Here's Contour Maker updated. After ~5 years someone pointed out that it doesn't make contours <z=0... It now does... AND it's had a general tidy up - it was 5yrs old!
Usage:
First select a Group or Component Instance that has faces that could have Contours added, then use the Plugins Menu Item 'Contours'.
A dialog asks for the vertical spacing (Z-blue) in current units. The Contours always start their vertical spacing from Z=0 UP & DOWN.
It then makes a new layer for the contour-group. The layer is named CONT-nnnnnnnn (where nnnnnnnn is based on the date/time).
It then calculates a series of horizontal slices through the selection's faces to make the Contours as specified.
Please, register (free) to access all the attachments on the forums.
massimo wrote:Thanks TIG, seems to work fine. It's possible to get rid of that mesh grid on the Z=0 level? Perhaps an option?
I see the problem. Can you post the example SKP before Contouring... So I can play with it... I suspect some sort of 'Erase Coplanar Edges' is needed within the tool - but it will occur at any z-level if you have a mesh that you haven't used 'Erase Coplanar Edges' on and there are multiple faces - It simply uses what it's given... For now use an 'Erase Coplanar Edges' tool [there are several available] [i]before you make the Contours and the problem will vanish with the coplanar edges...[/i]
It was only a quick test and i don't have the file anymore. Anyway you can replicate that easily. It was a terrain mesh generated with the sandbox tools: from scratch+smoove and then smoothened.
For now use an 'Erase Coplanar Edges' tool [there are several available] before you make the Contours and the problem will vanish with the coplanar edges...
massimo wrote:Thanks TIG, seems to work fine. It's possible to get rid of that mesh grid on the Z=0 level? Perhaps an option?
I see the problem. Can you post the example SKP before Contouring... So I can play with it... I suspect some sort of 'Erase Coplanar Edges' is needed within the tool - but it will occur at any z-level if you have a mesh that you haven't used 'Erase Coplanar Edges' on and there are multiple faces - It simply uses what it's given...
For now use an 'Erase Coplanar Edges' tool [there are several available]before you make the Contours and the problem will vanish with the coplanar edges...[/i]
For now use an 'Erase Coplanar Edges' tool before you make the Contours and the problem will vanish with the coplanar edges...
but that doesn't work very well. The simple working solution I have found is to avoid z=0. Moving the group up (or down), activate Contour Maker, Move the group back to the initial position.
It does exactly what you tell it to do... If you move the mesh up in the Z by 1mm the result will change... The contours are 'true' - the mesh might not be exactly as you hope BUT the 'contours' represent what is there...
Here's v1.6 - viewtopic.php?p=273795#p273795 Minor corrections to syntax [arguments all inside () ] that has no affect on results but covers possible future deprecation...
A method's 'deprecation' is when a method or a part of a method is no longer 'used' or 'works'. For example in many API examples in the guides it will say for things like: entities.add_cline point1, point2 this works fine in past and current versions... BUT the 'standard' way recommended in Ruby and guaranteed to stop faults is to use 'parenthesizes' to enclose all arguments, like this entities.add_cline(point1, point2) [Note NO space between the method and opening ( and the arguments are separated by ','] This also gets over the occasional glitch that occurred in existing code with the new PC version of Ruby shipped with v8, for example in v7 this [probably] worked my_command (x+y/2), z in v8 it will fail because the first set of stuff inside the '()' is taken as all the arguments there are and the following ', z' throws an error, but changed to my_command((x+y/2), z) it then works for both versions and is also 'future-proof' as all of the arguments are now encapsulated inside the ()...
Thanks for your explanation, TIG You are an amazing dude. Another question. Could this tendency toward deprecation be the reason why older scripts that worked fine last year, suddenly do not work this week, even though the same SUversion is being used?
I take the slow, deliberate approach in my aimless wandering.
Could this tendency toward deprecation be the reason why older scripts that worked fine last year, suddenly do not work
Yes, especially since SU8 is out. The API "uses" a newer version of Ruby that is less permissive, concerning arguments within brackets, no spaces between function name and arguments, and such boring coding stuff.
Didier wrote: "...such boring coding stuff" I am dragging this way off topic, but one more comment and I will quit. I superficially understand that all of those punctuation marks and symbols are a way to organize the input, but why should input be so tedious? Just think about it, don't answer so that this thread can continue.
I take the slow, deliberate approach in my aimless wandering.
CAD Addict wrote:I haven't had time to try it... Isn't it the same as [what] the Sandbox [does]...? What does it do... better...?...
No, it's quite different! The 'opposite' tool in fact... The Sandbox tool takes contours supplied to it, that are already set at the correct heights, and makes a mesh surface from them. The ContourMaker tool takes a mesh surface and it makes [grouped] contours from it. Your mesh might not have been made from contour data at all, but contours can be very useful when visualizing a complex land-form - this tool lets you add them.
simon
