Stephan Moenninghoff

Here is an excerpt from another proposal I made in 2016. This is about how the Quick Prefs and some other UI elements of the main drawing window might be improved. It already looks quite dated now which goes to show how quickly UI, icons, dialogs etc. start to look dated. In other words: it's not enough to do it once. Just like other features are improved and updated every few years, so should the UI. Not easy to do.

Shame I will miss your talk!

Accepted! Nice way of doing this, @Peter Neufeld! Thanks for sharing. I wonder what other methods will arise. Did @Jim Wilsonnot have plans to show us his? 🙂

Yes, I don't think that's actually a bug that would merit logging. More like a limitation in what surface modelling can and cannot achieve.

I like @elepp's surface method. It may be more work but it creates an even cleaner geometry than mine. I try to solve everything using solids because the surface modeller always creates hollow objects which may create problems down the road (Push/Pull does not play nice with most surface objects). I have a few more challenges up my sleeve. I'll dig them up when I have a few minutes. Thanks for contributing, guys. This was fun!

@elepp and @markdd I think you both have solved it. In Mark's example I am still not sure the bottom is a true circle. If it isn't, it can't be considered as solved! The sides don't curve inwards BTW. It may look like they do depending on the view but the sides are straight. Here is how I did it. Curious to learn your methods. Körper.mp4

OK, not bad. The top must be a rectangle though, not a square. If you can do that I would consider it solved.

You are very close, in fact it looks like you have cracked it. And yes, you are right, it's not done via a loft. The loft will not give you any precise control over the alignment of the curves. Is that a true circle at the bottom though?

I had to create this shape today: A circle which morphs into a rectangle. The shape had to be absolutely symmetrical. Sounds easy but is it? Who can do it?

I should add I am working with build 445255 because I am beta-testing the German version. This may well be fixed in the final build. @Selin has already contacted me about this and she did so shortly after my post so I believe this is a high priority affair. @line-weight give them a break. 2019 feels good. I need to work with both 2018 and 2019 currently but going back to 2018 really feels like going back. The multi-core OpenGL in 2019 is so liberating 🙂

Unfortunately, yes.

Here's a video of a school bus conversion project carried out with interiorcad, using a point cloud and AR for early prototype viewing. All CNC code is generated straight from the model and the entire interior will be custom-built. AR is the thing to have. I really hope for more capabilities of AR in the future. I want to be able to tap a drilling in a part to see its specifications. I really think AR needs to be where the production takes place - on the workshop floor. This would close the widening gap between construction office and workshop. The current trend is for production documents and CNC code to be generated end-to-end and those production data are then given to the guy in the workshop running the CNC. He may be given some sections and detail drawings but that's kind of old school. If he could just look at a 3D model in AR, his life would be easier, production would be more streamlined and the whole process would be less error prone.

Grain matching and sides to floor will both be in the upcoming minor update. Framed fronts are in the works for the 2019 version. We also know about the dovetail drawers. As another US customer has so aptly put it: "Americans still love pickup trucks, guns, and solid wood dovetail drawers".

Thanks for the update, @Woodychips ! If you have the time, could you give me an idea as to which are your top three features missing from the new cabinet? What are the barriers you find with it? Thanks!