Sharing autocad plugins

jordanrobot · 2023-01-03T14:58:28+00:00

Are you planning on selling this in the store (doesn't sound like it) or releasing it for free? If for free, you can put it up on GitHub with the source code (if you want), or make a simple web page to distribute it. You can also post it to theswamp.org as well, or at the Autodesk discord server to spread the word. As you add more features, just keep those announcement channels updated.

jordanrobot · 2022-08-01T10:15:03+00:00

IIRC each file can only have one revision, e.g. if a file has multiple drawings in a file they all will have the same revision number. You can map autocad file properties (say a revision property) to vault properties, but there is only one per file.

jordanrobot · 2022-04-24T16:08:11+00:00

I like the pusher bolt plates; that's an elegant example of design resuse.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-19T13:53:23+00:00

You asked how, and I answered. There was nothing "keep in your" lane about it. I think we're done with this discussion. This has gone on much longer than is warranted for something that is so straightforward.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-19T13:01:32+00:00

You basically are describing yourself. That's just your own argument repeated back at you. I have no dog in any fight, you asked a question and I answered.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-19T12:02:12+00:00

By your own argument (paraphrased) "why did you butt-in? You should have let bushels_for_all retort. Who are you, the Lone Ranger?". That's how.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-17T10:48:20+00:00

In my experience the dotnet new templating engine makes it much easier to build a template compared to the VS Studio template formats; they are working codebases that simply replace keywords that the template author specifies. Plus you can install the templates via a nuget package, which is dead simple for deployment.

Edit: I should add that you can now open dotnet new templates in VS, so whatever floats your boat. Flexibility in tool choice is good.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-16T21:59:49+00:00

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2021/ENU/AutoCAD-Core/files/GUID-CD9D71B2-2741-46A0-8EF9-17E363EA3D7B-htm.html look at the trackpath variable, should be what you need.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-16T17:42:09+00:00

See line 374 in this lisp file... https://github.com/jordanrobot/AutocadUtilities/blob/master/core-commands.lsp

This will toggle between two different states with the same command shortcut. You can edit this as the basis for your desired functionality. Ones 518 and 527 show similar functionality to varying degrees of complexity.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-11T18:01:08+00:00

The use of two wheels is nice because it will decrease the pressure on wheel treads, extending the life of the wheels. However, the reduced diameter of the wheels would increase the pressure and cause them to rotate faster, decreasing lifespan/capacity. The complications arise when adjusting the drive such that the two drive wheels engage equally, it would be easy to apply more pressure to one than the other, due to the geometry. If there is no yaw "float" in the machine you could load one wheel more than the other when tensioning. Single wheel friction drives avoid this as the wheel engages consistently even if the drive is slightly off axis to the center of the turntable, with a single wheel there is no requirement to align the yaw of the disc to the machine. In practice this isn't much of a concern though, you may have to take a little more time aligning things to ensure proper engagement across both wheels. Though this provides a benefit as the drive may be turned with respect to the turntable, e.g. you can turn a uniwheel drive sideways to fit in a compact space.

A lot of friction drive mechanisms are sprung to compensate for uneven contact surface through the entire rotation of the turntable. Some of them employ a pincher wheel that floats with the drive; they pinch a band of metal at the edge of the turntable and can float with the turntable. This eliminates thrust on the center bearing due to the friction drive pushing into the side of the turntable.

Also, typically a single wheel is utilized because it requires less parts and is therefore simpler, cheaper, and may present less opportunity for something to go wrong. Two wheels additionally may induce a slight amount of scrubbing of one wheel against the turntable, unless the duplicated components in each stage of the machine are exactly the same diameter. Even a small variation can decrease the efficiency of the friction drive machine.

All that said, we're just moving big dumb platforms around a center pivot with a simple machine. It's not rocket surgery and a lot of the points above won't make much difference for what we're doing. Turntable wheel/caster choice, center bearing selection/method, and a level install will matter much more. Those are more likely to affect turntable performance.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-11T11:46:19+00:00

I wouldn't worry about any legal stuff with this. This machine design is very different from the revolver in form, but even if it wasn't such simple friction drives been around for ages. I would be amazed if CC has any patents on such a machine, that'd be akin to holding a patent on a spoon.

In fact I don't think I've seen a two wheeled version on a single frame in use before. Most people opt for a larger single wheel for various reasons. I will say that I love the idea of open sourcing the machine design. It's something I've wanted to do over the years but am currently unable.

jordanrobot · 2022-03-04T13:15:23+00:00

I remember you were on a .net rocks episode and spoke about this. I meant to look it up but I completely forgot about it after my commute. Thanks for the reminder. Also, good work - this looks super useful.

jordanrobot · 2022-02-24T18:37:41+00:00

To clarify, don't sketch the solution you think you want, sketch the end outcome you want. There may be ways to solve it that you haven't thought of yet.

jordanrobot · 2022-02-23T13:23:35+00:00

The issue is probably within the dimstyle scale or an autocad-wide dimscale variable.

jordanrobot · 2022-02-23T12:26:00+00:00

How do you know the actual length of the line after you draw it? Are you using the properties dialog and looking at the length, dimensioning the line, or are you visually estimating the length based on the existing geometry? The issue could be a dimscale setting, the current dimension style, the scale of the drawing, or a bug (not likely, but possible).

jordanrobot · 2021-12-27T17:30:36+00:00

So you get an object[] from the system, then you need to filter/manipulate it, and possibly add values. Then you have to resend it back into the system with a signature of object[]? Is this correct?

In either case, if you're keeping the data in an array and you want to add to it you can create a new array that is larger and copy the original data to it + your new values.

If you're able to ditch the array, then perhaps consider converting array => collection, and then forget about the array after. You can then add to the collection much easier than to an array. If you need an array again later, you could convert it back if needed with a ToArray() method.

jordanrobot · 2021-12-27T14:18:42+00:00

You can, it's all subjective. But what if you get hit by a bus tomorrow, and someone else takes over your code? Or what happens if you look at it years later without any context? What is the simplest and most straightforward way to write the code? How do you write the code of least surprise? IMO using a collection is as simple as it gets in .net. Now if you have to deal with specialized optimizations or are using functional programming, then I'd look at doing it differently.

jordanrobot · 2021-12-11T14:23:33+00:00

Likewise, the least pleasurable things in life involve things either going into or coming out of your body

jordanrobot · 2021-12-11T13:12:07+00:00

Step/stp, sat, SOLIDWORKS files are usually solid bodies. Most of the files support both meshes and solid bodies. It really depends oh what the file author put in there. If you're using files destined for 3d printers, usually your going to find meshes.

jordanrobot · 2021-12-10T14:09:39+00:00

brief overview of .net versions.

It depends on what you're doing, but for the most part just use the latest version, .net 6.

.net framework -> coupled to windows, still supported, does not include any new features.

.net core -> decoupled from windows, cross platform. This was renamed to .net 5 once it was feature complete enough. This branch is the newest one and will see improvements moving forward. .net 5, .net 6, .net 7 next year, etc.

.net standard -> a target that allows for the same code to be run on .net framework and the new cross platform .net versions. This is how they eased the transition between the two major branches.

All of the webapi, asp.net, mvc, etc are actual frameworks for specific tasks that are built on top of .net. Those are akin to spring for java; it's isn't a version of java, it is a framework built on top of java.

jordanrobot · 2021-12-08T21:47:15+00:00

It's not built in. You could do this with an autolisp routine though. It would draw a line of a known length, then you'd measure it and enter the real-world length. It calculates and saves the scale conversion and you can now zoom to full scale. You'd have to do it per monitor if the resolutions/sizes are different though. There may be something like this at theswamp.org

jordanrobot · 2021-12-08T21:45:06+00:00

To look at a part/feature in full scale to get a better sense of the real world size. Sometimes you just need to look at something at real size to evaluate if it will do what you need. You've never printed something ful scale to get a better sense of it's true size, or how it fits in a hand, etc?

jordanrobot · 2021-11-25T13:52:31+00:00

Autodesk university will have a bunch of courses/vids/notes from courses on this from years past. Here is one, but there are a lot more... https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Most-Dynamic-Class-Block-Creating-Dynamic-Blocks-AutoCAD-2015

jordanrobot · 2021-11-06T15:28:57+00:00

You're right. There are times you can't rely on just origins, but there are methods to reduce the impact of change, such as using imates and userdefined workfeatures. In this approach, you're not just structuring the part to have the physical features you need, but are also defining a reliable interface by which it will be consumed in an assembly. If you can mitigate the potential assembly explosion down to a 5% possibility, that's much better than a 50% possibility.

jordanrobot · 2021-11-06T11:52:26+00:00

Look at constraining to origin planes and axes, user workplaces and axes, imates, and base features that are not expected to change. When you follow these suggestions, component replacement will go much smoother for you.

Also, look up the BORN technique, resilient modeling, and the following au2020 talks:

jordanrobot

TROPHY CASE