[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!
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53930
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

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

Post by chrisb »

davidosterberg wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:04 am Perhaps we can put the coincident coinstraint icon in a submenu below the point-on-object. Like it is for constrain diameter.
No, that's a bad idea. While you can constrain evry arc or circle with either of radius or diameter, you can't do the same with coincidence and point-on-object. So it could end in frequent need of switching between the two; a nighmare of non smooth working. And most sketches contain at least one coincidence, so it wouldn't be a rare use case.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
davidosterberg
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:40 pm

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

Post by davidosterberg »

chrisb wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:30 am
davidosterberg wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:04 am Perhaps we can put the coincident coinstraint icon in a submenu below the point-on-object. Like it is for constrain diameter.
No, that's a bad idea. While you can constrain evry arc or circle with either of radius or diameter, you can't do the same with coincidence and point-on-object. So it could end in frequent need of switching between the two; a nighmare of non smooth working. And most sketches contain at least one coincidence, so it wouldn't be a rare use case.
I agree with you. But the nightmare ends as soon as you start using point-on-object for coincident.
The point was to give a natural path for the old-timers to switch to using point-on-object and get used to it quickly, And at the same time get the screen real-estate gain immediately.
User avatar
paddle
Veteran
Posts: 1392
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:47 pm

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

Post by paddle »

I agree this is a good idea to prevent confusion for current users.

Modify pointOnObject so that it can do coincidence too.
Put the (unmodified) coincidence in a dropdown below pointOnObject.
Add a warning when coincidence is used for the first time saying that this is deprecated and will be deleted in future version and that from now they should use pointOnObject.

Then in about 1 year or so remove the deprecated function.

Though personally I would keep the name coincident rather than pointOnObject.

Alternatively just delete one tool directly, and create a new icon for the replacement of both. This way current users would understand that something has changed and will just try the new tool. An icon that looks a bit like both of current icon.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53930
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

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

Post by chrisb »

Don't punish users who want a separate icon for the most used constraint with your idea of making it rather uncomfortable to use. Then go the way and make it configurable.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
openBrain
Veteran
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:38 pm
Contact:

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

Post by openBrain »

chrisb wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 2:06 pm Don't punish users who want a separate icon for the most used constraint with your idea of making it rather uncomfortable to use. Then go the way and make it configurable.
First things first :) Do you see any inconvenience if 'point-on-object' constraint creates a coincidence when 2 vertices are selected?
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53930
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

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

Post by chrisb »

openBrain wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:11 pm First things first :) Do you see any inconvenience if 'point-on-object' constraint creates a coincidence when 2 vertices are selected?
Based on a non representative test of two members of my family plus three students who all were asked in a possibly but hopefully not biased way I can say that it is less clear what happens.

As I'm getting a bit tired of this, may I ask what speaks against making it configurable? I mean we have options for far less important things.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
davidosterberg
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:40 pm

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

Post by davidosterberg »

chrisb wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:05 pm ...may I ask what speaks against making it configurable? I mean we have options for far less important things.
Nothing against it personally. Of course we want to have the "best" option as default :). In my view the most beginner friendly should always be the default. In this case I don't think there is much difference in the intuitiveness so I don't care.
User avatar
bambuko
Veteran
Posts: 2165
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: UK, England, North Devon

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

Post by bambuko »

davidosterberg wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:32 pm ... In my view the most beginner friendly should always be the default...
Why?
beginners are a transient population, difficult to please
I personally think that default should be the most common, most used one... for all the users of FreeCAD ;)
I am using Link branch and Assembly3
you can also download ... and try it here
excellent Assembly3 tutorials here
davidosterberg
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:40 pm

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

Post by davidosterberg »

bambuko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 6:42 pm Why?
beginners are a transient population, difficult to please
I personally think that default should be the most common, most used one... for all the users of FreeCAD ;)
Because changing options is not beginner friendly and it is not a good idea for users to change configuration options the first thing they do. However, users with a default configuration is a transient population. And it is pretty much identical to the population of new users.
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

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

Post by user1234 »

I think this suggestion completely is not thought-out.

a few points:

- coincident --> unique solution
- point on object --> no unique solution
--> different meanings


- which sketch below has 3 lines with a coincident and which has 2 lines with point on object?
0.png
0.png (7.47 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

When all is one constraint (symbol), you can not see any difference, even though both have different meanings and are completely different sketches. For compare, if have made the symbols invisible.
--> bad overview


- regardless from above, when you have 3 lines (or a complex sketch) and you want to delete the coincident of a line, because you want to replace it with more lines or an other object and the rest of them is constraint, all symbols will be congruent, because also all points are coincident, also when they are referred to an other neighbors object. To select and delete the correct constraint will depend on random luck, which is not the sense of CAD using.
--> bad overview, bad handling, need more time to solve, potential error source.


- when you go through the list, because you have a complex sketch, many symbols are the same and you find the target constraint very bad. Also when you use this list, you are probably searching to 90% a coincident or a point on object and then you can not see the difference anymore?
2.png
2.png (28.57 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

What is the benefit? It is just annoying, nothing more.
--> bad overview, bad handling, need more time
--> a good overview is more important then 2 seconds more time to create a sketch, because you always must adapt the sketches and with a good overview, you will benefit more then the 2 seconds, you needed longer to create them.


- point on object can go over the boundaries of the object, because is is based on the untrimmed base object
3.gif
3.gif (199.31 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

If this would be a combined object, this would be completely misleading. I would be curious, how many new users have a problem to find the constraint.

--> different constrains for different constraints to differ


- what is when this happen?
1.gif
1.gif (52.91 KiB) Viewed 1920 times

If this happens, you will not see the difference, because the symbols are the same. Especially this will affect new users. Maybe this works for rectangles, but with circles, ellipse, splines, etc. i am sot so sure. Also this is a source of errors further operations (similar to bad tangents).

--> potential error source


Generally: not everything must be for new users. Not for gatekeeping (i also can not place a untrained people to a lathe, only because the lathe has comfort functions; only because CAD is a computer program, does not the damages smaller), just for the correct clean workflow. For that, some information or extra steps are needed. I have too often seen, that comfort functions causes big and expensive issues, more then the little extra steps. Because then users forget or does not recognize to work clean. And the generally workflow of FreeCAD have the best compromise between cleanness, overview and comfort (bugs, missing features and TNP excluded).

And especially the handling of the Sketcher is top notch, especially when you compare it with commercial CADs. And then you must remark that FreeCAD is a FOSS and how well-thought-out this abdullah (many thanks and congrats!) made almost alone. And he had definitively had his reasons, why he made this how it is.

tldr: merging constraints only for a few seconds (which i lost after create the objects and constraints) and new users makes no sense.

btw: this should not be the reason but, what will you do with old files?

Greetings
user1234
Post Reply