I think I would probably draw the profile it in 2d, and linear extrude to the depth of the box, then add the base as a 'flat' cube. In 2d, you can get nice rounded edges with 'offset', and that will quickly give you decent shaped supports for the screw pillars/whatever. I would decide what was important, the inside dimensions, or outside ones, and add or subtract a wall thickness to get the other. I too came into openscad via a box in thingiverse. On 08/05/2021 14:21, Terrypin via Discuss wrote: > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

Either approach is valid. It just depends on what you are most comfortable with. Since you are at the beginning of your OpenSCAD experience, build your design both ways and see which way feels best to you and your personal way of thinking. Personally, I use a little of both ways. This morning I designed a stake to use to hold signs in our garden. I started with half tubes created by subtracting stuff from a cylinder(). But then "welded" flat cubes for the shaft. Then added a wedge at the bottom to give the shaft a sharp point. Go with what best suits your thought processes. On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 9:41 AM Ray West <raywest@raywest.com> wrote: > I think I would probably draw the profile it in 2d, and linear extrude > to the depth of the box, then add the base as a 'flat' cube. In 2d, you > can get nice rounded edges with 'offset', and that will quickly give you > decent shaped supports for the screw pillars/whatever. I would decide > what was important, the inside dimensions, or outside ones, and add or > subtract a wall thickness to get the other. I too came into openscad via > a box in thingiverse. > > On 08/05/2021 14:21, Terrypin via Discuss wrote: > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenSCAD mailing list > > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

When learning a new approach/language/style, it is often best to START by being a "purist". OpenSCAD was built on a foundtion of Constructive Solid Geometry. The language itself is very different than "traditional" procedural programming languages. My recommendation is to embrace the style of the language and the style of constructing objects before exploring the ways in which you can make OpenSCAD look and feel "intuitive" to you. I am reminded of watching FORTRAN programmers trying to learn LISP. The successful ones forgot everything they knew about "programming" and dove head first into LISP. The unsuccessful ones spent a year writing FORTRAN programs in LISP syntax - and eventually gave up because they could see no advantage/difference between FORTRAN and LISP (other than that the LISP syntax looked very strange and unnatural to them). In the case of a moderately simple "box with holes plus screw locations", I recommend that you do it in the "purest" OpenSCAD style. Don't worry about fine points (which may require "impure" operations) until you have that working. Start with a brick and subtract out the parts you don't need (and perhaps then add back in pieces you do need). Worry about rounded corners, etc. later...much later. In particular - DO NOT do "what you are most comfortable with". Being a little bit uncomfortable is the way to make progress! -- Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others.

Thanks all, much appreciate those helpful suggestions. Right, now to get started. I'll begin with pure intentions - but as patience isn't a strong point I suspect I may lapse! -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

This advice isn't very useful unless you identify what you mean by being an OpenSCAD "purist". I think that making a box as a difference of cubes, or making a box by extruding a difference of squares and then unioning with a base are both "purist" OpenSCAD approaches, and equally valid. Nopscad has argued for doing everything in 2d as much as possible for efficiency. What is "impure" OpenSCAD? Using list comprehensions or (gasp!) C-style for? Kenneth Sloan wrote > When learning a new approach/language/style, it is often best to START by > being a "purist". > > OpenSCAD was built on a foundtion of Constructive Solid Geometry. The > language itself is very different than "traditional" procedural > programming languages. > > My recommendation is to embrace the style of the language and the style of > constructing objects before exploring the ways in which you can make > OpenSCAD look and feel "intuitive" to you. > > I am reminded of watching FORTRAN programmers trying to learn LISP. The > successful ones forgot everything they knew about "programming" and dove > head first into LISP. The unsuccessful ones spent a year writing FORTRAN > programs in LISP syntax - and eventually gave up because they could see no > advantage/difference between FORTRAN and LISP (other than that the LISP > syntax looked very strange and unnatural to them). > > In the case of a moderately simple "box with holes plus screw locations", > I recommend that you do it in the "purest" OpenSCAD style. Don't worry > about fine points (which may require "impure" operations) until you have > that working. Start with a brick and subtract out the parts you don't > need (and perhaps then add back in pieces you do need). Worry about > rounded corners, etc. later...much later. > > In particular - DO NOT do "what you are most comfortable with". Being a > little bit uncomfortable is the way to make progress! > > -- > Kenneth Sloan > KennethRSloan@ > Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others. > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to > discuss-leave@.openscad -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/