I am looking with interest at the sketchup posts. I have a project brewing
that I will need to design. It is a metal and wood circular workstation.
The design is not that difficult. It will be in sections and will be bolted
together. A lot of components will be attached to it. But those are not a
part of the basic design of what needs to be designed/built.

My questions are as follows.

Can a 3D model be drawn that would show the circular design?

Particularly, can the compnent parts be shown in different perspctives
around that circle? In other words, can I take a common component and show
it at six different angles to simulate how they would look really look in
this circular configuration?

I need to draw a circular wood keyboard bench that will attach to the metal
frame. Could this be drawn easily? And can it be "attached" to the metal
frame drawing?

This whole component model of constructing a drawing will be a whole
different experiece for me. I will give a shot and see how I do.

The design is not that difficult. It is similar to other things I have
built. What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

On Oct 7, 10:30*am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:

*What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. *Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

You can use this page to search the group:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_se...l=en&q=&hl=en&

I remember Swingman, Morris Dovey, and Robatoy had a lot of insightful
commentary on using Sketchup, and if I remember, Morris posted
something on using it for 3D modeling.

Then there's this, of which I have heard on other sites the tutorials
are pretty good:

http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/training/

Then of course, you can YouTube it with user videos:

http://tinyurl.com/yegonp9

I hope you post your ideas and how long it takes you to do what you
are going to do with it. I have been thinking that I want to sketch
up some simple designs with it, but will need to set aside some
learning time.

Robert

Lee Michaels wrote:

What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

Yes to all of the above. It's the sole reason I use the program and
decided to become proficient with it, which was not that steep of a hill
to climb.

Although there are undoubtedly differing opinions, it works for me,
particular since it is freely available/downloadable to both me and my
client(s) to use to view the 3d aspect of the model(s) from all
perspectives, something not usually available with CAD software, even
with standalone "viewers".

If you want to see what you can with woodworking project, etc:

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/...ed-table-apron

Check out the entire Fine Woodworking "Design, Click, Build" series.
Better yet, grab the RSS feed.

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

wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:30 am, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:

What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

You can use this page to search the group:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_se...l=en&q=&hl=en&

I remember Swingman, Morris Dovey, and Robatoy had a lot of insightful
commentary on using Sketchup, and if I remember, Morris posted
something on using it for 3D modeling.

LOL ... check out the "Artist or Engineer" thread as we speak.

I hope you post your ideas and how long it takes you to do what you
are going to do with it. I have been thinking that I want to sketch
up some simple designs with it, but will need to set aside some
learning time.

You got two buddies a couple of hours away who are converts, nay
zealots! ... let us know if you have any questions. G

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

"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...
I am looking with interest at the sketchup posts. I have a project brewing
that I will need to design. It is a metal and wood circular workstation.
The design is not that difficult. It will be in sections and will be bolted
together. A lot of components will be attached to it. But those are not a
part of the basic design of what needs to be designed/built.

My questions are as follows.

Can a 3D model be drawn that would show the circular design?

Absolutely



Particularly, can the compnent parts be shown in different perspctives
around that circle? In other words, can I take a common component and show
it at six different angles to simulate how they would look really look in
this circular configuration?

They can be shown and or walked around by orbiting around the
component/object, much like you would walk around in your shop looking at
different angles. Basically there is no view angle that is not available.
Something to remember you don't simply pick a single angle to view or draw,
you can see it from any angle after drawing, even inside out.




I need to draw a circular wood keyboard bench that will attach to the
metal frame. Could this be drawn easily? And can it be "attached" to the
metal frame drawing?

Yes Yes



This whole component model of constructing a drawing will be a whole
different experiece for me. I will give a shot and see how I do.

Just remember how you build in the shop. Build each part and assemble on
the drawing. There are hundreds of tutorials that can teach you short cuts
and one of the best is copying mirror images of a component or object.




The design is not that difficult. It is similar to other things I have
built. What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks
who will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

Sketchup is hard to beat for presentation especially if the customer is
looking at Sketchup and looking over your sholder. Print outs obviousely
will limit you to the view that you have when you print however you can
print out multiple views.
Drawings views done with Sketchup that a few of us have posted are simply a
drop in the bucket compared to the possible views that you can see on the
screen.


Remember this, there is a trick to printing to scale so that you can print
full scale drawings. This is handy if you want to glue a print out of a
complicated curve directly to your wood for a cutting guide. This may not
be important to you now but perhaps you will remember that it can be done
when the time comes.

On Oct 7, 10:05*am, Swingman wrote:
wrote:

You got two buddies a couple of hours away who are converts, nay
zealots! ... let us know if you have any questions. G

Awright!!

I'll remember that. Actual zealots bring a lot of "entusiasms" to the
table.

Thanks for the offer!

Robert

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:30:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:

[...snip...]

Particularly, can the compnent parts be shown in different perspctives
around that circle? In other words, can I take a common component and show
it at six different angles to simulate how they would look really look in
this circular configuration?


Generally, you are going to draw a single 3 dimensional model of the
thing you want to represent.

Once you build the 3D model, you can orient the view from any "angle",
and you can print from that point of view. You can also select the
view to be some of the standards, such as isometric, top, front, side,
etc.

Or, once you have created a piece that comprises a component, you can
place 6 of them at various orientations within one drawing.

I need to draw a circular wood keyboard bench that will attach to the metal
frame. Could this be drawn easily?

Umm, not sure what you mean, it is hard to say if it can be easily
done. If you mean you have a circular bench that people sit at to use
a keyboard, then I'd guess it can be done pretty easily.

Expect a bit of a learning curve before you can draw anything more
than boxes and cylinders. There's lots of online tutorials and such
available from Google and from 3rd parties.

You will have to do your homework and practice. For me, it took a few
hours to get the hang of really making it work for me. I do have a
some experience with 3D software.

And can it be "attached" to the metal frame drawing?

I expect the wood part can easily be attached to the metal part in the
3D model. It is easy to have 2 components and connect them up.


This whole component model of constructing a drawing will be a whole
different experiece for me. I will give a shot and see how I do.

The design is not that difficult. It is similar to other things I have
built. What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

"Jim Weisgram" wrote

Or, once you have created a piece that comprises a component, you can
place 6 of them at various orientations within one drawing.

Thank you sir. That is an essential function that I needed and you stated
it clearly. Sketchup may very well become a tool of choice for me. Now I
just need to block out some time to learn it.

Jim Weisgram wrote:

You will have to do your homework and practice. For me, it took a few
hours to get the hang of really making it work for me. I do have a
some experience with 3D software.

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

And can it be "attached" to the metal frame drawing?

I expect the wood part can easily be attached to the metal part in the
3D model. It is easy to have 2 components and connect them up.

One of the gotcha's is its harder NOT to connect up 2 parts. Mainly, if
you don't make a "part" a "component" or group, and connect two or more
parts, they automatically become one part. Once you connect two parts
into one, you can't separate them into "components". I suggest you go
he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kae7uZxyOzQ&NR=1 and watch the
video to get a feel of how easy it is to make a table, then look at the
many tutorials around to learn the basics.

http://sketchup.google.com/training/videos.html
http://www.aidanchopra.com/

and a million others.

This whole component model of constructing a drawing will be a whole
different experiece for me. I will give a shot and see how I do.

The design is not that difficult. It is similar to other things I have
built. What I need is a good 3D representation to sell it to the folks who
will pay for it. Any thoughts, etc would be appreciated.

What helped me the most was Swingmans insistence that it was a great
tool. It is easy to get lost in a maze of things you don't quite know
how to do and give up. My suggestion is take your time, skipping steps
never helps the learning curve. Erase any preconceived notions Robocop
may give you and remember millions are using it, including the likes of
Swingman, so it probably will do just what you want or it wouldn't be so
popular.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 8, 12:52*pm, Jack Stein wrote:


Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. *It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) The
sight is he

http://www.daz3d.com/i/software/carrara?_m=d

John

On Oct 8, 5:39*pm, John wrote:
I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). *Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. *I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) *The
sight is he

http://www.daz3d.com/i/software/carrara?_m=d

John

Will ya look at that... runs on a Mac...(as well as a PC)

Will it dimension?
Will it import component sizes and materials types into an optimization
program such as Cutlist Plus?


"John" wrote in message
...
I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) The
sight is he

http://www.daz3d.com/i/software/carrara?_m=d

John

John wrote:
I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) The
sight is he

It's always worth bringing up. There are a ton of programs out there
that can do the job and it's always nice to see the choices available.

One man's poi is another man's poison.

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

On Oct 8, 5:53*pm, Swingman wrote:
John wrote:
I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). *Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. *I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) *The
sight is he

It's always worth bringing up. There are a ton of programs out there
that can do the job and it's always nice to see the choices available.

One man's poi is another man's poison.

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

We have agreed to disagree on some of the issues, but let it be said
that the whole SketchUp concept has opened a lot of doors for many
that otherwise would have never experienced the pleasure and
functionality of aided drafting and design.

"Leon" wrote in message
...
Will it dimension?
Will it import component sizes and materials types into an optimization
program such as Cutlist Plus?


And for a bit more as to why I ask, I peronally would like to know if that
can be done. While I have no problem spending a few dollars on CAD
software, I have purchase several brands and several versions of AutoCAD LT
over the last 23 years. Sketchup actually replaced AutoCAD LT for me.
IIRC AutoCAD LT is about $800 for the latest version and quite frankly that
is now out of my confort zone especially since Sketchup is free. Shetchup
however was not always free and in the future may not continue to be free
and I like to keep my options open as to what might be my next CAD type
software. So far Sketchup is a locked in program for me as long as the
publisher does not become too proud of it in the future.

thanks I did not want my questions to be received as hostile. ;~)

Leon

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Oct 8, 5:53 pm, Swingman wrote:
John wrote:
I was contemplating whether or not this was worth bringing up, but in
the end I thought why not, everyone can decide for themselves:

If you're looking for things that Sketchup can't do, chances are that
Carrara can. Carrara can be gotten for $30 off of the DAZ website (it
comes with the Figures Characters and Avitars book). Carrara has some
very powerful modelling tools, and can produce photo-realistic output,
including video, etc. (Interestingly, if you want to do non-photo-
realistic sketchup-type output, you have to pay for a plugin).

It looks like it has a much larger learning curve than Sketchup
(sketchup looks pretty easy on the training videos), but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

Anyways, just thought I would bring that up, and people can have a
decide if it's worth the extra money/learning curve (just a warning
though -- the DAZ website seems to be overly proud of thier models of
scantily clad women -- it can do other things... really!. I've been
using it for years and have done many furniture designs with it) The
sight is he

It's always worth bringing up. There are a ton of programs out there
that can do the job and it's always nice to see the choices available.

One man's poi is another man's poison.

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

We have agreed to disagree on some of the issues, but let it be said
that the whole SketchUp concept has opened a lot of doors for many
that otherwise would have never experienced the pleasure and
functionality of aided drafting and design.

Agree with that and I'll add that it took me 3 down loads, 3 installs, and 2
uninstalls before verions 6 & 7 came out. I did not like it, it was a bit
to cartoonish and I hated the line weights. But then I made program
settings changes and actually learned the program and now I probably have 5
versions of AutoCAD LT that are collection dust.

Leon wrote:

but as you can
imagine, Carrara is vastly more powerful.

... I'll add that it took me 3 down loads, 3 installs, and 2
uninstalls before verions 6 & 7 came out. I did not like it, it was a bit
to cartoonish and I hated the line weights. But then I made program
settings changes and actually learned the program and now I probably have 5
versions of AutoCAD LT that are collection dust.


Choosing 3D design software for your woodworking endeavors could be
considered the equivalent of choosing the right type of joint for a
woodworking project.

And, "vastly more powerful" is not always necessary, or even desirable.

Take face frames as an example. There are a number of joints available
to the face frame maker, some "vastly more powerful" than others, but
damn few, like lowly pocket hole joinery, that exhibit "just the right
amount" of power/strength to get the job done well, are easy to use and
quick to employ, are cost effective, and are conveniently accessible to
even the most neophyte of wooddorkers.

Add that the power of pocket hole joinery is not necessarily evident in
its initial instance, but becomes increasingly so in its application to
the casework (project).

IOW, it is not inconceivable that the lowly SU is to 3D design software
for the wooddorker, as the lowly pocket hole joinery is to the face
frame maker. g

I'm now going to bow out of any fruitless discussions regarding what
software will do this or that, or won't do what ... and leave it at
"choice" is good, and what works for one, will not necessarily do so for
the other.

....LOL!

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

"Robatoy" fired this zinger

Jack Stein wrote:


Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.
=======================

Subtle...

On Oct 8, 7:12*pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" fired this zinger

*Jack Stein *wrote:



Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.
=======================

Subtle...

I'm known for my subtleness.... like the 'b' in subtle.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:12 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" fired this zinger

Jack Stein wrote:



Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)
A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.
=======================

Subtle...

I'm known for my subtleness.... like the 'b' in subtle.

or the silent "P" in swimming

- Doug

On Oct 8, 11:05*pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:12 pm, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:
"Robatoy" fired this zinger

*Jack Stein *wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)
A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.
=======================

Subtle...

I'm known for my subtleness.... like the 'b' in subtle.

or the silent "P" in swimming

- Doug

Ha!

On Oct 9, 9:25*am, Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. *It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

...and why you never did figure it out.

You are making **** up, Douche-nozzle. You have NO way of knowing
whether I figured SU out or not.
Try again. ( I will check back in a few days, knowing it usually takes
a long time for you to say something 'clever'.)

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:25 am, Jack Stein wrote:

Why the hell don't you guys just plonk each other?

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

Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

...and why you never did figure it out.

An aside... I know you argued the point with one of your other buddies
about a week ago, but there *must* be something wrong with your clock.
I'm using the same news server you are, but your posts are showing up
"in the future", whereas mine are not. I originally took this problem
to be the fault of the news server, but I just verified that setting my
clock into the future and replying to a post (see the Rockwell planer
thread) DID cause the timestamp of the reply to show up in the future.
I've since resynchronized my clock back with time.windows.com prior to
submitting this reply.

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

Swingman wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:25 am, Jack Stein wrote:

Why the hell don't you guys just plonk each other?

Nah, it's too much fun for both of them. :-)

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

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:02:21 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

An aside... I know you argued the point with one of your other buddies
about a week ago, but there *must* be something wrong with your clock.
I'm using the same news server you are, but your posts are showing up
"in the future", whereas mine are not.

As I told him. But, considering we were in the throes of insulting
each other, his misplaced arrogance precluded any chance of him
admitting his computer clock wasn't set properly.

C'est la vie.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

....and why you never did figure it out.

--
Jack
Got Change: 57 states, not counting Alaska and Hawaii!
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 9, 9:04*am, Steve Turner
wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:25 am, Jack Stein wrote:

Why the hell don't you guys just plonk each other?

Nah, it's too much fun for both of them. *:-)

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

It is pure benevolence on my part. Without me, Stein would have no
reason to exist.

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:04 am, Steve Turner
wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:25 am, Jack Stein wrote:
Why the hell don't you guys just plonk each other?
Nah, it's too much fun for both of them. :-)

It is pure benevolence on my part. Without me, Stein would have no
reason to exist.

LOL! The old Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are coming to mind
for some reason. :-)

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

On Oct 9, 11:13*am, Steve Turner
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:04 am, Steve Turner
wrote:
Swingman wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 9:25 am, Jack Stein wrote:
Why the hell don't you guys just plonk each other?
Nah, it's too much fun for both of them. *:-)

It is pure benevolence on my part. Without me, Stein would have no
reason to exist.

LOL! *The old Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are coming to mind
for some reason. *:-)

Beep Beep.....

On Oct 9, 11:16*am, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:13*am, Steve Turner

LOL! *The old Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are coming to mind
for some reason. *:-)

Beep Beep.....

Ummm, not for nothing, but I think it's far more likely, tool junkie
that you are, that there's a whole pile of Acme boxes out back of your
place. ~

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:16 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:13 am, Steve Turner

LOL! The old Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are coming to mind
for some reason. :-)
Beep Beep.....

Ummm, not for nothing, but I think it's far more likely, tool junkie
that you are, that there's a whole pile of Acme boxes out back of your
place. ~

R

He collects them as souvenirs when Wile E. is done with them. :-)

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

On Oct 9, 11:30*am, Steve Turner
wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:16 am, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:13 am, Steve Turner

LOL! *The old Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoons are coming to mind
for some reason. *:-)
Beep Beep.....

Ummm, not for nothing, but I think it's far more likely, tool junkie
that you are, that there's a whole pile of Acme boxes out back of your
place. *~

R

He collects them as souvenirs when Wile E. is done with them. *:-)

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

Indeed. The only empty boxes I have are those marked: "TUNNEL ENTRANCE
PAINT"

Jack Stein wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on
your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

...and why you never did figure it out.

An aside... I know you argued the point with one of your other
buddies about a week ago, but there *must* be something wrong with
your clock.

I didn't argue the point, I stated my clock was correct.

I'm using the same news server you are, but your posts are showing up
"in the future", whereas mine are not. I originally took this problem
to be the fault of the news server, but I just verified that setting
my clock into the future and replying to a post (see the Rockwell
planer thread) DID cause the timestamp of the reply to show up in the
future. I've since resynchronized my clock back with time.windows.com
prior to submitting this reply.

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time, and
the correct time zone. My messages come back to me with the correct
time. It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell phone, on
my TV. What would you like me to change?

Interesting; you and I both have two posts only seconds apart to the
same server (eternal-september.org), and the NNTP-Posting-Date in the
headers reflect this:

mine: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
yours: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:04 +0000 (UTC)

Yet the dates displayed by my newsreader (Thunderbird) a

mine: 11:17am
yours: 12:16pm

Which are basically the times that we posted within our own local time
zones. However, I don't see anything else in the message headers that
would indicate what our time zones *are*, so I'm not sure how this is
happening. I guess the eternal-september.org newserver must be
misconfigured somehow...? Is this how people on other servers are
seeing things?

Maybe you are not seeing it Jack (any others?), but the side effect is
that your posts are appearing out of order with respect to when you
posted. Your posts are showing up after the follow-on replies.

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

Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

...and why you never did figure it out.

An aside... I know you argued the point with one of your other buddies
about a week ago, but there *must* be something wrong with your clock.

I didn't argue the point, I stated my clock was correct.

I'm using the same news server you are, but your posts are showing up
"in the future", whereas mine are not. I originally took this problem
to be the fault of the news server, but I just verified that setting my
clock into the future and replying to a post (see the Rockwell planer
thread) DID cause the timestamp of the reply to show up in the future.
I've since resynchronized my clock back with time.windows.com prior to
submitting this reply.

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time, and
the correct time zone. My messages come back to me with the correct
time. It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell phone, on
my TV. What would you like me to change?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time,
and the correct time zone. My messages come back to me with the
correct time. It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell
phone, on my TV. What would you like me to change?

Interesting; you and I both have two posts only seconds apart to the
same server (eternal-september.org), and the NNTP-Posting-Date in the
headers reflect this:

mine: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
yours: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:04 +0000 (UTC)

Yet the dates displayed by my newsreader (Thunderbird) a

mine: 11:17am
yours: 12:16pm

Which are basically the times that we posted within our own local time
zones.

It is the exact time I sent my message, and it is the exact time that
shows up on my message in Tbird, and your time is showing 11:36 in your
message.

However, I don't see anything else in the message headers that
would indicate what our time zones *are*, so I'm not sure how this is
happening. I guess the eternal-september.org newserver must be
misconfigured somehow...?

I dunno. Before I posted my last message, I went to eternal-september to
see if perhaps I configured something wrong there like the wrong time
zone and didn't find anything. I don't think they do anything with the
time stamp, or my messages wouldn't be coming back to me with the
correct time stamp.

Is this how people on other servers are seeing things?

Maybe you are not seeing it Jack (any others?), but the side effect is
that your posts are appearing out of order with respect to when you
posted. Your posts are showing up after the follow-on replies.

Hey, you got me. My end *seems* correct to me. I took a cursory look
at things and everything appears correct on my end, so it's probably
me:-) It's 1:04 right as I'm posting...

I just looked at a BUNCH of different headers from a bunch of different
groups and posters (some whom I know to be in your time zone), posting
to a variety of news servers (including eternal-september) and they all
show time stamps with a 5-hour delta from the NNTP-Posting-Date entry,
except for yours; yours is 6 hours.

In the "Time Zone" tab of your "Date and Time Properties" (assuming
you're running Windows, of course) do you have the "Automatically adjust
clock for daylight saving changes" checked? (I do) I'm a programmer by
trade, and I've done a lot of messing around with time values in code,
and it's my considered opinion that this feature of Windows is *broken*.
If you have that turned off you might try turning it on to see what
the effect is. If it's already turned on, then I'm lost again. :-)

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Jack Stein wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time,
and the correct time zone. My messages come back to me with the
correct time. It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell
phone, on my TV. What would you like me to change?

Interesting; you and I both have two posts only seconds apart to the
same server (eternal-september.org), and the NNTP-Posting-Date in the
headers reflect this:

mine: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
yours: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:04 +0000 (UTC)

Yet the dates displayed by my newsreader (Thunderbird) a

mine: 11:17am
yours: 12:16pm

Which are basically the times that we posted within our own local time
zones.

It is the exact time I sent my message, and it is the exact time that
shows up on my message in Tbird, and your time is showing 11:36 in your
message.

However, I don't see anything else in the message headers that
would indicate what our time zones *are*, so I'm not sure how this is
happening. I guess the eternal-september.org newserver must be
misconfigured somehow...?

I dunno. Before I posted my last message, I went to eternal-september to
see if perhaps I configured something wrong there like the wrong time
zone and didn't find anything. I don't think they do anything with the
time stamp, or my messages wouldn't be coming back to me with the
correct time stamp.

Is this how people on other servers are seeing things?

Maybe you are not seeing it Jack (any others?), but the side effect is
that your posts are appearing out of order with respect to when you
posted. Your posts are showing up after the follow-on replies.

Hey, you got me. My end *seems* correct to me. I took a cursory look
at things and everything appears correct on my end, so it's probably
me:-) It's 1:04 right as I'm posting...

I just looked at a BUNCH of different headers from a bunch of different
groups and posters (some whom I know to be in your time zone), posting
to a variety of news servers (including eternal-september) and they all
show time stamps with a 5-hour delta from the NNTP-Posting-Date entry,
except for yours; yours is 6 hours.

In the "Time Zone" tab of your "Date and Time Properties" (assuming
you're running Windows, of course) do you have the "Automatically adjust
clock for daylight saving changes" checked? (I do) I'm a programmer by
trade, and I've done a lot of messing around with time values in code,
and it's my considered opinion that this feature of Windows is *broken*.
If you have that turned off you might try turning it on to see what
the effect is. If it's already turned on, then I'm lost again. :-)

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time,
and the correct time zone. My messages come back to me with the
correct time. It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell
phone, on my TV. What would you like me to change?

Interesting; you and I both have two posts only seconds apart to the
same server (eternal-september.org), and the NNTP-Posting-Date in the
headers reflect this:

mine: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
yours: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:04 +0000 (UTC)

Yet the dates displayed by my newsreader (Thunderbird) a

mine: 11:17am
yours: 12:16pm

Which are basically the times that we posted within our own local time
zones.

It is the exact time I sent my message, and it is the exact time that
shows up on my message in Tbird, and your time is showing 11:36 in your
message.

However, I don't see anything else in the message headers that
would indicate what our time zones *are*, so I'm not sure how this is
happening. I guess the eternal-september.org newserver must be
misconfigured somehow...?

I dunno. Before I posted my last message, I went to eternal-september to
see if perhaps I configured something wrong there like the wrong time
zone and didn't find anything. I don't think they do anything with the
time stamp, or my messages wouldn't be coming back to me with the
correct time stamp.

Is this how people on other servers are
seeing things?

Maybe you are not seeing it Jack (any others?), but the side effect is
that your posts are appearing out of order with respect to when you
posted. Your posts are showing up after the follow-on replies.

Hey, you got me. My end *seems* correct to me. I took a cursory look
at things and everything appears correct on my end, so it's probably
me:-) It's 1:04 right as I'm posting...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 9, 11:36*am, Steve Turner
wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Steve Turner wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:52 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Took me months or starting, quitting, starting again, quitting and so
on. *It can be deceptively hard, or deceptively easy, depending on
your
point of view:-)

A reasonable amount of intelligence makes it easier. That's probably
why you find it so difficult.

...and why you never did figure it out.

An aside... *I know you argued the point with one of your other
buddies about a week ago, but there *must* be something wrong with
your clock.

I didn't argue the point, I stated my clock was correct.

I'm using the same news server you are, but your posts are showing up
"in the future", whereas mine are not. *I originally took this problem
to be the fault of the news server, but I just verified that setting
my clock into the future and replying to a post (see the Rockwell
planer thread) DID cause the timestamp of the reply to show up in the
future. I've since resynchronized my clock back with time.windows.com
prior to submitting this reply.

My computer clock is set correctly, with the correct date and time, and
the correct time zone. *My messages come back to me with the correct
time. *It is 12:11 PM on my computer, on my watch, on my cell phone, on
my TV. *What would you like me to change?

Interesting; you and I both have two posts only seconds apart to the
same server (eternal-september.org), and the NNTP-Posting-Date in the
headers reflect this:

* *mine: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC)
* yours: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:17:04 +0000 (UTC)

Yet the dates displayed by my newsreader (Thunderbird) a

* *mine: 11:17am
* yours: 12:16pm


On Google: Jack's: 12:16PM
Yours" 11:36AM !!!


Which are basically the times that we posted within our own local time
zones. *However, I don't see anything else in the message headers that
would indicate what our time zones *are*, so I'm not sure how this is
happening. *I guess the eternal-september.org newserver must be
misconfigured somehow...? *Is this how people on other servers are
seeing things?

40 minute time zones? ;-)

Maybe you are not seeing it Jack (any others?), but the side effect is
that your posts are appearing out of order with respect to when you
posted. *Your posts are showing up after the follow-on replies.

That sounds like your newsreader is set up improperly. Threading
should overrule time stamps.