You are totally right that reusing and adapting parts over multiple repositories is exactly the goal and in that way the parts you are making are perfect. And you are so right that there should be an easy way of seeing the whole project structure. I guess what got me confused on the strategy is the decision to separate the assembly from the cutlayout into distinct projects which in my mind are one project. Ultimately, organizing your parts however works, I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t bugs or computing issues that were driving you to separate your projects so thoroughly.
1 Like
no. I think my only other structural problem with abundance at the moment is the variable size of the node programming screen. I understand that you are limiting it on purpose, so I work generally until it is full then that encourages me to make a new mollecule. I don’t think I would really make them all on one screen even if I could. The problem is that when I look at my project on different screens it smooshes it differently. I really think because it is a spatially organized programming system that there should be a default display that can be accessed across devices. My projects are illegible on phones at the moment but I am very pleased with the level of complexity that I am working at.
Also I have vision problems and have had visually handicaped family members and think it is important for web based things to be able to be easily zoomable When webpages can’t be zoomed with two fingers on a phone or zoomed in on a computer using the browser zoom it is a big problem.
I was not cutting the whole project at once because I thought it would be easier to fit one arm at a time on a sheet of plywood and it appealed to my sense of modular organization.
Yes the mobile version is something i haven’t really gotten around to fixing beyond the basics. By default display you mean a persistent spacing? And yes how much it changes/smooshes between devices is not ideal
Wait so why not work with more interior molecules and a larger atom size? Like in the case of this project
When I am trying to make these things fully parametric where I could change the basic variables to make then entire design change I find myself pulling pieces and measurements from one part to another regularly. I am also designing one group of things together. I can pass variables into molecules and then do the calculations again but I have been pretty happy with the way that I work. I like to see most of the project all at once. I have been grouping things on the screen as discrete units and have been experimenting with pulling them off into molecules if they only have a few inputs and a few outputs but it is less efficient and then I have to work up and down the stack trying to keep track of things. I really like working at about this level where I can see and adjust all of the parts together and pass things back and forth. I like seeing how the smaller parts fit into the end design as I go as well. I find myself pulling the current end part over to the output so that I can use it as a reference for the other parts that I am making and positioning. Position is a big part of it. When I am working inside a molecule I can’t see any of the other references and it is much more work to either recalculate or pull in the numbers that I need.
1 Like
On my screen I do have the circle size turned down so that it all fits nicely.
Each group of this could probably be a molecule but then I couldn’t pull back and forth and in some projects where I am moving a part sequentially it wouldn’t work to make a molecule for that. And to adjust things I would have to move up and down in the stack.
1 Like
this is awesome, cant wait to build one, is there any way that you could make it a 3d printable file tho? i dont have any 1 cm wood to cut out rn
You can download it as an stl from inside abundance and try it. here:
Maslow4_Crosshairs_for_centering.stl (2.8 MB)
Let me know how it works, I have not tried it yet. I measured the holes with calipers so it might need a little sanding to get it to fit. The coolest way to print it would be in clear plastic and then to tape some leds inside the holes.
My plan was to loop some thread to make an x at the top and bottom of the little cylinder so that you could line up the two x’s for accuracy.
I have set the mirror at 60 degrees so that you can see it from a bit above the plane of the wood. Again, untested.
Abundance is parameterized so it is easy to adjust any of the angle or size things if it doesn’t work the first time.
2 Likes
thank you, i’ll report back once i’ve tried it
1 Like
Oh, and one other reason not to work in subsidiary molecules is that they can only pass one thing out. I can get around this with shapes by using tags but a lot of what I am doing that is repetitive is calculations used across multiple parts. If I try to put the calculations into a molecule it can only return one value when really what I am doing is customizing a whole set of numbers that i reuse in different parts of the project. Those calculations have to be available on each layer and part of the project.
I use the input variables and calculations like a palette and have to recreate it for each new molecule. I suppose I would be interested in a molecule that could carry a set of values or carry a set of calculations with multiple numerical outputs. Then I could make it once and then take it into each molecule as needed. Right now a lot of my time has been setting up the variables and structure every time I go up or down a layer.
1 Like
@mo-at-maslow tldr using the word tree to describe the stack of nested molecules. for me up means going into molecules, down means moving towards the final project.
Things that would help working inside molecules
- to see the tree to navigate and archive external versions of molecules
- to turn on and off a ghost of the the output of molecules down the tree from inside upstream molecules
- a shared variable, number or data space up and down the tree.
1 Like
No, this all makes sense. I totally understand why you want access to the whole tree of molecules. I’m not sure when this will be implemented but it’s definitely something i’ll be thinking about. Thanks so much for all this feedback, it’s awesome and really helpful!
2 Likes
Also saw in another thread that you’re trying to model printing presses. Would love to hear more about that. I use a lot of print in my work and would definitely be interested in contributing to modeling some presses although i’m not super mechanically inclined 
.
2 Likes
The printing press project is a slower and long term one but I will keep you informed with progress
1 Like