Smallest Grid size (not Snap to Grid size)

[Tom Springer]

Working with English Decimal units, appears smallest Grid (not the Snap to Grid) size is 0.39in, equivalent to 1cm.  Snap to Grid size allows down to 0.01in

Is the minimum Grid size 1cm (0.39 in), or a bug that the 2 are not consistent? 
If 0.39in is the intentional lower limit, ok.  I was hoping to get 0.25in for a grid so I could design some objects.

[Future-Digital]

Hi, David;

I also would like to have .25. It certainly would have helped if BOTH the smallest and the SnapTo could be synced at .25
inch.

Even better would be having both sync at .01 inch.

Bill

[Jeff]

I absolutely agree with f-d. one hundredth of an inch cooresponds roughly to an N scale inch, so it would be very convenient for structure design.

[Mike from CT]

I absolutely agree with f-d. one hundredth of an inch cooresponds roughly to an N scale inch, so it would be very convenient for structure design.

Well.... 1.6 inches, anyway

David's problem is that AnyRail is released for both inch users and metrics users.  The system *is* synched - 10 mm minimum for the drawing grid and 1 mm for the snap to grid....


(BTW, I don't have an opinion, either way.  But Plastruct *does* make styrene sheet that .01 inches thick, just for Jeff, no doubt.   )

[Jeff]

David's problem is that AnyRail is released for both inch users and metrics users.

It's not a "problem", Mike, it's an OPPORTUNITY

Certainly, Mike. They make that just because I explained to them what a humungous pain-in-the-patootie it is to build scale structures without it. 'Roughly' it is, however, it comes awfully close to the real-life 1 5/8" depth of a 2x4.

[Mike from CT]

David's problem is that AnyRail is released for both inch users and metrics users.

It's not a "problem", Mike, it's an OPPORTUNITY

Certainly, Mike. They make that just because I explained to them what a humungous pain-in-the-patootie it is to build scale structures without it. 'Roughly' it is, however, it comes awfully close to the real-life 1 5/8" depth of a 2x4.

I know.  All my completely scratchbuilt structures are built over architecturally correct frames of 2x4's.  (BTW, I'm not making that up.  You just have to understand what a "null set" is.... )

More seriously, I'm not sure that's the greatest justification, since AR wasn't really designed to be an architectural drawing tool - and you *can* draw a line that is .01" wide and space *them* using a .1" grid (16" scale inches - std distance for studs in the US.)

[Jeff]

Mike,

All I can say is that a snap-to grid of .01 would be a real help to me. The question of "AR wasn't really designed to be an architectural drawing tool" doesn't come up, as far as I can see. If that were true, there probably wouldn't be anything like a User Object set of tools or any such thing built in.

Personally, all I want is a simple tool where I can design things like stair sets and ladders with some ability to print it out 1:1. Then I can get to my design work and I wouldn't be worrying your sensibilities.

[RhB_HJ]

Oh dear! has anyone ever considered to design whatever ten times larger and then print it at 1:10? Or is it just simpletons like me who would do it that way?    

BTW I also hate wearing hair shirts!

[Jeff]

No, it's pretty much just you....   

[RhB_HJ]

No, it's pretty much just you....   

That's OK, exclusivity doesn't need to be a bad thing.

[Mike from CT]

[That's OK, exclusivity doesn't need to be a bad thing

Some of us tend to think of it as "pioneering research".   

(Note, none of my comments should be construed as having any relationship to the debate at hand.  But the debate at hand has little relationship to the topic at hand, so I plead "Not guilty" to hijacking the thread - yet again.)

[RhB_HJ]

Hmmmm 

Way back when, first year  in trade school; we were introduced to the odd (weird) notion of drawing details in a larger scale e.g instead of 1:1 do it 4:1 (or whatever).
And it very conveniently applies to AR if one is in the mood to do part drawings for structures or whatever.
But getting back to the "Grid" size, I don't get it why one would even go down to a 1" Grid. I'm happy to set the Grid to 12" — gives me an instant view of what the footprint is.
But since I do most things in metric I usually set it to 0.5m or 1m and the snap-to grid I can set to 1mm if that's what I need (very seldom). If someone will give me an example why one would need that size grid I'd appreciate it. As is, I don't get it.

[Mike from CT]

Don't look at me....

My grid is 12", my snap to is 1" (and usually gets in the way when placing anything other than track, since tracks don't snap to anything except other tracks, but I like using it to eyeball track placement.)

[David]

If I understand correctly, this has all to do with creating user objects or drawing in general.

How about a 'scale' function:
Select the lines and surfaces, and have a function to scale them by a factor or a percentage.

David.

[Tom Springer]

I wanted the smaller grid size for kit-bashing some UDOs ... when putting the (carved-out) parts of some together into a new custom configuration with some additions, I needed to be able to 'see' the grid smaller than 0.5 inches to get the alignment correct.

For example, I wanted to make a 0.55 x 0.55 inch surface (rectangle) in N-scale to add to an existing item.  An item of that size is so small that I couldn't get the mouse to select it to move it around without changing the 'control point' size way down (and of course not forgetting to reset it back when done); ok, understand that.  After selecting the surface, using snap-to-grid and attempting movement, I get the upper-left corner positioned, but not exactly where I wanted it.  So I lowered the snap-to-grid size way down in an attempt to be able to 'see' the grid position so I could move the item using the 'move surface' function and setting the control point I wanted to align at the right grid dimension.  (Just have to be careful not to accidentally twitch the mouse when re-selecting the surface or snap-to-grid being enabled might accidentally move the item.)

Getting a grid size of 0.25 inches would do the job (for me), and that grid size should allow those lines to be visable on the screen, and I'd not have to deal with snap-to-grid.

Don't know if a scaling option would work for me, but it's a possibility, as long as one could scale in both directions; certainly worth having, if not for this, then for taking a UDO in one scale and re-creating it in a different scale; being able to do that sure would make it easy to create an object in one scale (once) and 'replicate' it in another scale; might even get more UDOs of existing kits that way.