0 Offset Vs 12 Offset

[Damaris]

Thisis very silly, considering that workflow was very common in AutoCAD (my dad is a civil engineer, and would let me use his copies of AutoCAD, I used even DOS AutoCAD on a 286, and even then, many of my, and my dad sketches, started by making some lines, and offseting then, and offsetting the offsets like there is no tomorrow... For example to create grid-like patterns, or to create parallel lines, for example when drawing a "diagonal" room in a house... by drawing the first wall, and then offsetting the room size to create the other side, and then using snapping to draw the reaming 2 walls).

The main purpose of the offset function in Fusion 360 os to offest a complet profile by a certain distance and do so parametrically, so you don;t have to manually elect every line, arc etc. offset it, constrain it properly and then dimension the offset. Altough, you can of course do that as well. While this newer parametric form of the offset tool can certainlty be improved and has limitaitons, it is very powerful for that purpose.

However, it is worth pointing out that Fusion offset is much more powerful than the AutoCAD offset tool, because of its associativity. You can change the original and the offset will update accordingly. You can change the offset distance, and the offset updates (including changes in the number of curves in the offset). And, this is where the "offset of an offset" gets tricky. If we start with this (the inner curve is the offset):

So, you can see that the complexity of "offset of offset" can be a challenge: New curves have been added that need to be tracked in the secondary offset. So, we had a choice to make: Either release it with this limitation, assuming that there is value in an intelligent offset, even with the limitation, or hold it back until we addressed this. We chose the former. I think it was a good choice, especially compared to the primitive offset that existed in Fusion prior to this change.

Is this feature of needing to only offset from the original wire entity going to change so we can offset an offset. The way it is doesn't feel user friendly and adds unneeded steps and time to drawing simple geometry. Is it possible to copy an entity multiple times?

Let's imagine for a moment that I want to make a cylindrical case. It has in inner diameter D, and a thickness, X. Let's further imagine that it mates inside a lid part of thickness Y. Now, these are going to be real parts, so they need some nominal clearance, Z.

Once you want something at all more complex, offset *should* be the right tool. It sounds like this might be possible if you create offsets of X, X+Z, and X+Y+Z. This might be "eased" by referencing the earlier equations, but that's still a terrible workflow.

If I've got several concentric circles to sketch, I sketch one of them, and then offset the rest from it. In my mind, the two sets of concentric circles below are functionally the same, and the time delta between creating one set and creating the other set is 1.042892-seconds.

Now, doing the same thing with a more complex shape, made up of several lines, arcs, etc., would be more of a hassle to do as per the right-hand method above, because you'd have to re-dimension and re-constrain every element, causing more work and more clutter of dimensions and constraints. But since they're functionally the same in my mind, I'm just as happy to do it as per the left-hand method above.

I realized a couple of weeks ago that I had become so accustomed to using workarounds that I didn't even think about it any more. I would simply delete and try a different tact until I got something/anything to work.

Real world example: We have a PCB in an electronics box with a tongue and groove seal. That e-box is inside the enclosure that is the rest of our device. These enclosures are both to be injection molded. They are shapes other than circles or squares because 1) injection molded and 2) users have aesthetic preferences for shapes other than squares and circles.

Sure, for all practical purposes, those two answers have the same result for users right now. But the intent/attitude is quite different between them. One of them says, "Screw you guys, we don't care about you, deal with it," while the other says, "We know, you're right, we're trying to get to it."

And I don't think my defense was terrible. Okay, you've got fifteen offsets to keep track of. But still, it's just addition/subtraction to relate the total values to the individual values you would prefer. So you've got fifteen simple addition or subtraction problems to do. Or, as mentioned earlier, you can have them done for you by setting up your offset dimensions with formulas. So at worst, you've got to enter fourteen formulas or whatever. Personally, I consider that level of problem to be a minor nuisance...not a major catastrophe.

I've posted variations of this many times over the years, but the basic problem we have is limited resources and nearly unlimited requests. And, there is this very natural tendency to see each problem that exists as super important, because that is what you are currently experiencing at the moment. Yes, I agree it is bad that you cannot offset an offset. But, at the risk of putting down my own product, there are hundreds of quirks, bugs, deficiencies, etc. in Fusion. Everyone sees their own issue as critical, and expresses outrage that it is not fixed. I would love to fix the offset-of-an-offset issue. I would love to fix the "can't use driven dimensions in an equation" issue. I would love to add more joint types (we are looking at that one, @chrisplyler ). @TheCADWhisperer beats us up daily about the sketch solver (though even he has to admit it has gotten better). We have serious performance concerns. Anyway, you get the idea. We have to take this entire soup of outrage and figure out which few projects get the funding. This one is on the list, certainly. We will fix it someday, I just cannot promise when that will be. In the meantime, there is a workaround, though I understand it is not great.

#1 -- I have 2 borders which I have offset so both are visible. one has a negative offset, which makes its symbol in the legend apparently invisible. Is there a way to remedy this in the legend formatting?

For both of these, I know I can do a work around, including convert to graphics. But I am wondering if there is anything in the current Pro Legend Formatting that I need to learn. I am sure I will be doing a bunch of drafts for this person an am not ready to work with them as graphics yet.

Column management has been a bit tricky with legends, especially the algorithms used to flow items across columns, and it is not the most intuitive experience for many. You are not doing anything wrong. If you want more control over the columns try using the "Adjust font size" strategy.

Is there any way to have the legend ignore the offset for lines? I have offsets for overlapping lines and it looks awful in the legend- I just want to show the line color but instead all of the lines in the legends are showing at different positions relative to the labels in the legend based on my offsets. I hate making a legend graphics to get around this. Any plans to bring cartographic representations into Pro?

There isn't a way to have the legend ignore the offset for lines. The legend is designed to reflect the symbols as they are designated in the map. Usually this is the best solution as it provides the most accurate legend, but sometimes it can create alignment issues or size issues like you are seeing. In those cases I generally duplicate the troublesome layers in my map and adjust the symbology to not include offsets. I turn those layers off in my map, but on in my legend. This allows the legend to still be dynamically connected to the map instead of having to convert to graphics.

I am using bootstrap version 4 beta version ( latest not alpha). It is good. But i'm wondering in the new version of bootstrap they removed offset class. I will thankful if someone give me the solution how can I make a offset using flexbox with any amount. I mean before I used .col-offset-2 this means offset 2 column, I want this with flexbox. Thank you

The documentation demonstrates the use of ml-*-auto (where * is the target resolution -- eg lg or md.) This is the equivalent of setting margin-left: auto in your CSS, which is effectively saying "push this as far left as you can." By using both ml-*-auto and mr-*-auto, you can effectively center your columns.

I've seen this question, but not the type of answer I'm hoping for. A CURL example is a great for me to translate the request. Similar to the CURL examples in the docs for List Records, it looks like I should be able to request records 101-200 using the offset value returned in the original request. The docs say it's a Query, therefore:

I need to retrieve thousands of records. My follow up question for data from a different table, USING JSON Payloads can I somehow filter fields? There are many fields I really don't want to process on my end.

I have been using GET and the same formatting. trying a POST was just a test of sorts. Also changed to using the Table Name instead of the ID. Same result. I finally did an inspection of the returned Headers:

Thanks Adam. I was able to get this working as expected. I had been restarting the script after getting the offset values. My fix was capturing the offset value real time and running the API call again, essentially looping through until all the rows, 100 per, were retrieved or when no offset value was returned.

If requesting via Fetch, I get the `offset` string from the response and I'm able to send it to the next request and get the next page, but how do I navigate backwards? I would need to store in a hash map ( 0: null, 1: 'first_page/offset_string', ... ) ?

The key concept is that offset credits are used to convey a net climate benefit from one entity to another. Because GHGs mix globally in the atmosphere, it does not matter where exactly they are reduced.[1] From a climate change perspective, the effects are the same if an organization: (a) ceases an emission-causing activity; or (b) enables an equivalent emission-reducing activity somewhere else in the world. Carbon offsets are intended to make it easier and more cost-effective for organizations to pursue the second option.

3a8082e126