
set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
'Outside' appears to just be below.


I don't know if it is a better way but as you point out it is possible to do
default them that way. Most often, the lettering between the arrows is the
best location. Personally I think a leader with the lettering to the out
side of one of the extension lines would be better.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
below
the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.

Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
that in. Go to Window - Model Info - Dimensions. Under Dimension
set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
'Outside' appears to just be below.

Yeah, but that's a global change. The other way is obviously for single
situations, problem is I can't remember from one use to the next which goes
where.

The hide function I was talking about is under "expert dimension
settings"

Like you, if want to hide a dimension in that situation, I don't use one.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...


wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 11:57 am, "Swingman" wrote:
wrote

There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

Hides ?? Read it again ... function is to place the dimension above or
below
the lines instead of in between, NOT "hide" them.

Actually there's a better way of doing it so you don't have to type
that in. Go to Window - Model Info - Dimensions. Under Dimension
set to "Align to dimension line" to either above or outside.
'Outside' appears to just be below.

Yeah, but that's a global change. The other way is obviously for single
situations, problem is I can't remember from one use to the next which
goes where.


Seems like \n would be a cool Ruby Script that you could assign a short
cut key to. I finally did that for the dimensioning tool and for one for an
objects dimensions.

now if only I could convert that into a Ruby Script. ;~)

"Swingman" wrote:

"Leon" wrote

I was a snob too. ;~) It's pretty much Sketchup 7 all the way for me
now. Once you learn to tweak the programs so that the lines look the way
you want it seems to be leaps and bounds better for relatively small
drawings. I consider relatively small to include a complete set of plans
for a house. Memory may become a problem with tall commercial buildings or
large landscapes such as a city park.

You really have to learn the program to appreciate it.

Folks can't seem to grasp that SU is not CAD and doesn't claim to be ... it
is "surface modeling" software. Comparison is misleading and a waste of
time.

I agree. They are very different animals. However there IS an overlap
in what you can do with 3-D CAD, solid modelers, and Sketchup, and
this overlap tends to lead to a reaction like Leon's. And someone used
to doing conceptual drawings in Sketchup would find a solid modeler
able to produce the same shapes, but incredibly frustrating to do jobs
that Sketchup is best for. And a user of solid modelers find Sketchup
and 3-D CAD inadequate for their needs. They all have their place.

For me, the visualization help with sketchup makes it the software of
choice; its limited CAD capabilities meet my needs (combined with a
simple 2-D CAD program)
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Leon" wrote in message
...




GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I finally created a short cut for the dimensions tool, and a short cut for
the "dimensions object tool".

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
...




GEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I finally created a short cut for the dimensions tool, and a short cut for
the "dimensions object tool".

ROTFL ... atta boy, Bubba!!

BTW, I'm on site here in the boonies and tried to call you. Got a call for a
"government" cabinet job in Klute, but I can't even consider that at the
moment, thought you might be interested, but for some reason, and although
I've called your cell a hundred times, it keeps telling me it's a non
working number?

Did you change numbers? You hiding?

If not, call me so I can re-capture ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
becomes unreadable.

Right click the offending dimension.
Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
End", or "Centered"

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:07:29 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Most often, the lettering between the arrows is the
best location. Personally I think a leader with the lettering to the out
side of one of the extension lines would be better.

Right click the dimension and select "Text Position" from the popup
menu.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Tom Veatch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:07:29 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

Most often, the lettering between the arrows is the
best location. Personally I think a leader with the lettering to the out
side of one of the extension lines would be better.

Right click the dimension and select "Text Position" from the popup
menu.


Well thank you for that Tom!. Not quite what I was looking for but
certainly addresses my preference of location for the lettering. Being from
the old school way of training, to-square and triangles, I would prefer to
see the leader between the lettering and the extension/dimension line, but
this certainly addresses where I wanted to see the lettering.

On Feb 27, 2:24 am, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
becomes unreadable.

Right click the offending dimension.
Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
End", or "Centered"

Well, I'll be darned. Now why can't they tie that into the "hide"
function to do it automatically...

-Kevin

wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 2:24 am, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:38:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The main thing that annoys me is the dimensioning tool that doesn't
move the dimension outside when there isn't enough room which then
becomes unreadable.

Right click the offending dimension.
Select "Text Position" in the popup menu
Select where you want the dimension text. "Outside Start", "Outside
End", or "Centered"

Well, I'll be darned. Now why can't they tie that into the "hide"
function to do it automatically...

Sketchup is basically in it's infancy stages. IMHO it is only now worth my
time to work with. I wish some of the CAD programs that I have owned in
the past 20 years were as advanced in their 7th versions. :~)

Leon wrote:
"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

I've been messing with it a lot lately and it IS pretty dang spiffy. But
I'm also a TurboCAD junky and there are a lot of things from that program
that I miss terribly in Sketchup. Some of the decisions it automatically
makes for you can be pretty maddening (merging entities together when they
just happen to be touching, for example) but perhaps with time I'll learn
to work around my preconceived notions of how it *ought* to operate. For
a free program it's pretty damned incredible.


If I understand you correctly, merging, remember to make all pieces a
component first, just like you would when actually building and assembling.
When you make each piece a component they no longer are automatically
"permanently attracted to each other"

Hoping that I am understanding your situation, taking a box for instance,
draw 1 side and give it depth, "push" to the disired thickness. If you need
to rabbet the ends or put a dado in at the bottom do that now. When that
piece is absolutely completed make it in to a component. Now any other line
or part that may be along the same lines of the side can be easily moved or
modified. Copy that component side to make the other side and rotate as
needed. If you make any modifications to one component all copies will also
automatically modify the same "UNLESS" you make that component "Unique" All
components can be modified later if necessary. After you have drawn all the
components, move them together to assemble. As long as all of the pieces
are components you can move and manulipulate as desired.
Remember that you must edit a component to midify it. Simply drawing extra
lines on a component will not make them a part of the component.





--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/



I'd add one thing to that. I have a terrible time with the Rotate tool
and try to avoid it as much as possible. Creating a second side of a box
by Copy/Pasting works well but the associated geometry with the original
side appears on the opposite end or side of the component. Leon proposes
rotating the component. That works, but I've found a simpler method.
Using the Scale tool allows you to scale the component into itself and
create a mirror image.

I set the scaling to -1, and I've got my component "rotated" without
rotating. I"ve done this very successfully with rabbeted/dovetailed
sides/ends and it takes seconds.

There is a video on the SU site that shows how this works.

Tanus

"Leon" wrote

So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

Just to reiterate for those wRec'ers interested in using SU as a tool in
their woodworking endeavors, Fine Woodworking has an excellent blog called
"Design.Click.Build" that is all about using the program for woodworking
projects. Dave Richards and Tim Killen have written dozens of very specific
articles that will increase your proficiency with the program in that
regard.

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/b...gn-click-build


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Leon" wrote

So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you
waiting for?

Just to reiterate for those wRec'ers interested in using SU
as a tool in their woodworking endeavors, Fine Woodworking
has an excellent blog called "Design.Click.Build" that is
all about using the program for woodworking projects. Dave
Richards and Tim Killen have written dozens of very
specific articles that will increase your proficiency with
the program in that regard.

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/b...gn-click-build



I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is at
http://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

This tutorial is what cleared things up for me. I had used
TurboCad and Autocad previously but was never proficient with
either. But having that background, at least to me, was as
much a hinderence as it was a help. If you have a CAD
background you must change your way of thinking or you'll
never get anywhere. The old install, try it out, uninstall
routine comes to mind.

If you have any interest in using SketchUp I encourage you to
take a look at this. It is invaluable for someone just
starting out.

Larry

"Tanus" wrote in message ...




I'd add one thing to that. I have a terrible time with the Rotate tool and
try to avoid it as much as possible. Creating a second side of a box by
Copy/Pasting works well but the associated geometry with the original side
appears on the opposite end or side of the component. Leon proposes
rotating the component. That works, but I've found a simpler method. Using
the Scale tool allows you to scale the component into itself and create a
mirror image.

Your are correct when the par/component to be rotated is not symetrical.


I set the scaling to -1, and I've got my component "rotated" without
rotating. I"ve done this very successfully with rabbeted/dovetailed
sides/ends and it takes seconds.

There is a video on the SU site that shows how this works.


Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.

On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry wrote:

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer? All I need to
make a drawer is length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's
it. What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I need the
tenons and mortises modeled for in the first place, and what benefit
does showing them at each leg accomplish? Why do I need to model the
dovetail recess in the front legs if I am going to be cutting the
dovetails on the rail and using that to mark the location of the
recess? This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
correct part.

-Kevin

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry wrote:

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is
athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer? All I need to
make a drawer is length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's
it. What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I need the
tenons and mortises modeled for in the first place, and what benefit
does showing them at each leg accomplish? Why do I need to model the
dovetail recess in the front legs if I am going to be cutting the
dovetails on the rail and using that to mark the location of the
recess? This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
correct part.

-Kevin


As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete model
of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer helps
me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
cabinet or chest. More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
during the actual construction phase. All of the parts and their sizes have
been predetermined and I know how they are going to fit before cutting any
wood. This is especially helpful when I made a 12 drawer jewelry chest with
4 or 5 different sized drawers.

wrote in

ups.com:

On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry wrote:

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found
is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it
a bit but it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8
part tutorial that you can download in Word format or
follow it online. It covers a lot of the problems
discussed here including making components, using layers,
dimensioning, etc.

As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make
the piece. Putting more effort into the model than what is
needed to do that is a waste of time. Why do I need a
model of the drawer? All I need to make a drawer is
length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's it.
What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I
need the tenons and mortises modeled for in the first
place, and what benefit does showing them at each leg
accomplish? Why do I need to model the dovetail recess in
the front legs if I am going to be cutting the dovetails on
the rail and using that to mark the location of the recess?
This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the piece
and have them produce the correct part.

-Kevin


For some of us that aren't as gifted as yourself, it helps us
think the plans through from start to finish. I haven't
reached the stage where I can build from pictures in my head.
I like to see what I'm building *before* I start. Helps me
avoid mistakes, and I'm full of them. Not sure who to credit
it to but can you say "precision cut firewood"? Yep, I've got
some of that...

Larry

On Feb 28, 3:12 pm, Larry wrote:
wrote
ups.com:



On Feb 28, 10:24 am, Larry wrote:

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found
is athttp://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it
a bit but it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8
part tutorial that you can download in Word format or
follow it online. It covers a lot of the problems
discussed here including making components, using layers,
dimensioning, etc.

As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make
the piece. Putting more effort into the model than what is
needed to do that is a waste of time. Why do I need a
model of the drawer? All I need to make a drawer is
length, width, height, thickness of parts. That's it.
What is the point of modeling it beyond that? What do I
need the tenons and mortises modeled for in the first
place, and what benefit does showing them at each leg
accomplish? Why do I need to model the dovetail recess in
the front legs if I am going to be cutting the dovetails on
the rail and using that to mark the location of the recess?
This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the piece
and have them produce the correct part.

-Kevin

For some of us that aren't as gifted as yourself, it helps us
think the plans through from start to finish. I haven't
reached the stage where I can build from pictures in my head.
I like to see what I'm building *before* I start. Helps me
avoid mistakes, and I'm full of them. Not sure who to credit
it to but can you say "precision cut firewood"? Yep, I've got
some of that...

Precisely because we do make mistakes do I prefer to work as much as
possible with what is in front of me, already made. What happens when
we screw something up, but it's still quite workable as long as we
adjust as we go along, but then we forget what changed and go back to
working from our drawing and create parts that perfectly match the
drawing but don't work with what we already screwed up? I mean who
hasn't made a beautiful mortise, perfect in every respect, except for
being in the wrong place.

I can't visualize a complete project in my head, if I could I wouldn't
need sketchup at all. But once I get the outside of it squared away
then I can just sort of chip away at everything I don't know until I
have enough to get started. That may mean drawing out certain areas
that I don't understand. I can always go back to the drawing and add
more, but if I took the approach of having to model every last detail
before I got to go in the shop, that would just suck all the fun out
of it.

-Kevin

wrote:

This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such that
I could give the drawing of an individual part to someone who has no
other knowledge of the rest of the piece and have them produce the
correct part.

It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only be a project
on which more than one person is working, with others perhaps doing
their part of the project in their own shop...

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

Morris Dovey wrote in
:

wrote:

This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
piece and have them produce the correct part.

It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
be a project on which more than one person is working, with
others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
shop...


Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

wrote in message
...
I can always go back to the drawing and add
more, but if I took the approach of having to model every last detail
before I got to go in the shop, that would just suck all the fun out
of it.

It's a hobby in itself to some, and maybe even an end in itself to some
others. I don't recall anyone here suggesting doing that, though. I tend to
draw in the tenons. Having already thought it through, it doesn't make sense
to NOT make the notation. Doing so might even help keep me from cutting that
perfect fitting mortise someplace I didn't want one. Really, it's not a big
deal; just offset the end profile and pull and push it to the right shape.
Adding a haunch is even easier.

If I didn't draw them in, I'd stand at the bench and sketch them in with a
pencil. If I didn't like pencils even, maybe I'd just go straight for the
saw. That's valid, too. Just cut it over length, mark the shoulders, and
have at it. But you still have to think it through at some point.

My personal limit for drudge work is finger joints. I don't have the
patience to grind them out on the tablesaw or router table. So, I never have
to worry about drawing them in SU. Not that I think it would be difficult.
Something like that is even more important to get right, to make sure the
fingers and spaces don't offer surprises somewhere else.

On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" wrote:
As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete model
of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer helps
me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
cabinet or chest.

But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
things just for the sake of doing them.

You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
from mine I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
going.

More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
during the actual construction phase.

What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
predetermined is fun!

-Kevin

On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote :

wrote:

This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
piece and have them produce the correct part.

It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
be a project on which more than one person is working, with
others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
shop...

Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together

Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

-Kevin

Leon wrote:

Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.



I should have included the URL:
http://www.google.com/sketchup/train...ew_to_gsu.html

Tanus

wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote :

wrote:
This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
piece and have them produce the correct part.

It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
be a project on which more than one person is working, with
others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
shop...

Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together

Methinks the "average woodworker" is likely to be a nailbender. Somehow
I don't think that anyone in this forum aspires to be an average
woodworker, so I'm not sure I understand where you're wanting to go with
this...

....and I doubt that different parts made by /one/ truly average
woodworker have a very high probability of fitting together precisely.

Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

I can understand how that might be true for work that is primarily
decorative. On the other hand, if you decide to build a clock with
wooden works or something requiring precisely interacting parts, you'll
find that your results will be more satisfying if you exercise your
creativity /before/ you start building.

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

On Feb 28, 11:44 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Methinks the "average woodworker" is likely to be a nailbender. Somehow
I don't think that anyone in this forum aspires to be an average
woodworker, so I'm not sure I understand where you're wanting to go with
this...

All I was really going for was that using that approach in Sketchup
isn't the only way to effectively use it. It just depends on what you
want to get out of it.

I can understand how that might be true for work that is primarily
decorative. On the other hand, if you decide to build a clock with
wooden works or something requiring precisely interacting parts, you'll
find that your results will be more satisfying if you exercise your
creativity /before/ you start building.

True, but then you might very well want to model things like gears in
a program that already has built in functions where you plug in the
diameter and number of teeth and spits out a drawing of the gear
(maybe such a thing exists for sketchup, don't know). And so maybe
you don't need to go to the trouble of importing that into sketchup,
maybe just a circle will do. Maybe you're buying plans for that whole
mechanism, so you don't bother with anything but a simple object that
has the key reference points that interface with the rest.

I think most of us aren't doing stuff like this guy: http://www.woodthatworks.com

-Kevin

wrote


As I said elsewhere, the model exists to allow me to make the piece.
Putting more effort into the model than what is needed to do that is a
waste of time. Why do I need a model of the drawer?

I agree it is most often unnecessary to model the drawers in a project,
however, SU will generate a list of parts which can then be used to generate
both a material list and a cutlist, so doing so that extra modeling can
often come in handy on large projects, particularly with groups of multiple
drawers of the same size.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote :

wrote:
This isn't mass production where one needs drawings such
that I could give the drawing of an individual part to
someone who has no other knowledge of the rest of the
piece and have them produce the correct part.
It doesn't even need to be mass production - it need only
be a project on which more than one person is working, with
others perhaps doing their part of the project in their own
shop...

Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together

Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

-Kevin

Kevin, your work is stunning. It's not the kind of thing that I think
I'd ever attempt, but it's wonderful to look at.

Morris said in response that the "average woodworker" is likely a
nailbender and is not represented here in the Wreck. I'm not so sure
about that. I think I'm more of a nailbender than a craftsman, and
therefore I can speak from that level.

For two reasons I need to see the thing I'm building and need to know in
advance what I think is going to happen when I go into the shop. First,
I'm not particularly high in the visualization of a new project. Things
don't work out so well just inside my head, and having a plan, even 2-D,
helps me immeasurably. 3-D takes me into that shop with some amount of
confidence that I know where I'm going. That's a bit of an illusion, and
I'll get to that later, but still I've got a roadmap.

Second, I'm dealing with a low level of skill and experience. There are
guys in here who have 40-50 years behind them and can draw from that,
putting pieces together for the 100th time that I have never done
before. That's not me. Often, in either design, build or assembly, I'm
tackling things that I've merely heard of before. That can be an immense
challenge, and plans can make that challenge manageable.

Having said that, the best laid plans...etc. Regardless of how many
times I've laid something out on paper, the real world rears its ugly
head in the shop and I have to adjust on the fly as you allude to. It's
the nature of the business, because if you spent all your time planning
for every contingency, you'd never open the door to the shop. And that's
cool too, cause that's when learning truly takes place.

FWIW

Tanus

"Tanus" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:

Thanks for the reminder on this, Swingman told me about this and I had
forgotten. I'll have to hunt that video down.

I should have included the URL:
http://www.google.com/sketchup/train...ew_to_gsu.html

Tanus

Thanks, but I found it, using the words of my son when he was 3, "all by my
self". LOL

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" wrote:
As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete
model
of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me to
make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry chest
drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer sides
that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer
helps
me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
cabinet or chest.

But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
things just for the sake of doing them.

I absolutely agree on the details of the DT joints and mortise and tenons,
although some times doing one of the mortise and tennon joints can be
helpful if you are using that joint on a side and back of a narrow leg that
you may be attaching a long apron to. I built a walnut desk last summer and
seeing the inside of the joint using the x-ray view let me see if the
tennons were going to come in contact with each other. I was able to offset
the aprons a bit more so that this did not happen.



You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
from mine

Agreed, as mentioned above.


I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
going.

Agreed, and again especially if it is a comcept that you have done time and
again. I don't really draw drawer details for a kitchen redo any more
although I will draw the drawer so that I know howmany of which pieces to
plan for. I use Cutlist Plus all the time tell me how much wood to buy.


More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
during the actual construction phase.

What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
predetermined is fun!

Nothing really bad about doing the detail solving in the shop, that is the
way that I started doing it in the late 70's and early 80's. I drew a
concept and worked it out in the shop/garage. I'll admit that I built some
pretty nice stuff that I still use today but geez it took a long time to
complete a project. I built a dresser that way and I think it took me 3
months of working on weekends. I also would have to make 2 or 3 trips back
to my wood supplier to get the materials that I needed. I tended to be a
develop the piece as I go type builder back then. Now days it is easier to
sell a piece to the customer being able to show him the details of what he
is going to spend a few thousand dollars on.
I find that I can think just as easily at the computer and see if my idea
works and or looks decent immediately. I very seldom have to buy more wood
after the initial purchase any more because I have all the details of what
I need, knock on wood. I typically don't have any wasted cuts because I
know from the drawing exactly how long to cut 98% of the pieces. Basically
I can make changes on the computer and present different ideas to the
customer and go with the one that he prefers. After doing this for 30
years, I want to build when I am out in the shop not solve problems, I have
done that before and that way is not efficient for me.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote
:


Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together

This is probably not a fair answer from me but Swingman and I have often in
the past built kitchens together, He would build the face frames in his shop
and I would cut up all the plywood panels. A few years ago I took 27 pieces
of oak veneer plywood back to my shop to cut up. When he was done with the
face frames and i was done with the 100+ panels we would get together at his
shop and spend 3 or 4 days assembling all the components for a kitchen or
two. Typically a few weeks later we would install the cabinets.



Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

That can also be done on the computer, but you can be creative in several
different versions. That way you end up with your favorite version and so
to speak not be taking "pot luck" with what you end up with.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 3:06 pm, "Leon" wrote:
As you get into more complex projects it does help to draw a complete
model
of drawers or doors, or what have you, to see how they will fit together
inside a cabinet or case. In my case the model of the drawer helps me
to
make certain that the rabbits on the front and backs of the jewelry
chest
drawers do not interfere with the dado's in the sides of the drawer
sides
that I cut for the drawer slide. Then the overall size of the drawer
helps
me to see how far back it will fit in relationship to the back of the
cabinet or chest.

But you can get most of that from just a plain box. To actually go in
and draw the dovetails on the drawer is kind of crazy. Though I
realize the drawing was teaching aid so I can understand doing some
things just for the sake of doing them.

I absolutely agree on the details of the DT joints and mortise and tenons,
although some times doing one of the mortise and tennon joints can be
helpful if you are using that joint on a side and back of a narrow leg
that you may be attaching a long apron to. I built a walnut desk last
summer and seeing the inside of the joint using the x-ray view let me see
if the tennons were going to come in contact with each other. I was able
to offset the aprons a bit more so that this did not happen.



You can add in extra detail where you need it, but to start from a
philosophy of every detail must be in the drawing is well, different
from mine

Agreed, as mentioned above.


I've done models where I only put in three legs and two
sides. I think while you certainly can get a lot of power out of
sketchup with making everything components and using layers, you can
also just whip up something quick and dirty that's enough to get you
going.

Agreed, and again especially if it is a comcept that you have done time
and again. I don't really draw drawer details for a kitchen redo any more
although I will draw the drawer so that I know howmany of which pieces to
plan for. I use Cutlist Plus all the time tell me how much wood to buy.


More planning on the drawing keeps me from having to plan
during the actual construction phase.

What's so bad about thinking while you're building? I think better on
my feet, and I started woodworking in part because I was sick of
sitting at a computer all the time. When I'm thinking in the shop I
have a chance to grab the broom or make it so I can see the top of the
bench again. Going into the shop without all the answers
predetermined is fun!

Nothing really bad about doing the detail solving in the shop, that is the
way that I started doing it in the late 70's and early 80's. I drew a
concept and worked it out in the shop/garage. I'll admit that I built
some pretty nice stuff that I still use today but geez it took a long time
to complete a project. I built a dresser that way and I think it took me
3 months of working on weekends. I also would have to make 2 or 3 trips
back to my wood supplier to get the materials that I needed. I tended to
be a develop the piece as I go type builder back then. Now days it is
easier to sell a piece to the customer being able to show him the details
of what he is going to spend a few thousand dollars on.
I find that I can think just as easily at the computer and see if my idea
works and or looks decent immediately. I very seldom have to buy more
wood after the initial purchase any more because I have all the details
of what I need, knock on wood. I typically don't have any wasted cuts
because I know from the drawing exactly how long to cut 98% of the pieces.
Basically I can make changes on the computer and present different ideas
to the customer and go with the one that he prefers. After doing this for
30 years, I want to build when I am out in the shop not solve problems, I
have done that before and that way is not efficient for me.

Ditto ... as a builder I hate having to "field engineer" and don't' relish
it in the shop. It's also an enjoyable past time for me to plan a project
"in detail", particularly when it's my own design ... second in enjoyment,
perhaps, to actually seeing the results of a well executed plan.

I also agree with Kevin, you don't have to draw in every tubafour in the
framing plan of a house ... I don't usually have the need to draw the
dovetails on a drawer, or the drawers in a cabinet run for that matter,
unless it's to get a detail into the clients head, or give them a choice.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Leon" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 6:30 pm, Larry wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote
:


Fair enough, but how often does that come into play for the average
woodworker? And would different parts made by two average woodworkers
end up fitting together

This is probably not a fair answer from me but Swingman and I have often
in the past built kitchens together, He would build the face frames in his
shop and I would cut up all the plywood panels. A few years ago I took 27
pieces of oak veneer plywood back to my shop to cut up. When he was done
with the face frames and i was done with the 100+ panels we would get
together at his shop and spend 3 or 4 days assembling all the components
for a kitchen or two. Typically a few weeks later we would install the
cabinets.

LOL ... you can't argue with success, or the topnotch skill and equipment
that allows such precision.

(it's also nice that the tape measures on our saw fences just happen to
coincide!)

Or to simply share with others so they don't have to reinvent
the wheel. If all of the hobbyists shared their drawings it
would be a huge timesaver. To a certain extent that's what the
SketchUp warehouse is all about, though I've not found any
"complete" drawings yet.

The nice thing about a partial drawing is you get to exercise you're
own creativity in completing it.

That can also be done on the computer, but you can be creative in several
different versions. That way you end up with your favorite version and so
to speak not be taking "pot luck" with what you end up with.

Yeppers ... for me, there is a *great* deal of satisfaction in executing a
carefully crafted, well thought out, PLAN.

.... probably because I'm not all that "creative".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Snip



Yeppers ... for me, there is a *great* deal of satisfaction in executing a
carefully crafted, well thought out, PLAN.

... probably because I'm not all that "creative".


Not to mention, IIRC you were always wondering "what if" concerning the
legs/feet on your table in the kitchen area. With Sketchup you were able to
determine that you had make the right choice concerning the size. Had it
been available and you had used Sketchup you could have saved years of
wondering, "what if". LOL

Larry wrote:

I've posted this before but the best tutorial I've found is at
http://www.srww.com/blog. You'll need to hunt for it a bit but
it's called "Drawing a bedside table". It's an 8 part tutorial
that you can download in Word format or follow it online. It
covers a lot of the problems discussed here including making
components, using layers, dimensioning, etc.

Yes, a good one, here is a more direct link"

http://www.srww.com/google-sketchup.htm

This tutorial is what cleared things up for me. I had used
TurboCad and Autocad previously but was never proficient with
either. But having that background, at least to me, was as
much a hinderence as it was a help. If you have a CAD
background you must change your way of thinking or you'll
never get anywhere. The old install, try it out, uninstall
routine comes to mind.

No CAD or not much CAD background here, but I still started and stopped
about 3-4 times before I started to get a handle on it.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...


No CAD or not much CAD background here, but I still started and stopped
about 3-4 times before I started to get a handle on it.


Oddly, it seems to take exactly that to understand and finally appreciate
SU. Both myself and Swingman pretty much started with the program the same
way.
I do have quite a bit of CAD experience and have never been instructed on
CAD. I did have a couple of years of formal training in mechanical and
architectural drafting however. Having that back ground certainly helps in
learning how to make the programs perform efficiently.
Stick with it, with 20 years CAD experience and having bought and used the
more expensive versions I am leaving AutoCAD LT behind after working with it
for 12 years and going through 5 upgrades. Prior to that I used IMSI
Designer, TurboCAD, and 3 versions of AutoSketch.
So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years and
have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but it
certainly holds it's own in this medium.

"Leon" wrote in message
So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years
and
have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but
it
certainly holds it's own in this medium.

I think many people looked to CAD (if only the basics of it) because there
were few really capable graphics programs around and if you learned enough
you could design most anything with it. Now with faster and more affordable
computers around and the plethora of available, cheaper (and free) graphics
programs that abound, we can pick and choose what will do the job with the
least amount of effort. That's not CAD anymore for most people.

Robatoy will chafe (as will many of us) at all the "experts" who suddenly
appear in the design arena solely because of the cheapness and capabilities
of new software. People will have to put in a fraction of the time necessary
to learn more advanced programs than what was originally necessary for any
CAD program. It's exactly that same as the $700 I spent some years ago on my
first 80 meg hard drive. Now all I can do is reminisce about it because hard
drive space is thousands of times cheaper. Life's a bitch sometimes.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
So now I am happier than ever with Sketchup. I have no problem admitting
that I have invested a few thousand in CAD programs in the last 20 years
and
have moved up to a free program. It is different than a CAD program but
it
certainly holds it's own in this medium.

I think many people looked to CAD (if only the basics of it) because there
were few really capable graphics programs around and if you learned enough
you could design most anything with it. Now with faster and more
affordable
computers around and the plethora of available, cheaper (and free)
graphics
programs that abound, we can pick and choose what will do the job with the
least amount of effort. That's not CAD anymore for most people.

Robatoy will chafe (as will many of us) at all the "experts" who suddenly
appear in the design arena solely because of the cheapness and
capabilities
of new software. People will have to put in a fraction of the time
necessary
to learn more advanced programs than what was originally necessary for any
CAD program. It's exactly that same as the $700 I spent some years ago on
my
first 80 meg hard drive. Now all I can do is reminisce about it because
hard
drive space is thousands of times cheaper. Life's a bitch sometimes.

I employ both; as a long-time TurboCad (v.2, mostly v.7 and more
recently Deluxe v.12) user and SU not long after I discovered it and it was
still @Last Software in Boulder (currently v.6 Pro). SU has been
particularly useful to render project drawings that allow clients to
envision the finished look of a project. AAMOF I have a drawing to do today
for an associate's client, another who "just can't picture what it will look
like! (the WHAT IF MY GIRLFRIENDS WON'T LIKE IT!!! syndrome ) )"
Coincidently, the "staff" architect for a timberframe builder my SYB and
I employed for a piece of dirt we have in southern Colorado is the voice of
the early SU tutorials. At the time (2006?) SU had just been bought by
Google and Mark had left the company to strike out on his own. I was
excited enough to plop down another $95 on our return to Houston for the v.6
upgrade. I doubt those plans/drawings will be the final project site plans
especially for the trades.
But, when I need to dimension cabinetry or built-ins or permit plans I
still revert to TurboCad (though City of Houston has accepted SU drawings).

Dave in Houston

On Mar 2, 8:54*am, "Dave in Houston" wrote:

* * But, when I need to dimension cabinetry or built-ins or permit plans I
still revert to TurboCad (though City of Houston has accepted SU drawings).

That SU will slowly be accepted by other departments and cities is
inevitable. It is the information that is within the document that
counts, not what software created it.
In a nearby county there was a engineering manager who only accepted
MicroStation documents or printed blueprints. MicroStation?? Ya
kidding me? Sure it was a nice CAD program for the Mac, but nobody
used it. AutoCAD was, and still is, king around here. The engineering
guys want assurance that when they're opening a drawing, that what
they see is what it is meant to be. In due time SU will achieve that
level of confidence, I'm sure. Then there is the image problem: "I
will present you with some SketchUp drawings, madam." (I'm not sure
which of the 57 flavours/ingredients yet,,but) And then there is that
mischievous component, knowing that those Bob-The-Builder and LegoWare
remarks just irk the **** out of some of the thin-skinned class-mates.

Onto my pogo-stick I climbeth and off to make some
countertops.....oops, almost dropped my yo-yo.