Robatoy wrote:

Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.

Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
"wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.

The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.

Seriously? You know this how?

Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*

Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.
But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
about SU free or pro, I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
Pro. Here's what he said:

"As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
whatsoever between the free and pro version."

I would suggest anyone thinking of trying out SU, or has given it a
cursory look, ignore your ramblings based on hot air, and listen to
those that actually "wasted" some time learning how good the free
version really is.

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

Jack Stein wrote:

OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you saying
one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all? I'm no
SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same as have
been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and w/o SU,
computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?

Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".

It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
points needed).

The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
9601 points for the full width.

FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
first used was capable of handling the job.

A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
use a /very/ sharp pencil.

You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be used?

I hear you wanting to make a distinction between commercial activity and
hobby activity, so let me respond to that by saying that my immediate
interest doesn't fall neatly into either category. It's simply a
woodworker's attempt to produce a real solution to a real problem, with
the knowledge that a good solution can make a /lot/ of lives better.

My inescapable conclusion is that there are a lot of woodworkers whose
woodworking interests go considerably beyond what can be done with
2300 year old geometry.

I'm pretty sure SU uses a lot of techniques not available 2300 years ago
and a ton not even available free to wood workers ever before in the
history of mankind. Your point is unclear to say the least.

Then let me clarify: 2300 years ago Euclid worked only with straight
lines and circular arcs; today SketchUp works only with straight lines
and circular arcs. The only difference is that the SketchUp user doesn't
need (and almost certainly doesn't have) anything approaching Euclid's
understanding of geometry.

A lot has happened since Euclid's time. His work in geometry led others
to use symbols to represent frequently-used values, and that developed
into algebra - which when applied back to Euclid's work resulted in
trigonometry and what we now call analytical geometry - which eventually
motivated calculus so that we could apply all of the above to non
steady-state processes.

I still see it as "dumbing down".

And I still don't see how a wood worker that normally would not use any
CAD program would be "dumbing down" by learning to use a free design
tool. About the only problem I see is they might end up having more fun
designing stuff than actually building it. This actually happened to
me. I got into computing so I could use it to draw up stuff I was
building. This was in the early 1980's and I got a copy of design cad,
and I spent about 100 times longer figuring out how to use the program
than I would have just using a pencil and paper for a shed I was
building. I ended up becoming obsessed with computers and programing.
Prior to that, I was obsessed with wood working. I found computing met
most of my "creative" needs, I could "build" programs that did all sorts
of things, mistakes along the way cost nothing, no lost material, no
lost fingers and so on. Wood working slipped into the background, and is
still there for the most part...

I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
than I do about function.

"Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
job - and although you seem
determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that stuff.


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

On Mar 6, 2:34*pm, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.

Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
"wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.

The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.

Seriously? *You know this how?

Because I played with it.

Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*

Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.

I can see that you'd never need SUPro. You're not likely to do
anything interesting enough.

But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
about SU free or pro,

We can't really talk about Pro as you don't own it. (Psssst, I did
download it and looked at it intently, I commented elsewhere that I
thought LayOut was quite usable.

I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
Pro. Here's what he said:

"As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
whatsoever between the free and pro version."

I have no problem taking Swing's word for anything, it's your words I
have a problem with. You just whine and whine away, baying at the
moon. But what you should do, is take a look at Google's own SketchUp
site and look at the comparison table that GOOGLE publishes, showing
the differences between Free and Pro. You'll find there is a clear
mention of import/export differences, one of which (.dxf) that I
cannot live without.
So, if FreeSU cannot export any of my work so I can use it, then WHY-
THE-HELL should I bother looking at anything else that it might or
might not do?

You know what, jack? I think you are too stupid to understand what
'wasting time' really means. Trying to talk some sense into you
certainly qualifies as 'wasting time'.

Ahhh fukkit...

plonk

On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you saying
one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all? I'm no
SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same as have
been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and w/o SU,
computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?

Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".

Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
looking for that sooner. I am not sure how easy/possible it is to get
a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. I'm
not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.

http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibrary...t_scripts.html

Bezier Spline v1.2

At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.

So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.

-Kevin

"Leon" wrote

At least it does not have a warning about possible "loose stool" like
those potatoe chips did a few years back. LOL

Whoooops! Hold it! .... stop the presses! In your worst nightmare ... like a
glimpse under the seat of a construction site portapotty!

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

"MikeWhy" wrote in message
...
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"Jack Stein" wrote

*yawn*

Damn, Jack ... little did we realize that SU is the tool of the devil! We
better update the warning label ASAP, eh?

Before use, ask your doctor if SU is right for you!

"CAUTION: Use of SU may cause loss of all technological advance through
"dumbing down"; Repeated use of SU may cause accusations of being a
"****ing expert"; Use of SU may cause CAD confusion, CNC confusion, Curve
confusion and loss of pencil sharpness, Do not use SU while driving and
operating machinery when sleeping or unconscious; Use of SU upside down
may cause vertigo; SU should not be used if you are pregnant, or have
plans to cause pregnancy; If you have a prolonged erection while using SU
that last for for more than four hours, see your wife/girlfriend
immediately; Use of alcohol with this product may cause you to wake up
with buzzard breath."

(Updated version pending kibitzer's further fits of wisdom)

Pardon the typos, as I am dictating this to wife (Hi! Joann waves) to
send on my behalf. I ground off my fingertips to bloody stumps so they
wouldn't write something hurtful. I have only this to add: "SU is a great
product. I hope it brings you as much happiness as it has brought me."
However, blaming it for your buzzard breath and toe warts is unwarranted.
You should perhaps amend your statement thusly: "Myopia and a few, very
few, other pre-existing shortcomings do not respond to Sketchup therapy."

ROTFL ... hope your fingers feel better.

Hi Joann!!

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

wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:

Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".

Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
looking for that sooner. I am not sure how easy/possible it is to get
a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. I'm
not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.

http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibrary...t_scripts.html

Bezier Spline v1.2

At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.

So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.

Of course it can, and it could be approximated closely with enough
bezier splines. It'd still be necessary to calculate the positions of
the end (and probably center) points, so I'd guess that it'd be more
practical to just connect all 4801 of those points with straight line
segments. :-p

I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby, but the version 1
design got finished while all this discussion was going on, and I just
got a call from the manufacturer of the fin-tube component letting me
know that it's on its way - so I'll probably do the usual and just make
photos of the prototype. I figure there's not much time or effort saved
if I have to go off and learn yet another programming/scripting language.

The fin-tube stuff is kinda pretty in a geekish way. I'll post a photo
of a sample in case anyone's interested in weird hardware. See

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/FintubeCutaway-1.jpg

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

On Mar 6, 4:42*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".

Turns out there are plugins for Bezier splines, I'm an idiot for not
looking for that sooner. *I am not sure how easy/possible it is to get
a parabola from a Bezier, but if not it's certainly possible to add
the ability to do a parabola to sketchup through ruby scripting. *I'm
not even sure what all the names of the curves the plugin can do mean,
but I am guessing it can be done with the plugin.

http://www.crai.archi.fr/RubyLibrary...t_scripts.html

Bezier Spline v1.2

At first I thought you couldn't move the control points again once you
commit with a double click because they don't come back up when you
click on it, but you can edit through the right click menu.

So there you go, Sketchup can do complex curves.

Of course it can, and it could be approximated closely with enough
bezier splines. It'd still be necessary to calculate the positions of
the end (and probably center) points, so I'd guess that it'd be more
practical to just connect all 4801 of those points with straight line
segments. :-p

I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby, but the version 1
design got finished while all this discussion was going on, and I just
got a call from the manufacturer of the fin-tube component letting me
know that it's on its way - so I'll probably do the usual and just make
photos of the prototype. I figure there's not much time or effort saved
if I have to go off and learn yet another programming/scripting language.

The fin-tube stuff is kinda pretty in a geekish way. I'll post a photo
of a sample in case anyone's interested in weird hardware. See

* *http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/FintubeCutaway-1.jpg

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

Make sure you add some relief valves to this thing...valves with lots
of flow capacity.
The planet needs you.

Robatoy wrote:

Make sure you add some relief valves to this thing...valves with lots
of flow capacity.
The planet needs you.

Well, if she don't make power, then she'll sure brew a cup of coffee in
a hurry.

Hold my beer - I'm gonna try sump'en...

)

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

Robatoy wrote:

When I looked at SU, I asked several questions.
Will it do this? Will it do that? When the answers came up negative, I
decided not to waste my time.
Somehow, you decided that my decision of not wasting my time
disqualified me from making a judgement whether or not SU filled my
needs.

What made me decide you were posting drivel with regards to SU was you
saying SU doesn't to X and Swingman would explain that it would do x or
post links that showed it would do X.

It didn't do what I wanted it to do. No need to look further.

Again, I have no problem with SU not doing what you want. Some people
think using SU will degrade expectations and abilities of many. I think
your constant complaining about it's perceived limitations might
discourage some from learning it.

"This is
a pretty good band, but all they do is play Cat Stevens songs."

Even though I only heard them once on the radio...

I discovered SU's limitations by investigating its capabilities.

Perhaps, but most of it's limitations you noted where shot down by those
that actually wasted time learning what all it can do.

It seems that Google also figured out that it came up short for many
others. They padded the project with LayOut, for a price. That covered
some of my needs, but still there was no reason to drop any amount of
money on capabilities I already owned and learned.

No one ever said anything about you dropping what works for you.
Everyone has said SU is not, nor claiming to be, a full blown CAD
program. If I needed a full blown CAD program I guess I would spend a
ton and a half of money on AUTOCAD... Few common woodworkers need
AUTOCAD, or anything near autocad.

Why are you having such a problem with that, Jack? Or are you just an
asshole?

Well I am an asshole but that's not the problem I have with you trotting
around bashing SU. I'm one, like so many others that tried SU, thought
it a toy, tried it again, thought it was screwed up. Tried it again, and
found it was much much better than I first thought, and decided to put
in some time to really learn what it could do for me. Happily, I found
it did about everything most hobbyists and small shop owners would need,
and then some.

What made me keep pushing on with SU was not some dick that never
"wasted" his time learning what it could do, instead, it was some guy
who actually did "waste his time learning it", who's opinion I had come
to respect (Swing) touting it's abilities.

Now, if you think that's a problem I have, tough cookies. I admit I
enjoy the banter back and forth, and considering it's a subject that
also interests me a good bit, I see no "problem" with my participation
in the thread even though it is getting a bit long in tooth,
particularly since it's likely to erupt again, next time you say
something silly about SU.

So, let me ask you: Why are you having such a problem with that, or are
*you* just an asshole?

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

Morris Dovey wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

OK, you made me look at that, and see I've looked at it myself before.
Doesn't look like something that would give SU much of a problem, and
I'm not sure why a CNC machine, or much more than standard tools most
wood workers have on their shop would need to build it. The Vikings
built boats fancier than that with out computer software. Are you
saying one can't draw that up with SU or even w/o CAD program at all?
I'm no SU expert, but sure looks like straight and curved lines, same
as have been used to build wood stuff for 1000's of years, with and
w/o SU, computers or heaven forbid, even electricity?

Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".

Already you are way past what I would ever do in my shop. I work in +/-
1/16th" increments. If I really sharpen my pencil, I can get to 1/32 at
best, but then my eyes have all they can handle with 1/16th of an inch.
I have tapes that show 1/32 increments but my eyes give me the finger
if I try to use those little lines.

I often wonder how deep a pore in a hunk of red oak is? Seriously, one
guy was telling me he turns pool cues to a tolerances of 1/10,000"....
I remember thinking I'll bet a pore in red oak is deeper than that...

It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
points needed).

Don't know what that means. When I draw a curve, I usually just use 3
points and a metal yard stick or string for the radius. What's 4801
points all about?

The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
9601 points for the full width.

Way beyond my knowledge of wood working. What is a Point, and why do I
need 9601 of them?

FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
first used was capable of handling the job.

I used Design Cad with primitive MS-DOS. Spent 40 days teaching my self
what it could do before deciding it was interesting, but not needed for
most of the wood working I did. Here, 25 years or so later I find SU, a
free drawing program did everything I need and then some...

A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
use a /very/ sharp pencil.

Doesn't matter, my eyes don't do +/- .001", far as I know.

You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be used?

No argument there. In fact, SU doesn't work well w/o a computer. Based
on using your computer "as well as it can be used"... I have to
disagree. The best cad program *I* know about is AutoCad. It is huge,
expensive and you could go to school learning just a tad of what all it
can do. Honestly, some guy I know wanted to GIVE me a copy of AutoCad, I
declined because I didn't think I needed it, even for free. I doubt
many wood workers need it. I think most wood workers would do just fine
with SU, it is easy to use once you learn it, and you sure don't need to
go to school to learn to use it, and the price is right. To me, THAT is
using technology well.

I hear you wanting to make a distinction between commercial activity and
hobby activity, so let me respond to that by saying that my immediate
interest doesn't fall neatly into either category.

I understand that. SU is certainly not for everyone either, no one ever
said it was. Most stuff made in a small shop can be built with or w/o
SU. SU just makes it cheap and easy to use your PC to expand your
design skills. If you find you need a full blown CAD program to draw up
parabolic mirrors, I guess you should look into autocad if you want the
best, or turbo cad if you don't need much. I know SU does all sorts of
curves, and the tutorial I listed previously shows how to draw all sorts
of curves like the French curve things draftsman used to use. I don't
know all the fancy names but I know they are more than a simple curve.

I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
than I do about function.

Well to some extent you may be right, as I do wood work purely for it's
FUN value. I seldom make stuff I couldn't buy, so I sure don't need
wood working per se. There are a bunch of people, Swingman is a local
example, that has found SU useful for commercial applications.

"Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
job - and although you seem
determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that
stuff.

You can think that, and I can think that free ****es off people that
spent good money on something SU does free. Let me point out again that
I could have had one of the most comprehensive CAD programs for FREE,
but turned it down because I knew I didn't need all that, so FREE is not
my only motivation. FREE is interesting to me because SU is so damned
good at what it does, it is hard to believe it is FREE.

It's like a company decided to give free cars away, and you go down and
turns out it's a FREE Honda. It works perfect, gets good mileage, and
is rather dependable. Robocop says it sucks, even though he never drove
it, and says his 4 wheel drive, GMC Z71 with towing package will tow his
6000 pound boat out of the river, not to mention cruise through deep
sand on any ocean beach, and the FREE toy you got won't. I say but I
don't have a boat, and I plan on driving to Giant Eagle supermarket, not
some beach on the ocean, but if I did, perhaps I would spend $30,000 on
a "real" truck, but for now, I'm pretty dammed impressed with someone
giving away a Honda! Now, instead of saying, yeah, good deal, he won't
stop denigrating your FREE car (SU) that does everything most shoppers
(wood workers) need.

Actually, this is not a perfect analogy. Better would be RoboCop
stating the Honda is junk because it won't run on regular gas (it does)
and won't go in reverse (it does) and doesn't have a heater (it does)
and doesn't tow 6000 lbs... Oops, it doesn't tow 6000 lbs, but hey, its
free, and most shoppers don't need to tow anything, let alone 6000 lbs...

PS, I really liked your home made CNC machine... Very nice work.

I hesitate to say this, but I bet one could draw it up in detail with SU
and share it with the world, if they wanted... another nice thing about
free, everyone can afford to get it, and share...
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:34 pm, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Pro is not a waste of money IMO and blows the doors off the SUFreebie,
but all the good stuff seems to be hanging around in LayOut.
Well said for someone doing his best to show how much time he hasn't
"wasted" learning what SUFreebie actually does vs SU Pro.

The Freebie can be fun. A fun tool, as opposed to a serious tool.
Seriously? You know this how?

Because I played with it.

So I guess when YOU stated you didn't waste time learning SU, you were
lying?

Fun is good. But, NO support for BOM. (Barrel Of Monkeys). *smirks*

Drivel seems to entertain the hell out of you as well... I don't own SU
pro and from what I've read, there is no reason I would need SU Pro.

I can see that you'd never need SUPro. You're not likely to do
anything interesting enough.

True. I have no need to export files to AUTOCAD, or any other CAD
program. Is that what "blows the socks off" and "BOM" means? It is
also true I don't do much interesting stuff, I have made cabinets of all
sorts, desks, chairs, lamps, tables, and even entire kitchens with
counter tops, complete with holes for sinks. Nothing really interesting
to most wood workers, but just stuff most woodworkers seem to do,
routinely. Happily, these are things SU, the free one, is really,
really good at drawing.

But rather than take your word for it, considering you seem to know zip
about SU free or pro,

We can't really talk about Pro as you don't own it.

I only talked about it based on what Swing said, and what I read on the
site. "Blow the socks off" was not in the picture drawn by those in the
know...

(Psssst, I did
download it and looked at it intently, I commented elsewhere that I
thought LayOut was quite usable.

You commented that the PRO blows the socks off the free one, opposite of
what has been said on the SU site, and by users of PRO and the FREESU.

I'll take Swingmans word since he actually owns SU
Pro. Here's what he said:

"As far a drawing/design ability, there is no functional difference
whatsoever between the free and pro version."

I have no problem taking Swing's word for anything, it's your words I
have a problem with.

Hence, I quoted Swingman's words, but appears you have problems with his
words as well as mine...

You just whine and whine away, baying at the moon.

Making fun of the silly things you say about me, and SU, is entertaining
to me.

But what you should do, is take a look at Google's own SketchUp
site and look at the comparison table that GOOGLE publishes, showing
the differences between Free and Pro. You'll find there is a clear
mention of import/export differences, one of which (.dxf) that I
cannot live without.

Yes, everyone has told you that, it is amazing that the only difference
is it's import export abilities, particularly since you can import and
export jpg's, which is all plenty of WW's need. Those that need to
export .DXF files can spend $600 on the pro version, and they can create
DC's instead just reading them. Most ww's won't miss either, or even
know what they are.

So, if FreeSU cannot export any of my work so I can use it, then WHY-
THE-HELL should I bother looking at anything else that it might or
might not do?

You shouldn't. On the other hand, if you want to list things that SU
cannot do, you should make sure you "wasted enough time" with it to be
right. You didn't and now you're out there twisting in the breeze.
Soon you will be cursing, calling me stupid and plonking me...

You know what, jack? I think you are too stupid to understand what
'wasting time' really means.

Didn't take long...

I'm stupid, SU is not real, yadda yadda yadda!

Trying to talk some sense into you
certainly qualifies as 'wasting time'.

Especially when you are so BAD at it...

Ahhh fukkit...

plonk

There ya go!

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

In article ,
Jack Stein wrote:

I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.victorious grin

On Mar 6, 4:42*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Give it a try. It's a simple parabola with a curve length of 48.000" and
with the focus exactly centered between the two edges. It's an optical
device, and it seems to work acceptably with points calculated every
0.010" and cut with an accuracy of +/- 0.001".


I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jack Stein wrote:

I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.victorious grin

Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people from
taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got tired of
tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.
Aren't you lucky!

"Lee Michaels" wrote

Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got tired
of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.
Aren't you lucky!

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...

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

On Mar 7, 1:51*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Lee Michaels" wrote

Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. *I assume that he got tired
of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de jour.

Jack Stein wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

It's symmetrical, so you'll only need to plot one side (2401 of the 4801
points needed).

Don't know what that means. When I draw a curve, I usually just use 3
points and a metal yard stick or string for the radius. What's 4801
points all about?

Well, this thing is "sorta" like an inside-out lens, except that instead
of using refraction to bend light rays to a focus, it uses reflection.
Because I don't need to focus to a super-tiny area, it doesn't need to
be quite as precise as a camera lens - but it does need to be about as
exact as woodworking tools can possibly manage.

Because the curve changes continually over its entire length, it can't
be built up of straight line segments long enough to be seen as such.
Ideally, it would be a smooth curve but straight line segments will work
if they're not much longer than 0.010" and the endpoints of each segment
are within 0.001" of that smooth curve. It take 4801 pairs of (x,y)
coordinates to locate the endpoints of all those straight line segments.

I also can't see well enough to do handwork within 1/000", so this is
where computer control of the cutter's path makes everything possible.
My ShopBot can handle that kind of tolerance, so I just sit and drink
coffee while it does what I cannot - and when it's done I have parts
that aren't perfect, but are good enough for a /near/ perfect mirror.

The trough I was working on when this thread started positions the 4x8
mirror crosswise to produce a temperature above 1400F, and it'll need
9601 points for the full width.

Way beyond my knowledge of wood working. What is a Point, and why do I
need 9601 of them?

Well, the length of the curve is 96", and I need 100 pairs of (x,y)
coordinates per inch, which give me 9600 points - plus one more at the
end of the curve - which adds up to 9601 points total.

FWIW, even the primitive MS-DOS (pre-Windows) drawing/design software I
first used was capable of handling the job.

I used Design Cad with primitive MS-DOS. Spent 40 days teaching my self
what it could do before deciding it was interesting, but not needed for
most of the wood working I did. Here, 25 years or so later I find SU, a
free drawing program did everything I need and then some...

Then for you it's a terrific deal - and I really don't have difficulty
understanding that, and I really wish the free version covered my needs
as well as it does yours. (I suspect that eventually it will, but would
be afraid to guess at /when/.)

A bandsaw can make the cut. The question is: can you cut the entire set
of ribs with a bandsaw within the +/- 0.001" tolerance? You'll want to
use a /very/ sharp pencil.

Doesn't matter, my eyes don't do +/- .001", far as I know.

Mine too.

You're right, we've done a lot without computers and software - but I'd
bet long odds that we've been able to produce more new design solutions
since the introduction of computers than in all the time before them.
It's a good tool technology - so why not use it as well as it can be
used?

No argument there. In fact, SU doesn't work well w/o a computer. Based
on using your computer "as well as it can be used"... I have to
disagree. The best cad program *I* know about is AutoCad. It is huge,
expensive and you could go to school learning just a tad of what all it
can do. Honestly, some guy I know wanted to GIVE me a copy of AutoCad, I
declined because I didn't think I needed it, even for free. I doubt
many wood workers need it. I think most wood workers would do just fine
with SU, it is easy to use once you learn it, and you sure don't need to
go to school to learn to use it, and the price is right. To me, THAT is
using technology well.

A client bought AutoCAD for me because he wanted me to be able to work
with his drawings, else I wouldn't have it. I do most of my work with
DesignCAD 2000 and like SketchUp's human interface much better. I'd
already have switched to SketchUp if it were suited to the work I (and
the folks I'm working with) are doing. Meanwhile, I'll squawk about what
I see as inadequate capability and hope that the noise stimulates the
SketchUp crew to add extend the package.

I think our disagreement grows out of the types of woodworking we do.
I'm understanding that you see it as a fun toy and are interested in
appearances, while I'm looking as it as a design tool for producing
constructs that /do/ things - and I care a lot less about appearance
than I do about function.

Well to some extent you may be right, as I do wood work purely for it's
FUN value. I seldom make stuff I couldn't buy, so I sure don't need
wood working per se. There are a bunch of people, Swingman is a local
example, that has found SU useful for commercial applications.

Yuppers - he's probably a particularly good example. My problem (and I
don't have difficulty owning the problem) is that I keep wanting to make
stuff /because/ it can't be bought. Stupid, huh? :-p

"Free" is nice, but not as important to me as being able to do a good
job - and although you seem
determined to make "free" a justification for ignoring two thousand
years of advances in geometry and mathematics, I actually do use that
stuff.

You can think that, and I can think that free ****es off people that
spent good money on something SU does free. Let me point out again that
I could have had one of the most comprehensive CAD programs for FREE,
but turned it down because I knew I didn't need all that, so FREE is not
my only motivation. FREE is interesting to me because SU is so damned
good at what it does, it is hard to believe it is FREE.

For that matter, we all like free - and (in case you haven't noticed)
I'm in the business of selling furnaces that deliver free heat, and if I
can get this @#$!% solar engine running, folks all across the south will
be able to buy solar air conditioners that deliver free cold.

It's like a company decided to give free cars away, and you go down and
turns out it's a FREE Honda. It works perfect, gets good mileage, and
is rather dependable. Robocop says it sucks, even though he never drove

snipped

It would help a lot if you understood more about the sandbox Rob plays
in - and it always helps to remember that he only makes an effort to be
diplomatic when /he/ thinks it's worth the effort. In the context of his
particular operations, and of his interests, SU /isn't/ a good tool. My
suggestion is that when he rubs your fur the wrong way, pause for a
10-count and then ask him why he said what he did. There's usually a
reason.

PS, I really liked your home made CNC machine... Very nice work.

Thanks - it's about 10x more precise than my half-ton store-bought
machine.

I hesitate to say this, but I bet one could draw it up in detail with SU
and share it with the world, if they wanted... another nice thing about
free, everyone can afford to get it, and share...

Thanks again - when the design was finalized, I posted the drawings to
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking for everyone to have; and as I built
the machine I put a photo of the most recent step on the web page so
that anyone who wanted to follow along could see how I handled each
step. What's there now amounts to a summary of all that - but there's
enough to allow anyone who's interested to do their own.

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

Robatoy wrote:

I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?

:-]

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

On Mar 7, 2:08*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?

:-]

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

I scaled it so it sorta-kinda looked like 48"... LOL.. I guess that
won't do for Morris, eh?
But, hey, it's a starting point, no? (The other problem with the
trace, is that it goes up and down both sides of the line.

Hold my beer, I'm going to try something....

"Robatoy" wrote
On Mar 7, 1:51 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Lee Michaels" wrote

Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got
tired
of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de
jour.
Aren't you lucky!

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...

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

I'm not surprised you'd be in Stein's corner. He kisses your ass,
while I won't.

LOL ... seems Jack's sauce on your tail is itching you a bit, eh Rob. No
damn wonder, looks like he's got your BS pegged down pretty tight from here.

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

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

I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?

I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry, I could
have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for someone just itching
to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to contribute to the Sketchup
library of add-ons. Spin a cone and intersect it with a face describing the
curve, or just calculate the points and connect them. More generally, maybe
just import a list of ordinates from a spreadsheet and plot them. This would
be generally useful for lofting a canoe hull, for example. Is that getting
too far out of the realm of woodworking?

On Mar 7, 2:55*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote



On Mar 7, 1:51 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Lee Michaels" wrote

Apparently he is railing against your concerted campaign to keep people
from taking advantage of a free drawing tool. I assume that he got
tired
of tilting windmills and decided that you would become his cause de
jour.
Aren't you lucky!

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ...

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

I'm not surprised you'd be in Stein's corner. He kisses your ass,
while I won't.

LOL ... seems Jack's sauce on your tail is itching you a bit, eh Rob. No
damn wonder, looks like he's got your BS pegged down pretty tight from here.

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

G You're both pretty easy.

Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
Let's see if you can sell him.

Tell you what. Let's take up the subject of CAD again when you get one
of these:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o...CADLevel3D.jpg

BTW, the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0.
The last one 3.87. That one was tough. No SU support.

"Robatoy" wrote

Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
Let's see if you can sell him.

I quite arguing this a while back, but I will say, once again, that anyone
with a cursory familiarity with both versions will tell you that you are
dead wrong in that supposition.

Wail away at will, but it just simply ain't so.

Tell you what. Let's take up the subject of CAD again when you get one
of these:
http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o...CADLevel3D.jpg

BTW, the first two levels, I got a GPA of 4.0.
The last one 3.87. That one was tough. No SU support.

That's is indeed quite an accomplishment, Rob ... my hats off to you. Well
done!

Problem is, we have not been discussing a "CAD" program ...

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

On Mar 7, 6:18*pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote

Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.
Let's see if you can sell him.

I quite arguing this a while back, but I will say, once again, that anyone
with a cursory familiarity with both versions will tell you that you are
dead wrong in that supposition.

Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?

On Mar 6, 4:42 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
I could also take time out to learn to write Ruby,

I took a quick look at Ruby. It looks a helluva lot more fun than
autolisp, which I had to learn many moons ago but have happily
forgetten, except that I just about wore the ()'s off the keyboard.
That was a miserable experience. I don't particularly want to learn
it, but if I was starting from zero it doesn't look like a bad
environment to work with.


-Kevin

MikeWhy wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?

I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry, I
could have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for someone
just itching to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to contribute to
the Sketchup library of add-ons. Spin a cone and intersect it with a
face describing the curve, or just calculate the points and connect
them. More generally, maybe just import a list of ordinates from a
spreadsheet and plot them. This would be generally useful for lofting a
canoe hull, for example. Is that getting too far out of the realm of
woodworking?

If woodworking is "making something out of wood", then the realm can
become awesomely wide as soon as "design" becomes part of the picture.

As far as the length of curve problem is concerned, there are at least
three ways to approach the problem:

[1] Set up a relation L = f(a), where L is the curve length, a is the
focal length, and f(a) is a definite integral representing the length of
the curve between limits - and work "backward" to produce the relation a
= g(L). Once a is known, all the rest is "duck soup".

[2] You can also set it up as a limit problem, but that's really just a
way to sneak up on the integration method without getting your hands
dirty with calculus.

[3] You can also "cook" the geometry (locate the vertex at the origin,
choose a convenient value for the focal length, etc) and compute the sum
of the lengths of segments of some tiny constant value (say, a millionth
of a unit). Then use the ratio of that (cooked) length to the desired
length to arrive at the focal length of the parabola you want to
produce. This method requires a certain measure of care in avoiding
cumulative computational error, but would probably be easiest for folks
who aren't comfortable with integral calculus or limit theory.

I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one programming
language for which I implemented/published/sold a compiler). I browsed
the Ruby programming pages and decided that the benefits just wouldn't
provide an adequate return on my time/energy investment; and I attached
a higher priority to completion of the solar engine project than to
adding yet another "wart" to SketchUp.

Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house?

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

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house?

The two thoughts were unrelated. Thinking of a generalized import solution,
with the hull profiles as a further example beyond just the parabola.

Which language? AutoLisp put the bread on my table the entire latter half of
the 80's. Since then, I've more or less stuck with C++. Dr. Geisel would be
pleased, I think, with just how nicely that language can read when written
in iambic pentameter. Not in CAD systems, though. They're just part of a
multitude of hobbies. I build financial data systems by day.

MikeWhy wrote:

Which language?

PL/C (Programming Language for Compilers) was based on and extended BNF
to include output, external references, and inlining of other code. It
was a tool that could be used to produce interpreters and translators
(from any langage to any other language, including spoken languages);
and was written up in the March '84 issue of DDJ.

AutoLisp put the bread on my table the entire latter
half of the 80's. Since then, I've more or less stuck with C++. Dr.
Geisel would be pleased, I think, with just how nicely that language can
read when written in iambic pentameter. Not in CAD systems, though.
They're just part of a multitude of hobbies. I build financial data
systems by day.

I've done a bit with financial systems. If you're interested you're
welcome to peruse a (somewhat sketchy) resume at

http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_res1.html

It never occurred to me to write code in a poetic form.

Of the languages I've used, I've liked C and APL best.

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

"Robatoy" wrote

Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I upgraded to the Pro versions for two
reasons only:

~ The added import/export features in the Pro version of the program.

~ The included Layout "presentation" program, which allows me to develop and
print industry standard construction documents, based on the models created
in the base program, for both and bidding and building purposes.

The ability to create dynamic components with the Pro version was an added
plus for the kitchen/cabinet design part of my business, but was not
considered in the justification for expenditure to upgrade from free to Pro,
which was based _solely_ on import/export/presentation capabilities in the
Pro version.

AAMOF, *ALL* the modeling work in the current construction project was done
with the free version, the Layout program used only to import, layout, and
print the actual construction documents.

Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.

http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html


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

Morris Dovey wrote:
MikeWhy wrote:
"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Robatoy wrote:

I cheated and traced a vector in Aspire.
http://www.mathwarehouse.com/quadrat...e-parabola.php

Hmm - and how did you go about specifying the /length/ of the curve?

I'm certain somewhere between college algebra and analytic geometry,
I could have calc'ed the required curve. All kidding aside for
someone just itching to get dirty with Ruby, here's the chance to
contribute to the Sketchup library of add-ons. Spin a cone and
intersect it with a face describing the curve, or just calculate the
points and connect them. More generally, maybe just import a list of
ordinates from a spreadsheet and plot them. This would be generally
useful for lofting a canoe hull, for example. Is that getting too
far out of the realm of woodworking?

If woodworking is "making something out of wood", then the realm can
become awesomely wide as soon as "design" becomes part of the picture.

As far as the length of curve problem is concerned, there are at least
three ways to approach the problem:

[1] Set up a relation L = f(a), where L is the curve length, a is the
focal length, and f(a) is a definite integral representing the length
of the curve between limits - and work "backward" to produce the
relation a = g(L). Once a is known, all the rest is "duck soup".

[2] You can also set it up as a limit problem, but that's really just
a way to sneak up on the integration method without getting your hands
dirty with calculus.

[3] You can also "cook" the geometry (locate the vertex at the origin,
choose a convenient value for the focal length, etc) and compute the
sum of the lengths of segments of some tiny constant value (say, a
millionth of a unit). Then use the ratio of that (cooked) length to
the desired length to arrive at the focal length of the parabola you
want to produce. This method requires a certain measure of care in
avoiding cumulative computational error, but would probably be
easiest for folks who aren't comfortable with integral calculus or
limit theory.
I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one
programming language for which I implemented/published/sold a
compiler).

Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a commercially
publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at least the BSCS level.
Stand tall. Be proud.

I browsed the Ruby programming pages and decided that the
benefits just wouldn't provide an adequate return on my time/energy
investment; and I attached a higher priority to completion of the
solar engine project than to adding yet another "wart" to SketchUp.

Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house?

J. Clarke wrote:

Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a
commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at least
the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.

There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which hundreds
of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming literate"
which most of the computer literate folks aren't...

....and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.

Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big deal
- but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of
understanding of what it's all about.

A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is
just baggage to be carried from success to failure.

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

"Swingman" wrote

Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.

Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I am
interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout included
in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.

What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns it
into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is a
presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy fartsy
kinda thing.

But for certain audiences, it will get the deal where the more technical
drawings will not. And that is the sort of thing I need to do. These kinds
of tools used to be quite common. I have used them before. Then they got
bought up and became part of big, expensive graphics packages. It will be
worth $500 to me for this capability alone.

Besides I used to do my drawings with a T square and triangle. And I sketch
constantly on graph paper. The Layout module is a nice touchy feely thing
that breaks down communication barriers for certain audiences. It will help
secure funding for a couple hard sell projects.

I know that this is NOT what you were talking about Swingman. I just
thought I would contribute this comment. Primarily because of all this
discussion, I am looking at Sketchup more closely now. And this Layout
functions looks like a winner to me.

I am really curious as to why google included this feature. I haven't seen
it for awhile. It is good to see it back.

NOT trying to stir the pot or anything. ;-)

stir, stir

Morris Dovey wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Geez, don't hide your light under a bushel. If you can write a
commercially publishable compiler you're "computer literate" at at
least the BSCS level. Stand tall. Be proud.

There's a bit of difference between "computer literate", which
hundreds of millions of people are to some extent, and "programming
literate" which most of the computer literate folks aren't...

...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.

Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was a
cheap good full featured interpreter for it.

Enough other people have written compilers that it's not such a big
deal - but it should be enough to be able to claim some measure of
understanding of what it's all about.

A single language/compiler doesn't make one an "expert", and pride is
just baggage to be carried from success to failure.

Well, actually it does make one an expert. Writing compilers is not
simple--a lot of students in courses with textbooks and being pretty much
stepped through it have trouble with them. Pride may be baggage, but so is
excessive humility.

You're selling yourself short--it doesn't matter how you developed the
skill, you've got a lot more than you think you have.

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"Swingman" wrote

Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.

Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I
am interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout
included in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.

What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns
it into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is
a presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy
fartsy kinda thing.

Actually you can do that with the free version which does not include
Layout. You take a drawing and choose a different Style.

"Lee Michaels" wrote

"Swingman" wrote

Once again, as far as the drawing of 3D/2D models, there is NO functional
difference in the Pro and free versions of SU.

Not to pick nits or anything. but there is one primary difference that I
am interested in. And that would be the "drawing" abilities of Layout
included in the Pro version. It doesn't affect what you are doing though.

What it does is take that drawing produced in the free version and turns
it into a sketch. You have your choice of many different mediums. Pencil,
chalk, marker, technical pen, pen and ink, etc. This humanizes the drawing
and makes for a better presentation for certain audiences. I know, it is
a presentation thing. It can even be argued that is sort of an artsy
fartsy kinda thing.

You are talking about "Style Builder", not "Layout":

http://sketchup.google.com/product/stylebuilder.html

It indeed is a standalone "program" included with the Pro version that
allows you to create custom styles than can be **applied to** a model drawn
in the base program (actually removes detail from a drawing to give it a
customized "sketchy edge" ).

You're correct, it is not something I've much need for as a woodworker or
builder. Style Builder no way alters the statement made above as to
functional difference in the drawing of 3D/2D models.

It is important for users to understand that the tools for the actual
drawing/modeling are the same in both versions. The difference being in
Export, Import and Presentation capabilities.

Once again and simply put, and for all practical purposes, if you do not
need these added capabilities which have nothing to do with the actual
drawing of models themselves, you do NOT need the Pro version.

Look at the chart carefully ...

http://sketchup.google.com/product/whygopro.html

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

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:41:56 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Morris Dovey wrote:

...and the extent of my CS coursework is an informal two-week APL
workshop in Poughkeepsie in the early 70's.

Way cool. I learned APL about the same time. Just wish that there was
a cheap good full featured interpreter for it.


Have you looked at A+ www.aplusdev.org?

I'm not an APLIsta, but it looks like a reasonable alternative (as far as
'reasonable' applies to APL...)

Morris Dovey wrote:

I suppose I can claim to be programming 'literate' (I've used a over a
dozen programming languages in my work and designed one one programming
language for which I implemented/published/sold a compiler).

Very impressive. I mentioned that I got addicted to computers long ago
when I thought it might help me some in drawing up some of the stuff I
was making in my shop. Actually, I couldn't draw stick figures very
well and I had managed to become rather adept at drawing 3 dimensional
desks, cabinets and so on. When I started computing in earnest it was
programing that grabbed me the most. I learned 6 or 7 languages, mostly
high level text processing stuff like AWK/GAWK/REXX but also some lower
level stuff like C. The connection to woodwork is pretty neat, and I
learned to build stuff with programing that *I* found useful, just like
building stuff out of wood. The same sort of creative juices were being
satisfied.

One of the first "languages" I learned was SALT, which came with a
communications program called Telix. This was before the internet and
people were using 1200 and 2400 baud modems. The guy that wrote Telix
also wrote the programing language that went with it. I was impressed.

Reminds me of the guys that wrote C actually wrote it as a tool in
developing UNIX, the worlds greatest OS... again, I was impressed.
Knowing you wrote your own compiled language tickles the heck out of
me... and again, very impressive.

Today, I'm obsessed with neither programing or woodwork. I tend to
waste a lot of time just fighting with people like Robocop just for
kicks. Not sure why I enjoy it, but I do, and have ever since the
FidoNet days...

Would your canoe hull be stronger if you used a catenary rather than a
parabola? Is there a marine architect in the house?

When I was a kid of around 10 or 12, my brother who was 17 built a canoe
out of orange crates. This was in the early 50's, and the canoe is
still hanging in our garage, and it is a perfect wood canoe with canvas
wrap. Orange crates were made of 1/4 wood slats in those days. I'll get
a picture of it one of these days, it is really impressive. People used
to laugh when you would tell them you made a canoe out of orange crates,
until they saw it.. Anyway, the neat thing is he used a neighbors band
saw to do some of the curved cuts, and when I got married, I bought the
neighbors bandsaw, and all of his other Rockwell/Delta tools which I
still use to this day... They sure made nice tools in those days.

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

Robatoy wrote:

Too bad you can't compare notes with Stein on SU as he hasn't bought
the version that has at least a little bit of functionality.

Simple question: Why would anyone pay for Pro? IOW, $ 500 for nothing?

Simpler question: Why would you ask this question after it has been
explained to you and after you've read what the differences are at the
SU page?

Even you can't be that thick headed... wasn't it you that carries around
the thickness meter? If not, go back through the threads and find out
who has the meter and stick it between your ears, or some other
appropriate place...

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

Robatoy wrote:

I can see by the file sizes that these must be some kind of rants,
wasting yet more time for Jack...but not for me.victorious grin

I can see by the lack of content of your post you've run out of
ridiculous things to say, or any semblance of valid arguments.

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