I have 16 GB of RAM, a 1 TB SSD, and a quad-core i7 in my laptop. The
unfortunate thing about most software is that it is written to keep
programs in check for lower spec systems, but frequently doesn't have the
option to disable those limits or up them when you do have better hardware.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a default limit of 10,000 since
not everyone has the setup I do, it'd just be nice to have an option to
change it if I want to do something dumb on purpose :).

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:36 PM, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, just realized 24 GB of RAM. 16 GB is available after I have a
bunch of programs running and a few different OpenSCAD instances.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:47 PM, David Coneff david.coneff@gmail.com wrote:

CGAL is extremely slow when there are a large number of non overlapping
facets. It gets even slower if they do overlap but it certainly doesn't
skip the easy cases.

On 8 March 2017 at 23:47, David Coneff david.coneff@gmail.com wrote:

I agree it does get slow. Just that it won't necessarily seize up or throw
an error simply because there are a bunch. But that's to be expected for
any model of sufficient complexity.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 4:54 PM, nop head nop.head@gmail.com wrote:

That's my general feeling Ronaldo, I started playing with OpenSCAD because
it is open-source and free, has a wide user base in the 3D printing
community, and readily translates models on a computer to valid STL files
that can be printed without much fuss if the appropriate level of detail is
applied to the CGAL render. There's no reason it can't be used for serious
work, it just has a less developed UI than the average piece of commercial
software. For my purposes that is fine since the work I'm doing with is
generative/algorithmic and not stuff that could be done by hand with a
cursor in a well-developed GUI. It's just the minor limitations that I run
into that are occasionally annoying, like this 10,000 element limitation.
It's reasonable to prevent beginners from blowing up the program and
thinking it is unstable on their mediocre computers (it's remarkably solid
for open-source!), and to nudge you in the direction of using more
sophisticated language features where appropriate (e.g., list
comprehensions for purely mathematical stuff), but there are plenty of
situations where that hard-coded limit is just an unnecessary obstacle.
Sometimes you need to be able to use an inefficient script, see if the
concept works, and refactor later.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Ronaldo Persiano rcmpersiano@gmail.com
wrote:

Ronaldo,

Since you knew the for() syntax that bypasses the 10,000 element
limitation, I was wondering if you might also know the solution to this:

Say I have a list of the form:

[[x,y,z],[x2,y2,z2],....]

How would I make a for() loop that performs an action using the (i)-th and
(i+1)th elements? Normally I would use the iterator variable, but the
syntax that bypasses the 10,000 range limit doesn't have "access" to an
iterator variable.

simple example of what I would normally do:

points = [[1,1,1],[2,2,2],[3,3,3]]
for(i = [0:1:len(points-2)]){
translate([points[i][0],points[i+1][1],0])cube(1);
}

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Ronaldo Persiano rcmpersiano@gmail.com
wrote:

I think this a work around that will allow a for loop of 10,000,000

module for_n(n) {
thousands = floor(n / 1000);
remainder = n % 1000;
if(thousands)
for(a = [0 : thousands - 1], b = [0 : 999], $i = a * 1000 + b)
children();
if(remainder)
for(a = [0 : remainder - 1], $i = thousands * 1000 + a)
children();
}

for_n(1002)
echo($i);

Note that it counts from 0 to n-1

On 9 March 2017 at 04:41, David Coneff david.coneff@gmail.com wrote: