User enhancement requests

[Brian Woodward]

John

Is this a new AutoCad command, I've not come across it before. Furthermore I've never seen a request for this functionality from ex autocad users either. So I assume either, it's new, not used much or an addon.

I'm not sure what it would be used for either other than flow charts and the ilk and surely intelligent objects with intelligent connectors would be a better solution here.

Given the limited development resource of informatix, wouldn't they be better focusing that effort on competing more with Revit and Archicad than AutoCAD?

There is alot of funtionality in AutoCAD and a lot of it is archaic and left to wither on the vine eg some of the older 3d functionality. So I think trying to match the commandset 1:1 would be foolhardy.

Brian

[johnwarburton]

Is this a new AutoCad command, I've not come across it before. Furthermore I've never seen a request for this functionality from ex autocad users either. So I assume either, it's new, not used much or an addon.

AutoCAD RECTANGLE command with chamfer and fillet options is described here - just scroll down to find it.

I'm not sure what it would be used for either other than flow charts and the ilk and surely intelligent objects with intelligent connectors would be a better solution here.

Really? There are plenty of situations where shapes in architectural drawings need to have chamfered or filleted corners - including rectangles. This is especially true when creating shapes to use as the basis for 3D solids in the highest quality renderings (smooth angle and smooth edge just are not good enough.) Imagine drawing a sink bowl, or a chair, or a bed, or - well, just look around you and see how many objects are basically rectangular but without sharp corners. Just glancing round me right now I see my keyboard, mouse mat, router, telephone handset, lunch tray, toolbox, door handle faceplate, cutting pad, storage boxes, laptop case, sofa cushions, sofa arms, radiators, desk fan base, digital camera, CF card cases - all basically rectangles with rounded edges, and which may turn up in 2D and/or 3D drawings.

Given the limited development resource of informatix, wouldn't they be better focusing that effort on competing more with Revit and Archicad than AutoCAD?

MicroGDS is a very long way from competing with Revit or Archicad. AutoCAD is the real battleground right now and the market where MicroGDS has some chance of making inroads.

There is alot of funtionality in AutoCAD and a lot of it is archaic and left to wither on the vine eg some of the older 3d functionality. So I think trying to match the commandset 1:1 would be foolhardy.

I just think that you are plain wrong with this. MicroGDS has a lot that is better than you'll find in AutoCAD, but the opposite is also true. Ignoring that would be a huge mistake. Obviously there is a lot of AutoCAD stuff that would be entirely redundant in MicroGDS (can't see why we would need DONUT for example) but where there is no equivalent or better functionality in MicroGDS, it should at least be looked at.

[James McClymont]

Hi,

It would add a whole new dimension to libraries if we could add tags to .man files, or even objects?...

jamesmcclymont2003@yahoo.co.uk

[johnwarburton]

For closed 2D polygons, we get the area and the perimeter length as properties.

When we extrude that polygon we now get the surface area and the volume as properties, but we lose the perimeter and the area.

To retrieve the plan area of a solid, we therefore have to retain the polygon too.

Working with 2 separate primitives in this way is workable with care (to make sure the 2 primitives are kept synchronised), but I would like to see the plan area and perimeter retrievable from 3D solids. I can see why this would be complicated, of course... there are issues with what happens when the solid has been rotated in 3D space or when the axes have been skewed. Perhaps the rule should be to always use the stored axes plane and take the area and perimter that are projected onto the XY plane.

[ColinMcNab]

...
When we extrude that polygon we now get the surface area and the volume as properties, but we lose the perimeter and the area.

To retrieve the plan area of a solid, we therefore have to retain the polygon too.

Why not just make all the faces of a 3dsolid available for interrogation, the CAD engine knows what each face polygon is and if it is not planar just report as such and only give the perimeter...you could tab through them or something to get detail properties.

I'm sure you could write a plugin for this ....someone??
I'm too thick ;o)

Where are all the non Informatix "plugins" now ??

[johnwarburton]

Why not just make all the faces of a 3dsolid available for interrogation, the CAD engine knows what each face polygon is and if it is not planar just report as such and only give the perimeter...you could tab through them or something to get detail properties.?

Sounds like a good way of dealing with it, at least for relatively simple polygons!

[James McClymont]

Hi,
does anyone know of a way to project a 2d line onto a 3d surface. In the absence of a 3d offset command I have been having to trace offsets and then move each vertice to the correct Z height...It strikes me that this would be a good enhancement...ie to shadow a line onto a 3d surface rather than just the Z plane.

Hi Colin,

I know this is an old post/request , but I've just had a "play"...

I projected a 2d rectangle onto the surface of a sphere, is this still relevent?



The technique would work for any surface and any shape, I used a rectangle & sphere for simplicity.

The whole thing can be done in 3 steps.

Best regards,

James.

[ColinMcNab]

....I know this is an old post/request , but I've just had a "play"...

I projected a 2d rectangle onto the surface of a sphere, is this still relevant.........

Hi James
at the time I was working on acoustic fencing which had to be in a specific place 2 dimensionally and at a specific height above the underlying ground surface, so I was looking for a way to do this ...easily
I think someone at the time suggested a method using clash detection which worked pretty well.


How did you do yours??

[James McClymont]

Hi Colin,

I've had another "play" based on your response.





The original principle seems ok, the only problem is that the top face of the "fence" mirrors the base.

I'm gonna sleep on that, got a few ideas...

Best regards,

James.

p.s. re: the technique, make solids of both, subtract one from the other, fragment the "fence", delete all but the base-line and displace that. Displace is an under-rated function!
Its an bit like extrude, but cooler....

[ColinMcNab]

...........
The original principle seems ok, the only problem is that the top face of the "fence" mirrors the base.....

would not be a problem in my case as the fence had to be only a construction definition line ie with no thickness.

What about trace around the top of the wall........no wait a minute that wont work cos there is no 3d offset or trace command......!!

Only way I can see of doing this is to manually move vertices to .z of adj wall vertice....great thing this CAD stuff saves you tons of time

Actually I latterly did this with the acoustic CAD modelling software which allows you to specify the wall or barrier height above ground and the 2d position and offsets and models correctly the projected height and thickness if required......so it is possible to do 3d offsets in software.......just hard.