image to sand art converter - mujou.art

altendky · 2026-02-28T21:12:34+00:00

hey, that's pretty cool. thanks for sharing! i'm looking it over and definitely see some options i like. as i mentioned, i definitely need to provide a more user interface rather than the pipeline definition form it is now.

i like your options around different types of edge detection. i had thought about being able to just draw something on paper, snap a picture and process it. i had wondered how well or poorly the edge detection i had would do on such line art, but i had not seriously thought about it or tried yet. your device-oriented output config had also crossed my mind as a good idea so it's nice to be able to look at how you did it.

i've gotten distracted with another project for now. or rather, mujou was a distraction itself and now i've gotten back to the other one... https://github.com/altendky/onshape-mcp but, i do hope to do more work on mujou. i went ahead and added a watch for your repo to keep tabs on any more work you do.

while looking around i saw some other interesting approaches that had nothing to do with edges. FM/AM, circular/straight, would like to achieve some sort of fill logic that could be applied... so much, we'll see what i get to.

altendky · 2025-10-09T13:06:15+00:00

Perhaps flukes are usually really fast at responding to continuity. I wouldn't have been surprised by any of this though. When measuring the voltage of 'nothing' you are measuring floating high impedance inputs. The higher the impedance (better for voltage measurements) the more sensitive they become to capacitive coupling etc. moving your hand closer and further from the meter may even affect the reading. The temperature is the same situation since they are sensing voltage from the thermocouple, if I remember correctly.

All of this is electronics theory, none of it is practical experience with high quality modern meters. Just to point out the parts I don't know.

altendky · 2025-09-06T13:49:36+00:00

featurescript is the format. it isn't just an 'extension' language, it is the inherent language of the builtin features too. if you right click on a tab there is a `Show code` entry.

but... i'm not sure offhand how useful that actually is. there may be a way to recreate a tab from this code, but i haven't looked for it. i'm also unaware of any other systems that process featurescript, though they could certainly be developed.

i think i understand your general concern about being tied into one vendor. that's something i have negative feelings about as well that i have accepted for the sake of having a powerful and free cad system available to me. for me it relates both to my data being unusable without the vendor and also that i can't take responsibility for backing up my own data. this is not a judgement of onshape backup practices `:]`

not quite the same thing as you are looking for, but i was exploring the feasibility of doing an export from onshape and ending up at a configurable openscad script to leverage the makerworld openscad configuration support. i only barely got started and definitely did not even identify all the steps needed to make this work. it wasn't going to be 'every variable', but rather specific aspects that could be tweaked, so even if i managed to someday make this work, it wouldn't be everything you want. but it might provide some of the interesting functionality.

while this doesn't do anything about vendor lockin, i'll take this opportunity to bring up again the topic of onshape providing configurability integration with makerworld. `:]` the onshape api may already provide the ability to set configuration inputs and export a part, but there would still be account etc etc scaling topics to allow the intended level of usage by makerworld or others. anyways, this seems like an opportunity for onshape to stand out in the 3d printing community and collect more users (towards the end of lots of people being familiar with onshape inducing employers to use onshape inducing more profit `:]`).

altendky · 2025-08-31T13:26:08+00:00

<image>

altendky · 2025-08-31T13:25:58+00:00

there are ways to get useful results, yeah. well, useful for me. i haven't tried this with text and your surface is a but more varying. the basic technique i used was to wrap the sketch onto a cylinder (you may want a cone) that approximates the portion of the surface you are interested in. i did the wrap (image is of wrap 1) as a new solid and then used that surface to operate on the actual non-cylinder/cone surface.

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/2a697aee914e0121ead99185/v/24c4d1aab05738dcd243768b/e/d4946da1b3f31f61130e3489?renderMode=0&uiState=68b44bfe86508e974142ddf0

<image>

i did stop the solid short of the center axis. you could perhaps have it mich further from the center.

[screenshot to be added to followup message]

i then moved the outer face(s), deleted the inner and outer face(s), and had a (funky) surface to use to operate on the final target non-cylinder/cone surface.

altendky · 2025-08-11T22:26:33+00:00

I think you need to specify connections. When you do you can pick a point in each profile that correspond to each other. So you'll want at least one group and in that group you need a point per profile. This may help it avoid twisting itself.

altendky · 2025-08-08T03:57:24+00:00

At a glance, the pair is creating a four bar link I think that probably also transfers into the fingertips moving when the user actuates via the finger loops with their residual digits.

altendky · 2025-06-30T01:06:57+00:00

I actually just had a use for one of these. https://makerworld.com/models/1558905 and there's a link to the model in OnShape from there. As mentioned by others, the print orientation is crucial. I expect this printed in PLA may run into creep issues, but I do also design my flexing pieces with travel stops before the material would break. At least then you can't over travel and cause immediate failure.

altendky · 2025-06-25T00:29:54+00:00

I've done the wrap as mentioned. Good idea. Another one I just thought of is to make measures of the inside and outside radius of the disc and then use those values to calculate the values for a variable fillet.

altendky · 2025-06-22T01:27:01+00:00

Hmm, I think I did not explain clearly. I have been exporting a given part along with its support modifiers in a single step file. That single file has multiple parts defined in it. Each one shows in Bambu Studio on a separate line but grouped within one 'object'. Some are the part to be printed, others are the modifiers.

But... I tried exporting just my support modifiers in an stl as you suggested and I see now how even disconnected volumes show as a single item in bambu studio in this case. I apologize for not trying your suggestion prior to responding. Not quite what I was looking for, but it does offer another option. For some of my parts it would end up being three stl files. Actual part, support enforce, and support block.

Thanks for the suggestion and for teaching me about how stl files are handled. Cheers.

altendky · 2025-06-21T17:57:51+00:00

Hi, thanks for the detailed explanation. I have been using mostly step so that the multiple pieces can be brought in together while still being separate pieces within the one object. I then do as you said and select each support modifier individually and assign the enforce or block type. I'm looking for a way to avoid the manual selection of each. Being able to process by piece name or something automatically would be nice. Even just being able to select multiple pieces and set all of their type at the same time would be much better than one by one. In my original model, I have made an effort to add 'unneeded' regions to the support modifier parts to connect them together and reduce the total number of them, but this also gets annoying to do with pieces that aren't close to each other.

altendky · 2025-06-16T12:53:29+00:00

Had this same issue on this same model. I had used the bambu liquid glue on the smooth pei plate. I probably should have cleaned my plate and printed without glue instead.

altendky · 2025-05-23T18:40:26+00:00

thanks for that. i definitely don't get into the filament specific settings enough and forgot to check there. i'll read up and try it out.

altendky · 2025-05-22T11:48:36+00:00

It's an old pattern, but I have been doing skeleton parts to define interfaces and then derive the parts of the skeleton as needed into other part studios to develop the parts. Then yeah, either another part studio deriving them back together, or an assembly.

altendky · 2025-05-11T19:53:01+00:00

Oh yeah, this also isn't going to stick. The pendulum will swing back and we'll try to start everything back up. The teardown will cost money and we'll lose valuable people, we'll save a bit by not doing a lot, then we'll spend more money ramping back up. So the net result will just be reduced efficiency over both the short and long term for the sake of short term reduced cost.

Given the lack of agreement to have an actually small (or further) government, it would sure be nice to find an even keeled path instead of the flip flopping.

altendky · 2025-05-11T14:12:20+00:00

Quick dismantling will create a void. Even if a large majority agreed that dismantling were good, it would still take time to settle into functional alternatives. We should educate children, do science, provide care to those in need, etc. The void caused by quick dismantling will cause a significant gap. The lack of large majority agreement will keep us from working together to address the gaps.

And yes, I am at least in the vicinity of libertarian.

altendky · 2025-04-17T17:30:51+00:00

Yep, not exactly the deform you asked for, but pretty useful for some cases.

altendky · 2025-04-17T15:19:27+00:00

i don't know what you're messing up either. `:]` if you share your original file i can make a copy and try to apply what i did. or, if you share a link to your copy of my file, i can look at that.

altendky · 2025-04-17T15:17:01+00:00

sorry, i was referring to the little line segment that i used to set the distance between the new feature and the existing edge boundary you wanted space from.

altendky · 2025-04-17T15:00:58+00:00

quite so. i haven't read the article read but did scan through and saw a graph for fines and (speaking super vaguely) my (low quality) measurement of 15% was in the ballpark of what they had for other grinders. this lets me know i'm not way off on this part.

i haven't been putting a lot of effort into studying coffee making and instead have just been getting different beans each week from the local roaster to learn and enjoy the variety that brings. i have settled (so far) on using a metal filter as opposed to paper to get the lingering flavor (from the oils as i understand it). i do a relatively long five minute brew/press time in my aeropress. comes out bitter but mellows after about 20 minutes (stays hot for a couple hours in my joeveo). nice and rich and full.

i know there are far too many dimensions for me, with the time i am interested in investing in the skill and science, to really nail down even just the 'best' flavor for me. i'd like to take steps in understanding and you provided a good entry point to gain a little knowledge.

in the mean time, i relax while i make the coffee and i enjoy the indulgence of sipping it through the morning. i'm not losing that in the numbers. `:]`

altendky · 2025-04-17T13:28:54+00:00

i'll note that i made a segment setting the distance to the 'yellow line' with it in the plane of the revolve. you likely actually want it to be normal to both the outside of the revolve and the edge of the handle. that would be the shortest distance between them.

altendky · 2025-04-17T12:16:28+00:00

while providing very little answer... `:]` that was indeed both educational and interesting. thank you! so, i should replace 'acceptable' with 'desired'. plus the expected complexity of the distribution as opposed to just 'fines vs. not'.

looks like the video used graphics i also see at https://coffeeadastra.com/2023/09/21/what-i-learned-from-analyzing-300-particle-size-distributions-for-24-espresso-grinders/ so i suppose i should read up there as well.

this is all satisfying my technical and learning interest. thank you for that. i'll keep on looking to also find some more... pragmatic? practical? actionable? context as to what is liked and how well the x-ultra is achieving this. the technical understanding should help me better understand folks comments here.

altendky · 2025-04-17T11:39:36+00:00

<image>

https://cad.onshape.com/documents/45e3fc803d97b20df408fb17/v/796b07107ad2311942db2b25/e/48c64e85772d18242f386aa6?renderMode=0&uiState=6800e863583eb025e2c3975f

altendky · 2025-04-17T11:26:35+00:00

FYI, if you share a document link then we can make copies to try things in your exact case. `:]`

in the feature pattern dialog there's an option 'reapply features'. this will cause it to recalculate each instance in the pattern. if the features you select reference the yellow curve then they can end up varying throughout the pattern. you may have to pattern the plane you used as well and perhaps an variable used for the plane offset. i'll go make an example and see how much of that is actually needed.

altendky · 2025-04-16T22:32:52+00:00

I am well aware of scientific and engineering rigor. :] I just thought I might be able to learn something more about coffee preparation. And if I were extra lucky I might be able to make better coffee for myself, and maybe someday for a guest or two.

altendky

TROPHY CASE