I have been an AutoCAD LT user for 12 or so years. I have been using
CAD programs since 1986. Never have I run across and learned so quickly to
draw on a CAD type program as with Sketchup. 3D is SIMPLE with Sketchup. I
down loaded it years ago and removed it, down loaded it again and forgot
about it, uninstalled it once again and finally down loaded version 6 and
after putzing with it 2 or 3 more times discovered that it was OK.
Version 7 was released a few months or so ago and it is even better.
It seems that there are fewer errors and problems and designing on it now
seems very intuitive once I learned to assemble my drawings with components,
thanks Swingman.
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

Leon wrote:

Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.

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

Leon wrote:
I have been an AutoCAD LT user for 12 or so years. I have been using
CAD programs since 1986. Never have I run across and learned so quickly to
draw on a CAD type program as with Sketchup. 3D is SIMPLE with Sketchup. I
down loaded it years ago and removed it, down loaded it again and forgot
about it, uninstalled it once again and finally down loaded version 6 and
after putzing with it 2 or 3 more times discovered that it was OK.
Version 7 was released a few months or so ago and it is even better.
It seems that there are fewer errors and problems and designing on it now
seems very intuitive once I learned to assemble my drawings with components,
thanks Swingman.
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

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.

--
"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/

On Feb 24, 8:02 pm, "Leon" wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I hadn't even realized you could do that now, sweet!

-Kevin

On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Leon wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.

Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
an easy one.


-Kevin

wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Leon wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.

Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
an easy one.

You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote

You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) curve
is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus at
the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs other
than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Is this for a parabolic reflecter? I have made a bunch of those for a solar
powered pool company many years ago. We used metal coated mylar and set the
panels into a frame to support them. We thermoformed them in a vacuum
forming machine. The machine was home built.

We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plaster
mold. Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic. Turn
on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and collect
eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.

Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of riches
in the solar heating biz. But I got it out of my system a long time ago. I
am much better now. :-)

Lee Michaels wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote
You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) curve
is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus at
the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs other
than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Is this for a parabolic reflecter? I have made a bunch of those for a solar
powered pool company many years ago. We used metal coated mylar and set the
panels into a frame to support them. We thermoformed them in a vacuum
forming machine. The machine was home built.

We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plaster
mold. Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic. Turn
on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and collect
eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.

Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of riches
in the solar heating biz. But I got it out of my system a long time ago. I
am much better now. :-)

'Tis. You can see photos of a half-width prototype at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html

These are being used to heat the hot head of a fluidyne engine. You can
see a photo of a low temperature (and low-efficiency) prototype at the
bottom of

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Dyne.html

and concept drawings of the next generation at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/.../Fluidyne.html

Converting the solar radiation to heat is easy - using the heat from a
concentrator with only 32 ft^2 of mirror to produce more than 1 hp is
"interesting".

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

On Feb 24, 11:47*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
"Morris Dovey" *wrote
You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib) curve
is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the focus at
the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular arcs other
than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been 'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right..
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Is this for a parabolic reflecter? *I have made a bunch of those for a solar
powered pool company many years ago. *We used metal coated mylar and set the
panels into a frame to support them. *We thermoformed them in a vacuum
forming machine. The machine was home built.

We would cut the shape we wanted in metal and use that to form the plaster
mold. *Mount that mold on the thermoforming bed and heat the plastic. *Turn
on the vacuum and the panels were instantly formed. Trim them and collect
eight of them to make on parabolic reflector.

Ahhhh....., the wild visionary days of a mispent youth. Dreaming of riches
in the solar heating biz. *But I got it out of my system a long time ago. I
am much better now. *:-)

'Tis. You can see photos of a half-width prototype at

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Heat.html

These are being used to heat the hot head of a fluidyne engine. You can
see a photo of a low temperature (and low-efficiency) prototype at the
bottom of

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/Stirling/Dyne.html

and concept drawings of the next generation at

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Projects/.../Fluidyne.html

Converting the solar radiation to heat is easy - using the heat from a
concentrator with only 32 ft^2 of mirror to produce more than 1 hp is
"interesting".

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

Ever consider a linear fresnel reflector on a small scale? The
simplicity appeals to me.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pd...ausra_clrf.pdf

On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Leon wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.

Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
an easy one.

You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
stuff.

http://groups.google.com/group/Sketc...f5c3d?lnk=raot

Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
working on now:

http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp

Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though

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.

-Kevin

Robatoy wrote:

Ever consider a linear fresnel reflector on a small scale? The
simplicity appeals to me.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pd...ausra_clrf.pdf

I've considered it - and think it's a great idea for some applications
larger than the one I'm working on.

My goal is something simple enough that anyone, anywhere can assemble
with a screwdriver and have running in ten or fifteen minutes using a
single graphics-only instruction sheet.

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

wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:31 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Leon wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions .
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?
I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was
working on (with a different package) when your post popped up.
I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I
can make it in SU7.
Draw the 3 straight line segments at the corners on each side. Draw
the arcs between them. Push/Pull on the surface to drag it out into
3d. Unless there's something I'm missing about the drawing, that's
an easy one.
You /are/ missing something. The (surface and matching plywood rib)
curve is a parabola with a curve length of exactly eight feet with the
focus at the point midway between the edges. There aren't any circular
arcs other than the ends of the small tubes, which haven't been
'extruded' yet.

I tried making a cone and sectioning to produce a parabolic curve, but
still had the problem of making the length of the curve come out right.
'Taint as easy as it looks. :-p

Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
stuff.

http://groups.google.com/group/Sketc...f5c3d?lnk=raot

Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
working on now:

http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp

Interesting!

Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though

I'd really like to see some photos of the finished top in place. That'll
be quite a feature.

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.

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions
. It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something
complicated in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible.
So if you have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I have version 7, but it still won't handle the simple shape I was working
on (with a different package) when your post popped up.

I'll put what I have so far on abpw, and perhaps you can tell me how I can
make it in SU7.

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


Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.

Leon wrote:

Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.

Oops - sorry (I forgot). There's a freshly uploaded copy at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/SK7NotYet.jpg

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

wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 10:38 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:


Okay. I googled "google sketchup parabola" and got all kinds of
stuff.

http://groups.google.com/group/Sketc...f5c3d?lnk=raot

Normally I use sketchup to visualize, not necessarily get an exact
drawing. So something like that a simple arc would probably be fine
to get what I need from it. Now that I know I can actually generate
scale drawings I may use it a bit more for creating templates that
need to be exact. But my models are never complete. This is what I'm
working on now:

Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't create
components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After assemble
of the components that can be easily moved again.

For printing to scale be sure to uncheck the "Fit to page" and "Use model
extents" boxes and then change the scale boxes to be equal for the In print
out and the In Sketchup. This is possible after unchecking the mentioned
boxes.






http://www.krtwood.com/progression2.skp

Not remotely complete as far as construction details. The edges of
the top are natural but a simple angle is good enough for modeling.
On the top those circles are dished out with the 'disher' I talked
about elsewhere, I could have spent time trying to figure out how to
model that but I don't care because I already know what it looks
like. The side panels are actually curved, wasn't sure how I was
going to actually do that so I modeled it flat to be sure that would
look good too. When I first headed to the shop a single column of
drawers spanned the whole width. After I decided to split it after
seeing how wide those drawers were going to be I went back and modeled
my concept for curving things to make sure that was going to look
right. I got what I needed out of it. I'm going to have a whole lot
of fun trying to fit those drawer fronts in a couple days though

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.


Apossable solution is to manually draw the demention in those situations.






-Kevin

"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/

wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 8:02 pm, "Leon" wrote:
Anyway, you can now print drawings to scale in version 7. For
woodworking IMHO this was a major missing feature in the earlier versions
.
It seems that I always needed to transfer a curve or something
complicated
in full size scale to the actual wood. Now that is possible. So if you
have not upgraded to version 7, what are you waiting for?

I hadn't even realized you could do that now, sweet!

-Kevin

I was reading a FWW article explaining a new plug in for making "to scale"
templates. Basically a tool for cutting out templates to check complex
shapes that you are making. Think a curved and tapering table leg.
Learning that you could now print to scale was a side benefit. I tried it
on version 6 and it would not work.

The plug in is "Slicer". In the program it will take a curved and tapered
leg and divide it into as many cross sections as you like and then lay all
those sections out to be printed in full scale.

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.

I've been piddling with Sketchup again this morning (have the day off
work today) and I'd just about come to that same conclusion when I read
your post; thanks for solidifying it for me. This sounds kinda like
using blocks and groups in TurboCAD; separately edited components that
maintain their own identity when inserted into a drawing. Thanks.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

I sent you an e-mail with an attachment of what I think you are asking
about.

Leon

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

Yeah unfortunately I don't get abpw any more.

Oops - sorry (I forgot). There's a freshly uploaded copy at

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/SK7NotYet.jpg

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

"Steve Turner" wrote in message
news
Leon wrote:

I've been piddling with Sketchup again this morning (have the day off work
today) and I'd just about come to that same conclusion when I read your
post; thanks for solidifying it for me. This sounds kinda like using
blocks and groups in TurboCAD; separately edited components that maintain
their own identity when inserted into a drawing. Thanks.


Correct!

I had to get out of the mind set of drawing I was using a t-square and
triangles.

Steve Turner wrote:

For a free program it's pretty damned incredible.

I've been around free software since day one, and what I found
incredible about Sketchup is that even if it cost a lot, it is pretty
incredible. There is not much I can think of a common wood worker could
not do readily with this very free application. It may not work
perfect for an architect designing the twin towers, or a design engineer
drawing up the final specs of an atomic power plant, but for some guy
building a deck, a barn, a kitchen cabinet, a night stand or any of the
many things your every day wood worker builds, this is the perfect tool
at the perfect price.

BTW, the stickiness is maddening until you use components.

One interesting thing is the "professional" $600 version works about
exactly the same as the free version, with the main difference in
ability to interact with other design software, not something that would
plague your average wood worker.

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

Steve Turner wrote:

snip
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.
snip

On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
(still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive
as time goes on??
I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about
3 times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take
forever to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this V7.
Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden
all the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
"default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

Pete Stanaitis

On Feb 25, 7:06*pm, spaco wrote:


*Is Sketchup better now?


It's Legoware. Cute, and somewhat functional. But I admit that when it
comes to CAD, I'm a snob. I have become proficient with the package I
use. In comparison, SU is awkward and limited.

spaco wrote:


Steve Turner wrote:

snip
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.
snip

On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
(still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive
as time goes on??

I wouldn't call TurboCAD the most intuitive CAD program I've ever used.
It does get better over time (a little), but some things just don't
work when you think they ought to (hey, that just worked a minute ago on
this other object, why won't it work HERE?!) and it can be pretty damn
maddening.

I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about 3
times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take
forever to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this
V7.

Don't feel bad; I'm still on V8 Pro (the latest is V15) and I got there
in pretty much the same way you did, so I can't really comment on
whether it's any better now. Many times I've tried to find a way to
upgrade, but they just make it too damn difficult and they want too much
money for the Pro version. I've compared the features of Pro and Deluxe
and concluded that I don't need any of the Pro features anyway, and
since the Deluxe is much cheaper I've downloaded the trial version to
attempt a migration. However, many of my V8 drawings won't transfer
over because the Deluxe version claims I've used Pro features that
aren't supported in Deluxe, even though I don't know exactly what those
features are, I didn't use them knowingly, and IMSI support can't tell
me how to get around it. Their "solution" was to suggest various
vendors that offer the Pro version for a "reasonable" price...

Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden
all the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
"default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

I'm right there with ya; I'm still trying to decide if I can deal with
its quirks and if it will have enough functionality to entice me to
move, and right now it's looking pretty "iffy". For example, if I draw
a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
*four* lines instead of two! I really don't like the way it transforms
the things I draw into other things entirely. But perhaps that offers
me advantages that I don't understand right now, and I want to stick
with it and give it a chance; partly becomes it makes 3D design very
easy (which I like), and also because I really dig Google's "public
warehouse" model. Sketchup users have already built up an impressive
collection of publicly accessible drawings, and it seems like the sky
could be the limit...

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" wrote:
Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't create
components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After assemble
of the components that can be easily moved again.

I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were
doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
for? All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
what it will look like not how to make it.

-Kevin

On Feb 25, 11:17 pm, Steve Turner wrote:
For example, if I draw
a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
*four* lines instead of two!

It didn't used to do that automatically, you had to tell it to
intersect. The Intersect menu function is still there. The main thing
is that if it doesn't do that then the intersection doesn't become a
hot point that you can easily click on. The only time I really
wouldn't want that is if I'm screwing around with something, but you
can use undo instead of deleting. But it would be nice to have that
as a mode you could turn on and off.

My main annoyance is when you have a hollow area and it insists on
redrawing a surface across it every time you do anything along the
edge.

-Kevin

"Morris Dovey" 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.

Double click on the one you want to change and type in the following,
depending upon which side you want it:

\n or \n


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

"Morris Dovey" 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.

Better explanation than my previous:

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/i...ple-quick-tips


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

On Feb 26, 12:20 am, "Swingman" wrote:
"Morris Dovey" 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.

Better explanation than my previous:

http://finewoodworking.taunton.com/i...ng-your-drawin...

Just the sort of intuitive thing that doesn't need any documentation!
There's a setting in there that will *hide* the dimension if it
doesn't fit... yeah that's useful.

It just downloaded an update and there's nada about what it updated.

-Kevin

On Feb 26, 1:22 am, wrote:

It just downloaded an update and there's nada about what it updated.

Oh sure, now that I say that they put out release notes. Just bug
fixes.


-Kevin

wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" wrote:
Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't
create
components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After
assemble
of the components that can be easily moved again.

I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were

It's less about what you need in the model or drawings as keeping things
straight with Sketchup. Other CAD systems will manage a certain amount of
information behind the scenes. For example, a part may be made up of some
extrusions or sweeps, each with an associated sketch and other information.
Sub-assemblies contain other assemblies as well as parts made from features
of extrusions and such. The relevance here is that Sketchup doesn't do any
of that organization for you by itself. Sketchup components are in many ways
analogous to parts and sub-assemblies in the other systems. Everything that
isn't grouped into a component is part of the global component.

If that's right for what you're doing, that's already more than you need to
know. However, it's clear to me from your comments that this is the
precisely the problem you're running into. In your mind, the box you're
drawing is a board separate from the box already in the model. From
Sketchup's point of view, you're trying to connect them together to make a
compound shape. The way you tell Sketchup what you have in mind is to group
them into separate components.

doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
for?

Draw them if you need them. Don't draw them if you don't. This is
independent of the problems you described.

All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
what it will look like not how to make it.

Sketchup is looking over your shoulder, and guessing wrong. Give it a clue.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 10:07 am, "Leon" wrote:
Keep in mind that Sketchup can be very difficult to use if you don't
create
components and assemble them if you want a working drawing. After
assemble
of the components that can be easily moved again.

I don't generally bother with components because I have no need to
pull out components to be shown separately. The type of things I'm
making I just don't need that kind of drawings. And even if I were
doing something, say a mission style bench and I have rails with a
bunch of mortises. Well, when I go to make those mortises I am
probably going to use some kind of template that references from the
center of the mortise. So what do I need a drawing of the mortises
for? All I need is the location of the centers which I can get from
the full drawing. And so I just don't even bother modeling the joint
at all, I know what needs to happen there so I just don't see the
point in modeling it. I'm the only one who needs to understand the
drawing so it doesn't need to be complete, just enough for me to do
the job, and possibly to show to a customer who only needs to know
what it will look like not how to make it.

-Kevin

I can understand what you are talking about here and I used to think that
way. Most of what I build can be quite complex and for me the drawings
help me to visualize if some thing is going to work or not. Basically the
components are not used so that you can pull them out so to speak, you use
components so that you can more easily modify a part that may be too long or
too wide, etc,.. I recently designed a jewelry chest with sliding dado's
for the drawer slides. I made every thing out of components and then
assembled a drawer out of copies of the components. Then I grouped that
assembly so that I could place it in the cabinet and see how it fit. If it
were too long I could easily modify a component part outside the cabinet
with out having to remove the drawer. The drawer components would
automatically adjust while in place inside the chest.

"spaco" wrote in message
.. .


Steve Turner wrote:

snip
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.
snip

On a different subject, sorta; I've been using TurboCad for many years
(still a novice at it)and I was wondering if it gets any more intuitive as
time goes on??

Maybe! I have probably used 6 or 7 CAD programs since the mid 80's TurboCAD
was absolutely the most difficult for me to "attempt" to master. AutoCAD LT
eas infinatly easier for me to learn and I used it for about 12 years.
Sketchup is as much easier for me to use compared to AutoCAD as AutoCAD ias
to TurboCAD.



I am embarrassed to say that I still have V7 Pro. I upgraded about 3
times to get there and every time I DID upgrade, it seemed to take forever
to get back all the screens and buttons that went somewhere else.
Is it better now? Is 3D easier to work with than it was in V7?
Turbocad had a "Solid Modeller" back then. It seemed to work pretty
well, but was quite limited. But it sure seemed easier to use that this
V7.
Also, since you are messing with Sketchup:
I downloaded an early version and went through the tutorial. It seemed
really neat, until I tried a complete drawing. Then, all of a sudden all
the neat "intuitive" stuff was over and I'd have to do all the rote
learning that I have had to do with Turbocad if I wanted to make it my
"default" CAD software. Is Sketchup better now?

Sketchup 7 is better than 6 and as mentioned above has become my primary
drawing program. Well worth learning to think a little differently as
drawings are about 10 times faster using Sketchup 7. The learning curve is
pretty shallow especially if you watch a few of the numerous short online
tutorials.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 7:06 pm, spaco wrote:


Is Sketchup better now?


It's Legoware. Cute, and somewhat functional. But I admit that when it
comes to CAD, I'm a snob. I have become proficient with the package I
use. In comparison, SU is awkward and limited.


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.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 11:17 pm, Steve Turner wrote:
For example, if I draw
a line and bisect it with another line, Sketchup now thinks I have
*four* lines instead of two!

It didn't used to do that automatically, you had to tell it to
intersect.

It does it automatically on version 7, thank goodness.

That said if you continue to draw on Sketchup like you would on any other
typical CAD program it can become a bother.

I guess the thing that you have to remember about Sketchup is that it works
best when you draws objects not just lines that infer objects.

"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.

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

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.

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

"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.

The universal "hide" command is controlled by estrogen.

Them wimmin folks can hide anything!

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.

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

-Kevin

On Feb 26, 11:51*am, "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.



Oh yea??? Sez who???

LOL
Kidding aside, I think SU is a wonderful option for people to get into
computerised design and SU appears to be a hit.
And I'll stop with my Bob-The-Builder jokes, okay?
And you're right, people should not compare SU with CAD because it is
indeed misleading.
What I did find really interesting, is that Google/SU immediately
supported Macs. That was cool.

Incidentally, I use my CAD program as a surface modeller as well. Such
is the world of NURBS.

r