Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #189167 > unrolled thread

software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc.

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-21 20:00 +0100
    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Kent West <westk@acu.edu> - 2017-11-21 22:50 +0100
      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-21 23:10 +0100
        Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-21 23:50 +0100
          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-22 00:10 +0100
          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-22 00:10 +0100
        Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-11-22 04:10 +0100
          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Anil Duggirala <anilduggirala@fastmail.fm> - 2017-11-22 11:40 +0100
            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-22 15:00 +0100
            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-22 15:10 +0100
            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-11-22 19:10 +0100
              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> - 2017-11-22 21:40 +0100
                Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-23 02:10 +0100
                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. "hdv@gmail" <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> - 2017-11-23 08:50 +0100
                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Anil Duggirala <anilduggirala@fastmail.fm> - 2017-11-23 09:20 +0100
                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. "hdv@gmail" <hdv.jadev@gmail.com> - 2017-11-23 12:50 +0100
                      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-23 13:00 +0100
                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-23 10:10 +0100
                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-11-23 17:10 +0100
                      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-23 18:10 +0100
                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2017-11-23 13:50 +0100
                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-23 21:30 +0100
                      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-11-23 22:30 +0100
                        Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-23 23:10 +0100
                          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-11-24 03:40 +0100
                            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 03:50 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 08:10 +0100
                                Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Anil Duggirala <anilduggirala@fastmail.fm> - 2017-11-24 09:20 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 09:30 +0100
                                Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 09:40 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 09:50 +0100
                                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 11:10 +0100
                                      "Professional" [was: software to do drawings of houses, gardens,  etc.] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 12:00 +0100
                            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-11-28 05:40 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> - 2017-11-28 09:00 +0100
                                Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-11-28 13:20 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-11-28 16:20 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-28 22:00 +0100
                                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-11-29 07:50 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-28 22:10 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. "Brian J. Oney" <brian.j.oney@googlemail.com> - 2017-11-28 09:10 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-28 21:50 +0100
                    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-23 23:40 +0100
                      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 00:00 +0100
                        Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 00:30 +0100
                          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 08:00 +0100
                            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 11:20 +0100
                      Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-11-24 12:20 +0100
                        Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-11-24 13:00 +0100
                          Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-11-24 13:00 +0100
                            Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> - 2017-11-24 13:30 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-11-24 17:10 +0100
                              Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Cousin Stanley <cousinstanley@gmail.com> - 2017-11-24 18:20 +0100
                                Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2017-11-24 18:30 +0100
                                  Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Gary Roach <gary719_list1@verizon.net> - 2017-11-24 22:40 +0100
    Re: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc. Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-11-21 22:50 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#189228

Emanuel Berg wrote:

> Librecad seems good and I got it working
> instantly on a Debian box.
> 
> Only how do I draw a box and then change the
> properties to specific side lengths?
> .... 

  You might find useful information 
  at the LibreCAD site .... 

    http://librecad.org/cms/home.html

    http://wiki.librecad.org/index.php/Main_Page


  The command-line interface could be useful
  for setting particular properties .... 

    http://wiki.librecad.org/index.php/A_short_manual_for_use_from_the_command_line


  YouTube videos .... 

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=librecad&oq=librecad



-- 
Stanley C. Kitching
Human Being
Phoenix, Arizona

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189231

Cousin Stanley wrote:

> You might find useful information at the
> LibreCAD site [...]

OK, thanks Cousin Stanley and Farmer Joe, so
the short answers to my question "how do I draw
an approximate rectangle and then set the
properties to the measured values" is
1. don't do it, and 2. use the command line.

The command line doesn't look that powerful (a
tiny box in the bottom-right corner) but I'm
glad there is one. More than meets the eye.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189233

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 21:26:12 +0100
Emanuel Berg <moasen@zoho.com> wrote:

> Cousin Stanley wrote:
> 
> > You might find useful information at the
> > LibreCAD site [...]  
> 
> OK, thanks Cousin Stanley and Farmer Joe, so
> the short answers to my question "how do I draw
> an approximate rectangle and then set the
> properties to the measured values" is
> 1. don't do it, 

By preference. While you are placing the second corner of the
rectangle, the X and Y size will be shown in the status bar. That is by
far the easiest way to get a rectangle of the size you want. But you can
select a finished rectangle by dragging around it, open Tools, Modify,
Scale and you will be asked to mark a reference point, then enter X and
Y scaling values. It's up to you to know the current size, and the
scaling factors you need.

What you won't be given is a dialog box with X and Y size and
coordinates, and invited to edit them, it doesn't work that way. That's
how an object-oriented drawing program would work. In LibreCAD,
'Properties' and 'Attributes' are just types and colours of lines, and
the layer on which the line sits. These things can be edited. 

You can drag individual rectangle corners after creating it, but you
don't get a reading of overall size, you have to keep track of how much
to enlarge or shrink it. On the other hand, if you're fitting a
rectangle around other existing objects, and you don't know the size in
advance, this is the way to do it.

The Tools, Modify menu contains a large range of transformations, from
duplicating to scaling to moving to another layer to trimming two
intersecting lines so they just meet, and others. You can dock this
menu as a toolbar with icons if you wish. With CAD, there's always a
tradeoff between displaying toolbars and having enough area to work in.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189235

Joe wrote:

> What you won't be given is a dialog box with
> X and Y size and coordinates, and invited to
> edit them, it doesn't work that way.
> That's how an object-oriented drawing program
> would work.

Well, this is certainly a first that I'm an
OO guy by intuition, because yes, that is how
I would expect it to work. But that is drawing,
not CAD?

I wonder if I should get an OO drawing
application instead, and what would that be -
Dia?

Or perhaps learn CAD as that's more powerful in
the long run?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189242

On 11/23/2017 05:06 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>> What you won't be given is a dialog box with
>> X and Y size and coordinates, and invited to
>> edit them, it doesn't work that way.
>> That's how an object-oriented drawing program
>> would work.
> Well, this is certainly a first that I'm an
> OO guy by intuition, because yes, that is how
> I would expect it to work. But that is drawing,
> not CAD?
>
> I wonder if I should get an OO drawing
> application instead, and what would that be -
> Dia?
>
> Or perhaps learn CAD as that's more powerful in
> the long run?
>
Learning CAD is a hard road, but a worthwhile one, I think, because it 
is so versatile.
Which one you learn will make some difference, depending on what you wind up
wanting to do with it. I learned some AutoCad 25 years ago, and I got 
pretty good
(but not expert) at it, and the advantages are that many other software and
hardware packages work with it. If you need to make PC boards, you can make
a negative directly (or almost directly) but you can also convert to 
professional
pcb manufacture with available software, you can input the files to 
several other
programs, and some other programs can produce files that AutoCad can 
directly
import, so you can add to the images. AutoCad is priced out of the consumer
market altogether, but DraftSight uses all (or almost?) all the same 
commands,
and will import and export in the same file protocols as AutoCad, so all the
advantages of AutoCad are there for you free for home use, or for a very 
reasonable
price if you need to use it professionally.  Then if for some reason you 
really need
AutoCAd, you will have the skills to do so. Any CAD program has a steep 
learning
curve, and I don't think the skills from one transfer all that easily to 
a different
one with different commands and methods of entry of parameters, so whatever
you pick out and learn is going to be the one you stick with. If you 
need interfacing
with other software, then something compatible with AutoCad is what you 
need.
If you can live with ONLY the CAD routine you learned, then it will not 
matter
whether you use a Linux-specific program or not.  I do not disparage the 
hard
work some devs have put into Linux CAD routines, but I don't think 
that's the
way to go if you're going to do some serious CAD work over the course of 
time.
Just my 2¢ worth.
--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189244

Doug wrote:

> I do not disparage the hard work some devs
> have put into Linux CAD routines, but I don't
> think that's the way to go if you're going to
> do some serious CAD work over the course
> of time.

... why not?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189249

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 03:39:58AM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> 
> > I do not disparage the hard work some devs
> > have put into Linux CAD routines, but I don't
> > think that's the way to go if you're going to
> > do some serious CAD work over the course
> > of time.
> 
> ... why not?

Because that's what Autodesk wants you to believe.

For those of us around a little longer, perhaps you remember that
time when GNU/Linux started to get some traction. At that time,
Microsoft used to say that well, an OS wasn't that hard, but for
something really complex like a web browser... the free software
couldn't really pull that off.

Shortly thereafter Mozilla smashed Internet Explorer into the
ground.

Closed software vendors want you to believe that Professional (TM)
is only possible as proprietary software, and some people (hi,
Doug: no offense intended) swallow this bait, including hook and
sinker (after all, closed software vendors put "some" money into
that, as part of their publicity operation).

This is one of the most damaging mechanisms to free software these
days. Vendors have become much more subtle: watch Microsoft deploying
Linux in their cloud and trumpeting "We love Open Source[1]" --
behind the scenes they are massaging decision makers[2] to fear the
GPL (because this one has teeth).

Pretty disgusting, actually :-(

Cheers

[1] See? They don't want Free Software. They don't want you, the
   user, to be free -- they just want a free ride.
[2] If necessary wining and dining them, to the tune of $$$

- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAloXxPMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbrIwCbBLuEL7ULpsblXMH5d9HkP++E
vWYAnAo1HQov0ofroulQHttusD0FLZ3n
=RO8T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189252

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017, at 02:06 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 03:39:58AM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > 
> > > I do not disparage the hard work some devs
> > > have put into Linux CAD routines, but I don't
> > > think that's the way to go if you're going to
> > > do some serious CAD work over the course
> > > of time.
> > 

I would think precisely the opposite. Gaining control over the software
you use will prove really useful only when you are planning to use it
for a long time. As an example, I would imagine that a serious person
might require a very specific functionality from the software, then they
could just write the code to achive this function.

Check out Varicad (.com) too, its is propriatary but you can try it for
free.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189253

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 03:16:08AM -0500, Anil Duggirala wrote:

[...]

> I would think precisely the opposite. Gaining control over the software
> you use will prove really useful only when you are planning to use it
> for a long time.

The question is... what is useful for us all, not only for *you* or
*me*?

More and more, not gaining control over your software means your
vendor gains control over you (cf. the stampede to the cloud, apps,
many vendor's move to pay-per-use and subscription models, etc. etc.)

To have a remote chance of having a say on this, we "consumers"
have to bundle forces.

No, I don't want to be reduced to a gullet.

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAloX1/cACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaw1gCeL3eC4qdpdcHAKMg7aZ3Mx21w
O5IAnjKnuRWH604BO1HIh+qygVnmtcJh
=Lhm4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189255

t wrote:

> For those of us around a little longer,
> perhaps you remember that time when GNU/Linux
> started to get some traction. At that time,
> Microsoft used to say that well, an OS wasn't
> that hard, but for something really complex
> like a web browser... the free software
> couldn't really pull that off.

OK, so now the current level of
"impossibleness" is a FOSS CAD?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189256

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:33:18AM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> t wrote:
> 
> > For those of us around a little longer,
> > perhaps you remember that time when GNU/Linux
> > started to get some traction. At that time,
> > Microsoft used to say that well, an OS wasn't
> > that hard, but for something really complex
> > like a web browser... the free software
> > couldn't really pull that off.
> 
> OK, so now the current level of
> "impossibleness" is a FOSS CAD?

Yeah. But generally, whatever Professional (TM). We all know
that free software is just a hobby (or something for cheapskates).

Sorry, I've my sarcastic day today. Must be the approaching
winter ;-P

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAloX2+MACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaLpgCfeUyRXgIG/UVCR6xgCzRFynU2
0FkAmwf5oKKrUZhtoJxp3CfzItpa4zrM
=O8NA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189257

t wrote:

> Yeah. But generally, whatever Professional
> (TM).

Here, does "professional" denote some quality
with the software or is it about who uses it
and how?

Because when I chop firewood, I do it with the
most expansive axe in the hardware store.
While this doesn't make me a professional, if
it was too difficult for mere mortals to
handle, there wouldn't be a hardware store to
begin with. Or at least it would be the size of
a spacy apartment and not a stadium.

So as for me, I don't really care how other
people use the software as long as it is there
for me, professional or not.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189259 — "Professional" [was: software to do drawings of houses, gardens, etc.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:00:27AM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> t wrote:
> 
> > Yeah. But generally, whatever Professional
> > (TM).
> 
> Here, does "professional" denote some quality
> with the software or is it about who uses it
> and how?

Neither nor. It was sarcastic. But I guess you
got that anyway ;-)

> Because when I chop firewood, I do it with the
> most expansive axe in the hardware store.

Strange. I tend to take the most appropriate for
the job (if I'm going to chop wood every winter,
I try to get one which is durable). But I usually
don't look at the price as long as it is roughly
whithin budget. It's not the label I'm after (and
yes, the price is just part of the label, as you
can see in Apple products, but also Gucci, whatever).

Otherwise I might end up with Ethernet cable for
audiophiles [1] [2]

Cheers

[1] https://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/to-the-audiophile-this-10000-ethernet-cable-apparently-makes-sense/
[2] https://www.whathifi.com/comment/412677#comment-412677

- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAloX+ewACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ8ywCeNFTtIE757vMuHMzNni9wy5Ym
KjQAn0Mid9sE3ULvFqDhW5AUYVXI0X7h
=STvk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189347

On 23.11.17 21:35, Doug wrote:
> 
> On 11/23/2017 05:06 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> > 
> > > What you won't be given is a dialog box with
> > > X and Y size and coordinates, and invited to
> > > edit them, it doesn't work that way.
> > > That's how an object-oriented drawing program
> > > would work.
> > Well, this is certainly a first that I'm an
> > OO guy by intuition, because yes, that is how
> > I would expect it to work. But that is drawing,
> > not CAD?
> > 
> > I wonder if I should get an OO drawing
> > application instead, and what would that be -
> > Dia?
> > 
> > Or perhaps learn CAD as that's more powerful in
> > the long run?
> > 
> Learning CAD is a hard road, but a worthwhile one, I think, because it is so
> versatile.
> Which one you learn will make some difference, depending on what you wind up
> wanting to do with it.

After trying to get various GUI drawing packages to function at the most
basic level, and failing to produce anything, I'm just finishing the 8
drawings for my new house build (floor plan, elevations, sections, and
site plan), using raw postscript. That has proven a better fit for a
retired programmer.

I just made up functions for wall sections, windows, smoke alarms, ...,
and then placed them programmatically at the desired coordinates, with
the desired orientation. There is never any doubt about where a
structure is located, and wall lengths are auto-calculated by summing
the lengths of individual components. Using that in a "dimension"
primitive ensures that the annotated dimension is real. And saving some
floorplan offsets in variables ensured that the corresponding features
were accurately placed in the sections on the next page.

And a variable was used for wallheight. When I was talked into changing
from 2.4m to 2.7m ceilings, editing one variable instantly lifted the
roof on four elevation and two section drawings. 

The 8 detailed drawings required around 800 lines of postscript, but
that's creeping up toward 900 now that I'm adding notes and
specifications.

It's faster for me, because GUI produced nothing, but not everyone
enjoys first programming a stack-based language for a door:

/door                            % S: length (door width)
{     dup                        
/wall_length exch wall_length add 60 add def % Keep global variable outside dict scope.
      1 dict begin              % 60 = 2*30 jambs.
      /length exch def          % Take length off the stack.
      30 100 box
      currentpoint translate     
      0 length lineto length length length 0 length arct 30 100 box gstroke
      gsave 200 300 moveto length buf cvs show                       % Size text.
      grestore
      end                                          % End of local var scope.  
} def

but after that, "820 door" chains an 820 mm wide door on the end of the
current wall, in the current orientation, with lines for the open door
and swing arc, plus the dimension in text. The variable wall_length is
kept in global scope, because it accumulates the whole wall length for
dimensioning purposes.

If I were building more than one house, it might almost be worth taking
the thing beyond a one-off convenience hack, but the output is currently
in for planning approval, and building approval will hopefully not
require major edits. (It is, however, a delight to be able to edit my
drawings with Vim. :-))

For viewing, ps2pdf, then xpdf or whatever
Applications->Graphics->Document_Viewer is in reality, do the job.
It's worth knowing that 'r' causes xpdf to reload the pdf file.
And when diving into postscript, it's worthwhile having downloaded the
BLUEBOOK.PDF first.

Erik

-- 
The meta-problem here is that the configuration wizard does all the approved
rituals (GUI with standardized clicky buttons, help popping up in a browser,
etc. etc.) but doesn't have the central attribute these are supposed to achieve:
discoverability. That is, the quality that every point in the interface has
prompts and actions attached to it from which you can learn what to do next.
                                   - Eric Raymond, in "The Luxury of Ignorance."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189350

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tuesday, 28 Nov 2017 at 15:37, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> After trying to get various GUI drawing packages to function at the most
> basic level, and failing to produce anything, I'm just finishing the 8
> drawings for my new house build (floor plan, elevations, sections, and
> site plan), using raw postscript. That has proven a better fit for a
> retired programmer.

Wow, definitely old skool!  It's been years since I wrote raw
postscript.

On that note, did you look at xfig?  Not a CAD program, as such, but
quite good for drawings of the sort you are doing maybe.  Also old
skool...

-- 
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50, org 9.1.2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189356

On 28.11.17 07:58, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 Nov 2017 at 15:37, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > After trying to get various GUI drawing packages to function at the most
> > basic level, and failing to produce anything, I'm just finishing the 8
> > drawings for my new house build (floor plan, elevations, sections, and
> > site plan), using raw postscript. That has proven a better fit for a
> > retired programmer.
> 
> Wow, definitely old skool!  It's been years since I wrote raw
> postscript.
> 
> On that note, did you look at xfig?  Not a CAD program, as such, but
> quite good for drawings of the sort you are doing maybe.  Also old
> skool...

Interesting ... I had not heard of it previously. Looking at it on
wikipedia, I see "Most operations in Xfig are performed using the
mouse," For the first, I've had no luck mouse-wrangling GUI drawing
packages - it's all so counter-intuitive, and nothing works for me. For
the second, after my 8 drawings I cannot imagine how I'd mouse-wrangle
something as simple as a wall cross-section with complete positional and
dimensional precision. In postscript, it's just:

/wall_height 2700 def
%    X  Y         X      Y       
   3600 0 moveto 100 wall_height box   % Let's put it at 3600 mm from origin,
                                       % at floor level.

(OK, I have a "box" function, as that's not native postscript.)

If I used a mouse, all the walls would differ in thickness, and only be
approximately in the right position. Yeah, there's probably snap-to-grid,
but that has to be too fine to add anything, if it's to handle arbitrary
dimensions. If you have to create with the mouse, then mouse-select a
side to give it a precise dimension via a dialogue box, then it seems
easier to skip the mouse-wrangling, as it doesn't add anything.

The only disadvantages are that programming a suite of artifacts to place
would drive 99% of users nuts at the outset, and drawing with text would
finish that job, despite the fact that drawing 14 solar panels on the
roof was just:

      14 { 1650 500 box 70 0 rmoveto } repeat stroke   % PV panels

(They're only 500 high, as viewed, because the roof is at 30°)

Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189363

On Tue 28 Nov 2017 at 23:12:19 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote:

> If I used a mouse, all the walls would differ in thickness, and only be
> approximately in the right position. Yeah, there's probably snap-to-grid,
> but that has to be too fine to add anything, if it's to handle arbitrary
> dimensions.

But generally, wall thicknesses are not arbitrary. For example, an
internal wall is going to be constructed on 2x4 framing. With an
architectural CAD program, one click would increase that to 2x6
if, say, you decided you wanted a pocket door. Likewise if you
wanted more insulation or stiffness in a particular exterior wall.

> If you have to create with the mouse, then mouse-select a
> side to give it a precise dimension via a dialogue box, then it seems
> easier to skip the mouse-wrangling, as it doesn't add anything.
> 
> The only disadvantages are that programming a suite of artifacts to place
> would drive 99% of users nuts at the outset, 

But those artifacts correspond with the in-built preferences of the
CAD program. Many of the dimensions you mention aren't as arbitrary
as they might appear once you consider the consequences; door and
window sizes, ceiling heights, etc.

But a solution depends on how much help with designing is needed, and
how much is just drafting.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189381

Erik Christiansen wrote:

> Interesting ... I had not heard of it
> previously. Looking at it on wikipedia, I see
> "Most operations in Xfig are performed using
> the mouse," For the first, I've had no luck
> mouse-wrangling GUI drawing packages - it's
> all so counter-intuitive, and nothing works
> for me. For the second, after my 8 drawings
> I cannot imagine how I'd mouse-wrangle
> something as simple as a wall cross-section
> with complete positional and dimensional
> precision. In postscript, it's just:
>
> /wall_height 2700 def % X Y X Y 3600 0 moveto
> 100 wall_height box % Let's put it at 3600 mm
> from origin, % at floor level.

This is, again, exactly what I want. Is there
a collection somewhere of the postscript syntax
or how did you pick it up?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189391

On 28.11.17 21:41, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> 
> > After trying to get various GUI drawing
> > packages to function at the most basic level,
> > and failing to produce anything, I'm just
> > finishing the 8 drawings for my new house
> > build (floor plan, elevations, sections, and
> > site plan), using raw postscript. That has
> > proven a better fit for a retired programmer.
> > [...]
> 
> Sounds *great* and my thinking/style is exactly
> the same!
> 
> Do you mind sharing the source and Makefile?

It's not necessary to build anything - I've just defined a few
postscript procedures at the start of the postscript document.
Job done.

On 28.11.17 21:45, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Erik Christiansen wrote:
> 
> > Interesting ... I had not heard of it
> > previously. Looking at it on wikipedia, I see
> > "Most operations in Xfig are performed using
> > the mouse," For the first, I've had no luck
> > mouse-wrangling GUI drawing packages - it's
> > all so counter-intuitive, and nothing works
> > for me. For the second, after my 8 drawings
> > I cannot imagine how I'd mouse-wrangle
> > something as simple as a wall cross-section
> > with complete positional and dimensional
> > precision. In postscript, it's just:
> >
> > /wall_height 2700 def % X Y X Y 3600 0 moveto
> > 100 wall_height box % Let's put it at 3600 mm
> > from origin, % at floor level.
> 
> This is, again, exactly what I want. Is there
> a collection somewhere of the postscript syntax
> or how did you pick it up?

The Adobe book "Postscript Language Reference", third edition, is useful
for looking up commands, but the bulk of the text is prolix and obtusely
dense reading.

Better for readability and examples is the BLUEBOOK.PDF, which is the
first hit on a google for "postscript blue book".

Two methods of specifying paper size are required for both printers and
software packages to pick it up. I found a way that works, by googling.

What I've put together is only a beginning - enough to satisfactorily
complete one drafting job of 8 drawings. It's only one way to do it.
(And a couple of things would need generalising, e.g the WC and kitchen
sink are currently just drawn in situ, rather than being in a procedure.

One thing which makes editing 840 lines of postscript more manageable
has nothing to do with the language. Enabling Vim's text folding renders
the entire document as 26 lines of top level headings. That greatly
simplifies navigating. (Though I also use search on the comments.)

If there's a place to put an example and some very basic howto guff -
enough for someone to get started, then I could clean up what I have,
and put together a little bit of intro text. (There'd need to be some
explanation of the way I chain and abut walls of differing rotation to
build rooms and dividers.)

After that, the seed can be grown into anything you care to program.

Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189382

Speaking of pic(1), this URL in the man page is broken

       Brian  W. Kernighan, PIC — A Graphics Language for Typesetting
       (User Manual).   AT&T  Bell  Laboratories,  Computing  Science
       Technical Report No. 116
       <http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cstr/116.ps.gz>  (revised  May,
       1991).

And not just any guy's book that is missing...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web