# Long journey to no where...

 Classic List Threaded
9 messages
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Long journey to no where...

 Folks,         After suggestions from both William Adams         <[hidden email]> & Whosawhatsis         <[hidden email]>, I spent some         time looking at using skeinforge to solve         my problem.         Recall, the task is to make 100 polygonal         objects to represent the entries in a 10x10         multiplication table as an aid to teaching         a 4-year old his math.         My original design involved toroidal polygons         with N segments around the major diameter &         M segments around the minor to represent the         problem NxM.  The design exposed a minor bug         which both William & Whosawhatsis suggested         work arounds for.         One of those suggestions was to look into         making a skeinforge model that only printed         hollow objects with no top or bottom.  After         some fooling around, I figured out how to do         1, 2, & 3 layer objects with no fill at all.         I have to thank you guys for that because I've         been trying to figure out how to do that ever         since I started spitting plastic.         (BTW, I would like to figure out a model that         can make 2 or 3 layer walls & a thick bottom         but no top.  I'd like to make some cups for         Christmas presents & that sounds like the         ideal way.  But that is a question for another         day.)         Anyway, this led me to redesigning my table         entry objects.  I now make them as barrels         with N staves around the barrel & M from top         to bottom for the NxM entry.  I even made an         actual 5x7 barrel.         Alas, while it is a beautifully light &         transparent object & looks nicely pentagonal         going around, you cannot see the 7 bottom to         top faces.  They are even difficult to find         to the touch.         I thought, no big deal.  We're still on the         right track.  I'll make the faces slightly         concave so they are easy to see & feel.         And that's where I got bit by a CGAL problem         again.         The following code fragment illustrates the         problem.  It renders fine under openCSG but         chokes under CGAL due to the following error:                 ERROR: Illegal polygonal object - make sure                 all polygons are defined with the same winding                 order. Skipping affected object.         on the console & this one in stderr:                 CGAL::Polyhedron_incremental_builder_3::                 lookup_hole(): input error: at vertex 1 a closed                 surface already exists and facet 291 is nonetheless                 adjacent.                         The closed cycle of facets is: 232 0 58 116 174.         It is kind of understandable.  After all, I         made the faces concave by taking a small bite         out of it with a circle.  So that face is,         I'll say naturally, different from the others.         But that is a 2D object.  It has not yet been         extruded.  Is it reasonable for it to be said         to have a winding order at all?         Anyway, as always, I'm open to suggestions as         to how to proceed.         Thanks all,                            Dan module stick(s,t) union() {         translate([-s/2,0,0]) scale([t/2,t/2]) unitCircle();         translate([s/2,0,0]) scale([t/2,t/2]) unitCircle();         scale([s,t]) unitSquare(); } module mul1(n,s,t) for (i=[1:n]) rotate([0,0,i*360/n])         translate([0,-s/(2*tan(180/n)),0]) stick(s,t); module entry(n,m,s,t) rotate_extrude(convexity=2,\$fn=m)         translate([s+s/(2*sin(180/n)),s/(2*tan(180/n))+t/2,0]) mul1(n,s,t); //intersection() { // entry(5,5,10,2); // translate([50,0,0]) cube([100,100,100],center=true); //} // translate([-30,0,0]) entry(7,5,10,2); module piSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitTriangle(); module fourPi(n) for (i=[0:4*n-1]) rotate([0,0,i*90/n-((n%2==0)?45/n:0)]) piSlice(4*n); // translate([-30,0,25]) cube([50,50,50],center=true); // translate([30,0,0]) // scale([25,25,25*sqrt(2)]) // translate([0,0,1/sqrt(2)]) // rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) // intersection() { // fourPi(7); // translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); // } module unitSquare() square([1,1],center=true); module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400); module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]); module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); } module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n); module fourPips(n) for (i=[0:4*n-1]) rotate([0,0,i*90/n-((n%2==0)?45/n:0)]) pipSlice(4*n); // intersection() { // union() { // rotate([0,0,45]) translate([1,1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); // rotate([0,0,45]) translate([-1,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); // fourPips(1); } // translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); } module staves(n) intersection() { union() { rotate([0,0,45]) translate([1,1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); rotate([0,0,45]) translate([-1,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); fourPips(n); } translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); } // staves(1); module barrel(n) scale([25,25,25*sqrt(2)]) translate([0,0,1/sqrt(2)]) rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) staves(n); translate([-55,0,0]) barrel(1); // translate([0,0,0]) barrel(2); // translate([55,0,0]) barrel(3);
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 You can't subtract a 2D object from a 3D object. It appears to work in OpenCSG because OpenCSG can't actually render 2D objects, so it quietly extrudes them to 1mm or so thick. CGAL can render 2D shapes, so you'll have to do this extrusion manually for the boolean operations to make any sense to CGAL. On Sunday, October 30, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: Folks, After suggestions from both William Adams <[hidden email]> & Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]>, I spent some time looking at using skeinforge to solve my problem. Recall, the task is to make 100 polygonal objects to represent the entries in a 10x10 multiplication table as an aid to teaching a 4-year old his math. My original design involved toroidal polygons with N segments around the major diameter & M segments around the minor to represent the problem NxM. The design exposed a minor bug which both William & Whosawhatsis suggested work arounds for. One of those suggestions was to look into making a skeinforge model that only printed hollow objects with no top or bottom. After some fooling around, I figured out how to do 1, 2, & 3 layer objects with no fill at all. I have to thank you guys for that because I've been trying to figure out how to do that ever since I started spitting plastic. (BTW, I would like to figure out a model that can make 2 or 3 layer walls & a thick bottom but no top. I'd like to make some cups for Christmas presents & that sounds like the ideal way. But that is a question for another day.) Anyway, this led me to redesigning my table entry objects. I now make them as barrels with N staves around the barrel & M from top to bottom for the NxM entry. I even made an actual 5x7 barrel. Alas, while it is a beautifully light & transparent object & looks nicely pentagonal going around, you cannot see the 7 bottom to top faces. They are even difficult to find to the touch. I thought, no big deal. We're still on the right track. I'll make the faces slightly concave so they are easy to see & feel. And that's where I got bit by a CGAL problem again. The following code fragment illustrates the problem. It renders fine under openCSG but chokes under CGAL due to the following error: ERROR: Illegal polygonal object - make sure all polygons are defined with the same winding order. Skipping affected object. on the console & this one in stderr: CGAL::Polyhedron_incremental_builder_3:: lookup_hole(): input error: at vertex 1 a closed surface already exists and facet 291 is nonetheless adjacent. The closed cycle of facets is: 232 0 58 116 174. It is kind of understandable. After all, I made the faces concave by taking a small bite out of it with a circle. So that face is, I'll say naturally, different from the others. But that is a 2D object. It has not yet been extruded. Is it reasonable for it to be said to have a winding order at all? Anyway, as always, I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed. Thanks all, Danmodule stick(s,t) union() { translate([-s/2,0,0]) scale([t/2,t/2]) unitCircle(); translate([s/2,0,0]) scale([t/2,t/2]) unitCircle(); scale([s,t]) unitSquare();}module mul1(n,s,t) for (i=[1:n]) rotate([0,0,i*360/n]) translate([0,-s/(2*tan(180/n)),0]) stick(s,t);module entry(n,m,s,t) rotate_extrude(convexity=2,\$fn=m) translate([s+s/(2*sin(180/n)),s/(2*tan(180/n))+t/2,0]) mul1(n,s,t);//intersection() {// entry(5,5,10,2);// translate([50,0,0]) cube([100,100,100],center=true);//}// translate([-30,0,0]) entry(7,5,10,2);module piSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitTriangle();module fourPi(n) for (i=[0:4*n-1]) rotate([0,0,i*90/n-((n%2==0)?45/n:0)]) piSlice(4*n);// translate([-30,0,25]) cube([50,50,50],center=true);// translate([30,0,0])// scale([25,25,25*sqrt(2)])// translate([0,0,1/sqrt(2)])// rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5)// intersection() {// fourPi(7);// translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare();// }module unitSquare() square([1,1],center=true);module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400);module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]);module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); }module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n);module fourPips(n) for (i=[0:4*n-1]) rotate([0,0,i*90/n-((n%2==0)?45/n:0)]) pipSlice(4*n);// intersection() {// union() {// rotate([0,0,45]) translate([1,1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare();// rotate([0,0,45]) translate([-1,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare();// fourPips(1); }// translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); }module staves(n) intersection() { union() { rotate([0,0,45]) translate([1,1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); rotate([0,0,45]) translate([-1,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) unitSquare(); fourPips(n); } translate([1,0,0]) scale([2,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); }// staves(1);module barrel(n) scale([25,25,25*sqrt(2)]) translate([0,0,1/sqrt(2)]) rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) staves(n);translate([-55,0,0]) barrel(1);// translate([0,0,0]) barrel(2);// translate([55,0,0]) barrel(3);_______________________________________________OpenSCAD mailing list[hidden email]http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:04:27 -0700 > From: Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]> > To: Dan Zuras 3D <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Long journey to no where... > > > You can't subtract a 2D object from a 3D object. It appears to work > in OpenCSG because OpenCSG can't actually render 2D objects, so it > quietly extrudes them to 1mm or so thick. CGAL can render 2D shapes, > so you'll have to do this extrusion manually for the boolean operations > to make any sense to CGAL. >         Well, as I'm subtracting a circle from a polygon         (specifically a triangle), I thought I was subtracting         one 2D object from another.  And CGAL never sees it         until it is already extruded into 3D.         But you must be right as the following snippet exhibits         the problem: module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]); module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400); module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); } module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n); rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) pipSlice(4);         OK, what is the work around for THIS one?         Realize I'm not married to the notion of subtracting a         circle from a triangle.  My goal is to make the faces         of the solid stand out from one another & still be         printable with a 1 layer wall.  So I tried nipping out         the arc of the circle to make each face concave.  OK,         so they stand in rather than stand out.  But anything         similar will do.         Any suggestions?         Thanks,                                 Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 Ah, I misunderstood your description of the problem and didn't look closely enough at the code to verify it. You've definitely found a bug with the code you posted above. If you remove the rotate_extrude() statement from that code and render with OpenCSG, the object renders on the z=0 plane as I would expect (I extruded it to 0.001mm thickness, which made it appear much thinner in OpenCSG, to verify this. However, when I render the un-extruded polygon in CGAL, it appears slightly below this plane. This is very weird, and I have no idea where this error is being introduced, though I admit that I find your style of coding difficult to follow and to debug. On Sunday, October 30, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:04:27 -0700From: Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]>To: Dan Zuras 3D <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Long journey to no where...You can't subtract a 2D object from a 3D object. It appears to workin OpenCSG because OpenCSG can't actually render 2D objects, so itquietly extrudes them to 1mm or so thick. CGAL can render 2D shapes,so you'll have to do this extrusion manually for the boolean operationsto make any sense to CGAL. Well, as I'm subtracting a circle from a polygon (specifically a triangle), I thought I was subtracting one 2D object from another. And CGAL never sees it until it is already extruded into 3D. But you must be right as the following snippet exhibits the problem:module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]);module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400);module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); }module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n);rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) pipSlice(4); OK, what is the work around for THIS one? Realize I'm not married to the notion of subtracting a circle from a triangle. My goal is to make the faces of the solid stand out from one another & still be printable with a 1 layer wall. So I tried nipping out the arc of the circle to make each face concave. OK, so they stand in rather than stand out. But anything similar will do. Any suggestions? Thanks, Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 Administrator In reply to this post by Dan Zuras 3D On Oct 30, 2011, at 15:29 PM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: > module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]); > module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400); > module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); } > module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n); > rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) pipSlice(4); > > OK, what is the work around for THIS one? > I'm pretty sure this is the same problem as the "horn torus" issue, see: http://rocklinux.net/pipermail/openscad/2011-August/001421.htmlThe resulting 3D object has a single point in the middle (it touches itself) , so it's not longer a manifold surface, and CGAL barfs on that. Two ways of fixing it, depending on what you want: 1) make a tiny hole in the middle:  rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=12) translate([0.1,0,0]) pipSlice(4); 2) eliminate the single point by giving it a thickness:  rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=12) translate([-0.1,0,0]) pipSlice(4);  -Marius PS! I guess you're using the 2011.06 version. In the github master, the error messages are changed since the "winding order" issue was often misleading.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 In reply to this post by Whosawhatsis > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:04:24 -0700 > From: Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]> > To: Dan Zuras 3D <[hidden email]> > Cc: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Long journey to no where... > > > Ah, I misunderstood your description of the problem and didn't > look closely enough at the code to verify it. > > You've definitely found a bug with the code you posted above. > If you remove the rotate_extrude() statement from that code and > render with OpenCSG, the object renders on the z=0 plane as I > would expect (I extruded it to 0.001mm thickness, which made it > appear much thinner in OpenCSG, to verify this. However, when I > render the un-extruded polygon in CGAL, it appears slightly below > this plane. This is very weird, and I have no idea where this > error is being introduced, though I admit that I find your style > of coding difficult to follow and to debug.         Well part of that style is truncating the actual         application to demonstrate the bug only.  Picking         out just those parts looks funny out of context.         But I take your point & if there is a style guide         anywhere I'm willing to follow it.         Or perhaps you refer to the use of "unit" objects         in this code.  It is something I have been toying         with lately.         I noticed that OpenSCAD has an overlap in its         capabilities between how one describes things like         circles, squares, cubes, cylinders & the like with         all the various parameters one has to fill out &         one's ability to scale things independently in         each dimension.  In a recent source I noticed that         I was making a bunch of objects that only differed         in their scales.  It was not only verbose but I was         constantly stumbling over various bugs & typos of         my own making.  So I made a canonical or "unit"         object & just rescaled it every in every instance         of its use.         The idea is that every square (or rectangle) is         really one square rescaled, translated, & rotated         to taste.  As is every circle (or ellipse).  And         cylinder.  And cube.  And so on.         I suppose it looks obtuse in the code but after         I came to that realization, it became much easier         for me to get it right every time I needed another         flavor of some canonical object.         Still, you are correct in that a source is meant         to be read as much as written.  So if there is a         style that is more canonical than these objects,         I am willing to follow it.                             Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 In reply to this post by kintel > Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Long journey to no where... > From: Marius Kintel <[hidden email]> > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:25:08 +0100 > Cc: Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]> > To: Dan Zuras 3D <[hidden email]>, >  [hidden email] > > On Oct 30, 2011, at 15:29 PM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: > > > module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], = > paths=[[0,1,2]]); > > module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400); > > module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); = > translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); } > > module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n); > > rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) pipSlice(4); > > > > OK, what is the work around for THIS one? > > > > I'm pretty sure this is the same problem as the "horn torus" issue, see: > http://rocklinux.net/pipermail/openscad/2011-August/001421.html> > The resulting 3D object has a single point in the middle (it touches > itself) , so it's not longer a manifold surface, and CGAL barfs on that. > > Two ways of fixing it, depending on what you want: > 1) make a tiny hole in the middle: >  rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=12) translate([0.1,0,0]) > pipSlice(4); > 2) eliminate the single point by giving it a thickness: >  rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=12) translate([-0.1,0,0]) > pipSlice(4); > >  -Marius         I wouldn't be so sure of that.  I can entirely cover up         that point in the middle as follows: module unitSquare() square([1,1],center=true); module unitTriangle() polygon(points=[[0,0],[1,-1],[1,1]], paths=[[0,1,2]]); module unitCircle() circle(1,\$fn=400); module unitPip(n) difference() { unitTriangle(); translate([1+sqrt(n*n-1),0,0]) scale([n,n,1]) unitCircle(); } module pipSlice(n) scale([cos(180/n),sin(180/n),1]) unitPip(n); rotate_extrude(convexity=1,\$fn=5) intersection() {         union() {                 pipSlice(4);                 rotate([0,0,45]) translate([0,1,0]) scale([2,2,1])                         unitSquare();                 rotate([0,0,-45]) translate([0,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1])                         unitSquare();         }         translate([(sqrt(2)-1)/2,0,0]) scale([1,sqrt(2),1]) unitSquare(); }         & still run into the problem. > > PS! I guess you're using the 2011.06 version. In the github master, the > error messages are changed since the "winding order" issue was often > misleading. >         I am using the 2011.06 version.  If you are recommending         that I download a newer version, just which directory in         github should I use?         Thanks,                                 Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 In reply to this post by Dan Zuras 3D I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with your style, just that it's hard for me to follow. For someone familiar with the language, the meaning of circle(1) is obvious, while you would have to locate the UnitCircle() module to make sure it means what it sounds like (and even if you know it does, the inclusion of the compound word makes the entire block of code that much more difficult to process at a glance).BTW, are you aware that you can set the \$fn variable globally, not just as an argument to a module? The global definition can then be overridden when calling an individual module. On Sunday, October 30, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 08:04:24 -0700From: Whosawhatsis <[hidden email]>To: Dan Zuras 3D <[hidden email]>Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Long journey to no where...Ah, I misunderstood your description of the problem and didn'tlook closely enough at the code to verify it. You've definitely found a bug with the code you posted above.If you remove the rotate_extrude() statement from that code andrender with OpenCSG, the object renders on the z=0 plane as Iwould expect (I extruded it to 0.001mm thickness, which made itappear much thinner in OpenCSG, to verify this. However, when Irender the un-extruded polygon in CGAL, it appears slightly belowthis plane. This is very weird, and I have no idea where thiserror is being introduced, though I admit that I find your styleof coding difficult to follow and to debug. Well part of that style is truncating the actual application to demonstrate the bug only. Picking out just those parts looks funny out of context. But I take your point & if there is a style guide anywhere I'm willing to follow it. Or perhaps you refer to the use of "unit" objects in this code. It is something I have been toying with lately. I noticed that OpenSCAD has an overlap in its capabilities between how one describes things like circles, squares, cubes, cylinders & the like with all the various parameters one has to fill out & one's ability to scale things independently in each dimension. In a recent source I noticed that I was making a bunch of objects that only differed in their scales. It was not only verbose but I was constantly stumbling over various bugs & typos of my own making. So I made a canonical or "unit" object & just rescaled it every in every instance of its use. The idea is that every square (or rectangle) is really one square rescaled, translated, & rotated to taste. As is every circle (or ellipse). And cylinder. And cube. And so on. I suppose it looks obtuse in the code but after I came to that realization, it became much easier for me to get it right every time I needed another flavor of some canonical object. Still, you are correct in that a source is meant to be read as much as written. So if there is a style that is more canonical than these objects, I am willing to follow it. Dan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Long journey to no where...

 Administrator In reply to this post by Dan Zuras 3D On Oct 30, 2011, at 18:12 PM, Dan Zuras 3D wrote: > I wouldn't be so sure of that.  I can entirely cover up > that point in the middle as follows: > This looks like a different problem. With my build, the new code of yours doesn't trigger the CGAL error, it just results in nothing. The reason for this is the following: > union() { > pipSlice(4); > rotate([0,0,45]) translate([0,1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) > unitSquare(); > rotate([0,0,-45]) translate([0,-1,0]) scale([2,2,1]) > unitSquare(); > } This creates a union of three disparate objects which actually doesn't overlap, but just touches. The uncertainty in the numbers cause the resulting union'ed 2D polygon to have a thin gap, which appears to cause problems later (self-intersection?). You can see this by looking at the CGAL rendering of that snippet - it will have a line segment poking into the object. Change to e.g. pipSlice(3.9) to make them overlap and it should work again. I realize that it's hard to debug such issues. Suggestions for improvement are welcome :) As you're using a different version, you might experience slightly different problems. It might also be that I'm suppressing something which should be an error message in the current version. For this specific issue, I'll go through and see if I can report a (meaningful) error message for it. > I am using the 2011.06 version.  If you are recommending > that I download a newer version, just which directory in > github should I use? > On github, the master branch is always the most stable - that 's of course source code only. For binaries, check "Download Development Snapshots" on openscad.org. These are updated whenever developers feel like it, but can probably be requested on this mailing list if they appear to be outdated. You'll experience different bugs with the development version, but these need to be discovered anyway ;)  -Marius