[Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

About the development of the Part Design module/workbench. PLEASE DO NOT POST HELP REQUESTS HERE!
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Grub
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:28 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by Grub »

GeneFC wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:18 pm
Grub wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:04 pm and moreover I received insults by private message from a person who didn't agree with me,
That was me. I did it privately after you insulted me publicly. :o

Gene
I don't see where I had insulted you.
jdawg
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:57 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by jdawg »

Just my $.02 as a new FreeCAD user(only one week). I find the current implementation to be one of the lesser confusing aspects of FreeCAD and I find that Constrain coincident(point-to-point) very different from Constrain point to object(point-to-tangent/edge). The first implies two points that could pivot around each other but otherwise fixed and the other implies a point that can slide tangentially along an object. Imagine the special case where someone "graphically" creates a "constrain point to object" near a vertex that looks like a "Constrain coincident". Now if someone goes to operate on that "constrain point to object" they get surprised by the behaviour.

That said the real reason that brought me to this thread is the inability to easily identify and isolate coincident constraints when modifying a sketch. I fear the proposed feature would compound that issue unless the first concern is tackled first.
Just to clarify on what I am talking about: From what I can tell there is no way to click on a vertex and see what constraints exist on it(I assume that is because it is not "real" piece of geometry). If you click on the 2 lines that form the coincident constraint you get ALL the other irrelevant constraints associated with those lines(including other coincident constraints) and have to go through a painful process of elimination especially if they are nested(e.g two boxes constrained at the corners to each other). For now at least the "constrain point to object", as it is, does not add to that complexity since it shows up separately when editing.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by chrisb »

Further discussion about jdawg's remarks are split to this separate topic: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=65750.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
abdullah
Veteran
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 3:16 pm
Contact:

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by abdullah »

Hi there...

After having gone through the long discussion, including the unfortunate but often necessary clashes that a good new feature requires (and the unnecessary ones), and further running the risk to have an opinion, I think that:

1. The concept behind point-coincidence and point-on-object, although admittedly close, is not the same.

Maybe I am biased by implementation details or by how my math and drawing teacher used to speak. To me "on the line" is not "coincident". Concepts are the strongest abstraction on which we build ideas. I am unsurprised of the clashes, some hundred years ago it could easily have resulted in a bloody full blown war. Thankfully, we are more civilised nowadays in most parts of the world and calling names, however unfortunate, it is the worst that happens. We can still celebrate that nobody's mother was mentioned.

2. There is a lot of merit in using the context to sketch faster. This is something I think we should embrace. In the past I was enlightened by one post or feature request, I think it was from pauvres honteaux. It has a lot of potential to heavily accelerate sketching.

The reason why I did not pursue this at the time, free time aside, is because of the state of the code of the sketcher commands. See refactor in this post.

3. I would be surprised if anybody is, in general terms, opposed to having concepts or sketching fast.

So the solution could come from wrapping the idea into the context of "context constraining" a subidea of "concept sketching". Ideally, we could come to a new tool which allows us to create a sketch and constrain it without touching the toolbar (no keyboard shortcut cheating implied). Constraining without touching the constraint bar. This could even pave the way for efficiently sketching with touchscreens. Then, the "space" solution could be a user preference to hide the toolbar unless the area is hovered (or for the brave, not to show the toolbar at all). Rather than fight a battle for every tiny space saved by a single button, forgo the war and save a whole toolbar.

Anybody onboard?
User avatar
paddle
Veteran
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by paddle »

abdullah wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 5:27 am Hi there...

After having gone through the long discussion, including the unfortunate but often necessary clashes that a good new feature requires (and the unnecessary ones), and further running the risk to have an opinion, I think that:

1. The concept behind point-coincidence and point-on-object, although admittedly close, is not the same.

Maybe I am biased by implementation details or by how my math and drawing teacher used to speak. To me "on the line" is not "coincident". Concepts are the strongest abstraction on which we build ideas. I am unsurprised of the clashes, some hundred years ago it could easily have resulted in a bloody full blown war. Thankfully, we are more civilised nowadays in most parts of the world and calling names, however unfortunate, it is the worst that happens. We can still celebrate that nobody's mother was mentioned.

2. There is a lot of merit in using the context to sketch faster. This is something I think we should embrace. In the past I was enlightened by one post or feature request, I think it was from pauvres honteaux. It has a lot of potential to heavily accelerate sketching.

The reason why I did not pursue this at the time, free time aside, is because of the state of the code of the sketcher commands. See refactor in this post.

3. I would be surprised if anybody is, in general terms, opposed to having concepts or sketching fast.

So the solution could come from wrapping the idea into the context of "context constraining" a subidea of "concept sketching". Ideally, we could come to a new tool which allows us to create a sketch and constrain it without touching the toolbar (no keyboard shortcut cheating implied). Constraining without touching the constraint bar. This could even pave the way for efficiently sketching with touchscreens. Then, the "space" solution could be a user preference to hide the toolbar unless the area is hovered (or for the brave, not to show the toolbar at all). Rather than fight a battle for every tiny space saved by a single button, forgo the war and save a whole toolbar.

Anybody onboard?
Hi Abdullah! Good to see you here!
I can see the logic of having 2 separate constraints, especially when you are teaching or learning parametric. My point of view is of one who's in need of speed, which was why I wanted to reduce the number of icones at the sake of concepts.
However as you stated this was only a very partial solution and a 'context constraining' would be a much better solution. The good news is that I'm more than onboard, I have already done it! :)
Check it out here : https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=65521
Even the name is what you just offered :D
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by chrisb »

abdullah wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 5:27 am 1. The concept behind point-coincidence and point-on-object, although admittedly close, is not the same.
Fully agreed.
2. There is a lot of merit in using the context to sketch faster. This is something I think we should embrace. In the past I was enlightened by one post or feature request, I think it was from pauvres honteaux.
I didn't follow paddle's topic in detail, but it sounds good in general.
3. I would be surprised if anybody is, in general terms, opposed to having concepts or sketching fast.
Also speaking in general terms: agreed - if not one of these is outweighed by the other. Especially I would not like to see a "FreeCAD à la Apple", where let's say 80% of the time things happen to be just as you want, sometimes before you even know, but you have no chance if you ever want the last 20% too.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
abdullah
Veteran
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 3:16 pm
Contact:

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by abdullah »

chrisb wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:20 am Also speaking in general terms: agreed - if not one of these is outweighed by the other. Especially I would not like to see a "FreeCAD à la Apple", where let's say 80% of the time things happen to be just as you want, sometimes before you even know, but you have no chance if you ever want the last 20% too.
But you are an Apple user!! :mrgreen:

Do not worry, FreeCAD has a strong Linux user base. We are not the kind that accepts having 20% not to our liking... :lol:
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by chrisb »

abdullah wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:49 am]
But you are an Apple user!! :mrgreen:
Let’s say I’m a critical Apple user, one who has unlike others always the command line open.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by GeneFC »

chrisb wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:20 am Especially I would not like to see a "FreeCAD à la Apple", where let's say 80% of the time things happen to be just as you want, sometimes before you even know, but you have no chance if you ever want the last 20% too.
Thanks! This concisely sums up everything I have said on these somewhat contentious sketcher improvement topics over the past few weeks. 8-)

Gene
Post Reply