#Openscad center code#
#Openscad center plus#

align() is less fluent because 'align plus zero' isn't English for the concept we want to convey, it sounds more like algebra, 'align+0', where 'align' is in the position of a variable. I haven't been able to come up with better words than these, which preserve fluency. 'Above' and 'below' don't just connote height, they are generally used for comparing magnitudes or quantities, such as temperatures, or dollar amounts. Unfortunately, the abbreviation align('above') is not as fluent. The latter reads out loud as 'align above zero'. I think align('center') is fluent, and so is align(). The more the use of the API has that language like flow, the more fluent it is.' Reference:, 'The key test of fluency, for us, is the Domain Specific Language quality. It's English-enough that you can guess the meaning, using your knowledge of English.

#Openscad center code#

The key idea is that, when you read the code out loud, it reads like English, or at least like some kind of pidgin English. In order to make code readable for non-professionals, the best practice is to design a 'fluent interface'. Here's the rationale for 'above' and said 'I agree, with a small fear that this may make code less readable for non-professionals.' The align operator has the same power as the center= argument proposed by #265. It places the cube in the +X,+Y,+Z octant, adjacent to the origin. It centres the cube on the origin.Īlign('above') cube(10) is the same as cube(10, center=false). - move the top of the bounding box to coordinate n on the specified axisĪlign('center') cube(10) is the same as cube(10, center=true).

- move the bottom of the bounding box to coordinate n on the specified axis.- move the center of the bounding box to coordinate n on the specified axis.In general, the arguments are align(all=aspec, x=aspec, y=aspec, z=aspec)child where each aspec argument defaults to undef. The align() operator is more general than the center= argument supported by some geometric primitives, and can also replace most uses of the halign= and valign= arguments of text(). To match the capabilities of halign and valign in text(), you can also request to be centred, above or below a specific coordinate value on a particular axis. For each axis, you can align the shape to be centred, above (in the positive range), below (in the negative range), or specify no change. To make the promised rounded box, take the hull() over four cylinders, one located at each of four edges.The align() operator aligns a shape with respect to the X, Y and Z axes. Hull() takes any number of objects and builds their convex hull the action is like wrapping cling film tightly around the shapes and solidifying the result. If you’ve never really understood hull() before, this is a great place to start. I’ve even seen people make rounding tools and difference them out of the model.įor me, the most intuitive method is to place the four cylinders that would be the box’s round edges, and connect them all together with hull(). Another method, that renders a lot faster, is to draw a 2D square, offset() it with rounded edges, and extrude this upwards. One is to draw a 3D box and minkowski() around it with an appropriate cylinder. There are multiple ways to make a rounded box. If you use OpenSCAD and your creations end up with hard edges, or you spend too much time figuring out angles, or if you just want to experience another way to get the job done, read on! And with a little ingenuity, hull() can provide a nearly complete modelling strategy all on its own. Hull() solves a number of newbie problems: making things round and connecting things together. Hull() does just what it says on the can - creates a convex hull around the objects that are passed to it as children - but that turns out to be invaluable. What’s your favorite OpenSCAD command? Perhaps it’s intersection() or difference()? Or are you a polygon() and extrude() modeler? For me, the most useful, and maybe most often overlooked, function is hull().