Nah, can't see a picture. I am not even sure if I am actually replying to
you via this extremely arcane ancient forum system right now.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:07 PM firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
1. specifications for JIS and square/Robertson screw heads? (Adrian Mariano) 2. object count (Ray West) 3. Please re-open Issue #3400 (was Re: Re: text output) (William F. Adams) 4. Re: object count (Ronaldo Persiano) 5. Re: Please re-open Issue #3400 (was Re: Re: text output) (Torsten Paul) 6. Re: specifications for JIS and square/Robertson screw heads? (larry) 7. Re: Please re-open Issue #3400 (was Re: Re: text output) (William F. Adams) 8. Re: Please re-open Issue #3400 (was Re: Re: text output) (William F. Adams) 9. Re: specifications for JIS and square/Robertson screw heads? (Ray West)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:46:30 -0400
From: Adrian Mariano email@example.com
Subject: [OpenSCAD] specifications for JIS and square/Robertson screw
To: OpenSCAD general discussion firstname.lastname@example.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I'm wondering if anybody knows a source for full specs for the JIS
cross-type screw recess or the square / Robertson recess. I've seen
some information on the JIS, but not enough detail to actually build a
model. In the case of square recess I've found a couple documents
that give some information but they don't indicate what the taper is,
and they give dimensions that are inconsistent with my actual square
drive hardware (drivers and screws).
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:26:01 +0100
From: Ray West email@example.com
Subject: [OpenSCAD] object count
To: OpenSCAD general discussion Discuss@lists.openscad.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
where or what, is the hidden volume?
Playing around, trying to get some verification that various components
make a single object, I came up with the following simple test code. If
any or all the comments are removed, it seems to be that when rendered
the volumes are always one more than the actual objects. e.g, two cubes
gives three volumes, glue 'em together, volumes become 2, and so on.
# translate([0,0,-.5]) cube([x,y,2]);
translate ([0,0,51]) cube(50);
// translate([5,5,50]) glue(40,40);
// translate ([25,25,-5])bolt(120,6);
// translate ([80,0,0]) lump();
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:30:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "William F. Adams" firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [OpenSCAD] Please re-open Issue #3400 (was Re: Re: text
To: "email@example.com" firstname.lastname@example.org
Short version, would someone please re-open:
See below for my argument on why.
Ray West asked:
out parts >> - SVGs w/ curves as opposed to polylines
What would be the mechanics of that?
As you're defining the parts/assemblies, one has all the
numbers/calculations for all this available, so writing it out then is
simple and direct.
From where are you getting the extra information from a drawing
produced in the manner that openscad generates shapes?
As a part of the design/programming process:
Openscad drawing is part of the total project.>Seems a bit like the tail
wagging the dog if you >want to clutter up the process with what appears
to be a load of extra features.
Or, one is directly and naturally extending things w/ a single tool so as
to simplify the process.
Surely it is better to have some project software, to oversee >and
connect the various requirements together.
There are more of those than are easily counted --- I think all that
effort would be better served w/in OpenSAD, and that it would be simpler
and more direct if this feature were added.
Instead of being concerned about what you can get out of openscad, >be
more concerned about what you can put in. It is a plain text file,>write
code to generate that from what you have, as an alternative to >extract
information from openscad. You know exactly the size and >position of
things in openscad when you create them, it is not as >easy to find out
where they after you've created them it is difficult >to measure distances
after an object is created.
My solution for that sort of thing has been to write modules which return
values, then to re-use those modules both for making the 3D part, and for
writing out the dimensions at need.
What would be involved in re-opening:
and assigning a bounty to it? I have a side gig, and I'm willing to donate
some percentage of money from it until such time as it's either enough to
get someone to add this feature, or something else happens.
There are lots and lots of work-arounds and other projects addressing this
sort of thing --- I've even broken down and started on one of my own:
but my life would be simpler, and I believe OpenSCAD more capable, and
flexible, and simpler to use and more accessible to a wider audience for
more complex projects if there was simply a facility for optionally writing
out one or more text files w/ user control of the extension, w/o the
clutter of "ECHO: " on every line.
If security is the issue, then let's allow a limited number of
letters/characters to begin lines for a given extension --- for .nc
(G-Code) I only need %, (, G, M, T, X, Y, Z --- presumably folks could
manage w/ a similarly safe set of characters for other purposes.
Please look at this from the viewpoint of the end-user --- there are folks
who are able/willing to download one easy to install application and to run
it on a single file --- complexity and support increase exponentially, and
the number of folks willing to use a design file drop off precipitously
when one adds the requirements of post-processing a log file --- moreover,
it's a tedious replication of effort to have to code a design in parallel,
such as when one is accessing the .json file from the Customizer:
and a real pain for me at least to have to code in some other tool, which
is a testament to how well-suited OpenSCAD is for this kind of work --- it
just needs one small modification of an existing capability (writing out to
a Log file) to open up an endless array of new capabilities.
As noted, I'm willing to donate a Shapeoko 3 Standard w/ Z-Plus to a
developer who is willing to take on this task, and once the issue is open
on GitHub I'll start putting money into it if that's not enough.