1. Registered forum members do not see this ad.

Personally I like brute force. Never pretty, never fast but it does get the job done.

2. There seems to be a formatting issue with the web forum software. It keeps inserting a space before one of the dollar signs(3rd one). The macro should be like the image below:

3. That's brilliant, however the person who asked me requires the holes to be randomly scattered so as not to affect the integrity of the piece.

4. Integrity of randomness. Interesting.

At the end of the day, wouldn't either method be a form of Human randomness? Either via direct scattering by hand, as in my macro, or via some Random() function that has a algorithm designed by man.

5. Originally Posted by Campaigner
That's brilliant, however the person who asked me requires the holes to be randomly scattered so as not to affect the integrity of the piece.
Now it seems we are finally getting to the crux of the matter.

6. Randomly picked although not necessarily randomly placed holes.

Cube with random holes1.jpg

7. Randomly picked AND randomly located holes. I'm done. All this reminds me of Swiss Cheese on acid.

Cube with random holes located randomly.jpg

8. Clarification - you said the holes may intersect with each other. Thus there is no minimum wall thickness between adjacent holes. Is that right? Can a hole intersect the edge of the cube face it is on? I assume the holes are drill perpendicular to the face.

If this all true then all you need is a program with a loop of 100 iterations that calculates a X and y randomly and successively increment the circle diameter. The number of holes,the size of the cube, and the range of circle radii would be specified at the start. No checking is required. Sounds straight forward to me.
~ Lee

9. Yeah, that sounds too straight forward to me. Instead of only penetrating the opposite the face the holes should also be allowed to penetrate adjacent faces at random angles too.

10. Registered forum members do not see this ad.

On further thought if there is no checking then a small hole may be located totally within a larger hole yielding a final hole count of less than a hundred. Is this ok? If not, then you need to define what is meant by two intersecting holes. That is, how much of an incursion into the wall of a large hole must a small hole make for it to be considered valid?

~Lee

P.S. ReMark, regarding your signature " Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standard!" Where I worked we suffered from too many standards enabling us to choose any one we liked thus totally nullifying the concept of standards.