I wasn't trying to evaluate the requirements, just meet them. It looked to me like he wanted the angles all different and had drawn them differently in his pic on stackexchange. I really don't know why you'd want that. I don't know what he's going to do with the model. Is this a 3d printing mailing list or a CAD mailing list? Maybe he's going to print with a super high resolution SLA printer. Maybe the units aren't mm. Maybe he is planning to scale up at some point. Maybe he just wondered how you'd do something like that in OpenSCAD for curiosity's sake. Or, maybe you're right and he meant for the angles to be all the same. I'm a fan of sticking with 45, or 60 if 45 isn't pointy enough. On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:45 PM Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote: > On 8/19/2021 3:25 AM, Adrian Mariano wrote: > > He wants the back angle on each barb to be different, 45 on one, 50 on > another, and 60 on the third one. > > > I hadn't noticed that note, but that's not how I read it; I read it as > wanting an angle like 45, 50, 60 degrees - some number like that. I don't > immediately see a use for making the angles be different. Indeed, if you > want to specify anything in terms of angles, you need trig. (But as you > say, the trig might be under the covers.) > > Those barbs are only 0.5mm (which seems too small), so the "angle" > underneath them is going to be maybe three layers tall and less than one > extrusion width wide. You probably couldn't tell the difference between 45 > and 60. > > --- > > I am reminded of a piece of my house model, where I have a wood cap on top > of a half-wall. The wood cap extends about an inch on each side of the > wall, so at scale that's about a millimeter. It's a pure overhang, so I > put a 45° bevel under it. But what about the corners, where two bevels > would meet? I put a little quarter-pyramid polyhedron there. (Later I > realized that I could intersect two bevels instead of constructing a > polyhedron.) That was one of my first attempts at building a polyhedron, > so it was a fair amount of work. After I had it all done and fitting > together right, I realized that I'd spent all that effort on a part that > with a total volume of something like a quarter of a cubic millimeter, > barely even perceptible. > >

Thanks everyone for all the help and suggestions. I've placed the customizer code I used on stackoverflow. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68811226/adding-an-angle-angle-profile-to-openscad-barbed-object/68855766#68855766 And if your interesed here's some of the demo design / prints. https://pawplus.wordpress.com/3d-design/ Thanks Again On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:13 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > I wasn't trying to evaluate the requirements, just meet them. It looked > to me like he wanted the angles all different and had drawn them > differently in his pic on stackexchange. I really don't know why you'd > want that. I don't know what he's going to do with the model. Is this a > 3d printing mailing list or a CAD mailing list? Maybe he's going to print > with a super high resolution SLA printer. Maybe the units aren't mm. > Maybe he is planning to scale up at some point. Maybe he just wondered how > you'd do something like that in OpenSCAD for curiosity's sake. Or, maybe > you're right and he meant for the angles to be all the same. I'm a fan of > sticking with 45, or 60 if 45 isn't pointy enough. > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:45 PM Jordan Brown < > openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote: > >> On 8/19/2021 3:25 AM, Adrian Mariano wrote: >> >> He wants the back angle on each barb to be different, 45 on one, 50 on >> another, and 60 on the third one. >> >> >> I hadn't noticed that note, but that's not how I read it; I read it as >> wanting an angle like 45, 50, 60 degrees - some number like that. I don't >> immediately see a use for making the angles be different. Indeed, if you >> want to specify anything in terms of angles, you need trig. (But as you >> say, the trig might be under the covers.) >> >> Those barbs are only 0.5mm (which seems too small), so the "angle" >> underneath them is going to be maybe three layers tall and less than one >> extrusion width wide. You probably couldn't tell the difference between 45 >> and 60. >> >> --- >> >> I am reminded of a piece of my house model, where I have a wood cap on >> top of a half-wall. The wood cap extends about an inch on each side of the >> wall, so at scale that's about a millimeter. It's a pure overhang, so I >> put a 45° bevel under it. But what about the corners, where two bevels >> would meet? I put a little quarter-pyramid polyhedron there. (Later I >> realized that I could intersect two bevels instead of constructing a >> polyhedron.) That was one of my first attempts at building a polyhedron, >> so it was a fair amount of work. After I had it all done and fitting >> together right, I realized that I'd spent all that effort on a part that >> with a total volume of something like a quarter of a cubic millimeter, >> barely even perceptible. >> >> _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org > -- ----- "There are two modes of being those in bliss and those seeking bliss, may each step you take and each thought you make be made in a mindful and blissful state." This message is confidential and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by replying to the e-mail and then delete this email and any copies of it. Under no circumstances may the contents hereof be disclosed to the public without the sender's prior written permission. -----