Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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? |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. :-) |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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/ |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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. |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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) |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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. |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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. |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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) |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
"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 |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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. |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
|
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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 |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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/ |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Sketchup 7
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
If you use Sketchup | Woodworking | |||
SketchUp | Woodworking Plans and Photos | |||
Sketchup is nifty! | Woodworking Plans and Photos | |||
OT? SketchUp Videos | Woodworking | |||
Google SketchUp 6 | Metalworking |