<Guest29>
como dibujar unrengranaje o piñon pasa a
Guest29 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
califax- has joined #openscad
califax has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
califax- is now known as califax
ur5us has joined #openscad
<JakeSays>
so i was just experimenting with a joysick. afterward i disabled it in settings, unplugged it, and restarted openscad. now my view won't stop rotating around the z axis
<JakeSays>
hmm. removed the [input] section of ~/.config/OpenSCAD/OpenSCAD.conf and it stopped.
ferdna has quit [Quit: Leaving]
teepee has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
teepee has joined #openscad
peepsalot has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
peepsalot has joined #openscad
<InPhase>
JakeSays: That's a reasonable way to fix it, but an odd behavior still. Did you save the old OpenSCAD.conf such that you can see what the offending line was?
arebil has quit [Quit: My keyboard has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
Zauberfisch has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Zauberfisch has joined #openscad
muesli7 has joined #openscad
Fleck has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
muesli has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
muesli7 is now known as muesli
Flecks has joined #openscad
<peepsalot>
i had to chuckle a bit at that one, that user obviously wasn't around between 2015 and 2019 releases :D
YigalB has joined #openscad
RichardPotthoff has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RichardP_ has joined #openscad
TheAssassin has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
TheAssassin has joined #openscad
arebil has joined #openscad
TheAssassin has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
TheAssassin has joined #openscad
YigalB has quit [Quit: Client closed]
Guest798 has joined #openscad
<Guest798>
I have this simple program and the 2 pulleys draw correctly, but when I "hull" them, they do not the groove anymore. Any help would be appreciated. OpenSCAD v. 2021. $fn=100;
<Guest798>
/hull(){
<Guest798>
groove1();
<Guest798>
translate([0,30,0])
<Guest798>
groove2();
<Guest798>
/}
<Guest798>
module groove1(){
<Guest798>
difference(){
<Guest798>
cylinder(5,12,12);
<Guest798>
rotate_extrude(convexity = 10)
<Guest798>
translate([12, 2.5, 0])
<Guest798>
circle(r = 2.5);
<Guest798>
}}
<Guest798>
module groove2(){
<Guest798>
difference(){
<Guest798>
cylinder(5,15,15);
<Guest798>
rotate_extrude(convexity = 10)
<Guest798>
translate([15, 2.5, 0])
<teepee>
hello Guest798
<teepee>
pasting lots of lines does not work well, maybe put those into https://pastebin.com/
<dalias>
are you aware that hull is a full convex hull, not DWIM minimal linear connection of 2 parts
<dalias>
(DWIM = do what i mean :)
<Guest798>
Was not aware. I can make the same thing with longer code so not a big deal, was just curious as to why it would not draw the way I wanted. Thanks for the quick reply.
<Guest798>
If only the program could read my mind....lol
<teepee>
that's planned for version 102394.3 :)
<dalias>
np :)
<dalias>
in particular, as a good rule of thumb, hull() { a(); b(); } is pretty much never going to do what you want unless a() and b() are themselves convex to start with
<teepee>
ah, that's a very good point, maybe something to steal for the manual page :P
<Guest798>
(y)
<dalias>
another formulation without assuming user intent (hey maybe the user wants convex hulls of a and b)
<dalias>
hull() { a(); b(); } is the same (perhaps modulo details of how the mesh is generated) as hull() { hull() a(); hull() b(); }
<dalias>
so unless you want hull() a(); and hull() b(); there, it's wrong
<teepee>
right, while the first statement is more concise, this is probably a bit more obvious for a casual reader
<teepee>
also can't wait to see if that filament dryer works :)
<teepee>
hmm, no issues with PrusaSlicer 2.3.3
<teepee>
at least not that gap at the bottom
<InPhase>
Hmm. So that triggered on peeps[zen]'s comma fixes?
<InPhase>
Was that peeps[zen]?
<InPhase>
I think...
<teepee>
yeah, I think so, I'll put in a 2 character pull request :)
<teepee>
seems obvious that is just not meant to be there
<InPhase>
The best kind of PR.
<InPhase>
Yeah, it should definitely be an error, so the nightly is right.
<teepee>
but first, dinner
<peeps[zen]>
yeah comma changes was me
<InPhase>
... It's almost my dinner time, and you're not in my timezone.
peeps[zen] is now known as peepsalot
<InPhase>
peepsalot: Good fix then. It caught a proper scad code bug. :)
<teepee>
pff, timezones are relative... or so
<teepee>
the project has a linter, it did not catch the issue either
<InPhase>
Speaking of time, I need to go pick up my kid...
<teepee>
ah, better not forget *that*
Guest27 has joined #openscad
Guest27 has quit [Client Quit]
<teepee>
ok, remove-comma-pull-request sent :D
sauce has quit [Quit: sauce]
sauce has joined #openscad
TheAssassin has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
TheAssassin has joined #openscad
RoyK has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
RoyK has joined #openscad
ur5us has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<InPhase>
teepee: :)
ur5us has joined #openscad
<teepee>
maybe I start with the release/nightly comparison with the microscope
<teepee>
while the other discussion is still going
<InPhase>
If you're speaking about the scope discussion, it's not going to end.
<InPhase>
Facts and code are being shared and discussed, but there's a deep-rooted difference in philosophies, so at this point I'm thinking most of what's being said is not having a possibility of leading to a universal consensus.
ferdna has joined #openscad
<teepee>
yes, sadly that seems to be the case. it feels like all of the very good and details arguments you brought and showed in code are not really considered and weighted against the issue
<InPhase>
Personally I think the best days of OpenSCAD are ahead of it. When it breaks my own code, I just fix my own code, because the main goal is zeroing in on that stronger better designed future.
<InPhase>
It would be different if the future outcome were neutral or arbitrary, but I don't see that as the case on this one.
<InPhase>
When I submitted that PR I roughly estimated the other changes needed. I couldn't be the one to make all the decisions on them, because it depends on usage plans, but the total work involved was nothing extreme.
<InPhase>
It'd be maybe 1-2 hours, plus running a suite of tests and checking stuff for mistakes.
<InPhase>
Maybe twice that if someone works a little slower. But we spent a lot longer than that talking about it. :)
<teepee>
that's for sure
<teepee>
I've not seen confirmation yet that it also needs changes in projects using the library
<InPhase>
Right. Nothing I spotted required any such changes.
<teepee>
that would be a great thing
<InPhase>
But my questions/comments about that went unaddressed.
<teepee>
I would not be against having some backward compatibility but it should have a better argument than "The new code does not look so nice"
<InPhase>
As long as the projects utilizing it are just using the project with either a use or an include, an identical interface is guaranteed doable.
<teepee>
the nice part could maybe addressed in later changes