Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

A forum dedicated to the Arch module development
paullee
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 3:58 pm

Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby paullee » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:41 pm

zbigg asked about merging ArchWall.

I somehow re-visit how the placement of the Merge Walls behave... something out of my expectation or I just forget this have been the case since I start learn FC?

  1. Say there is a wall (0,0,0 to 5m,0,0) - see screencapture
  2. Then add a wall (2.5m,0,0 to 2.5m,5m,0), which is merged to the 1st wall automatically - now like a inverted T shape on plan
  3. Now, i Draft Move this merged wall (relative from 0,0,0 to 5m,0,0)
Expectation
  1. The whole 'composite' wall would move altogether - still in an inverted T shape
  2. I thought it should have behaved like my expectation? My memory is wrong?
Actual Result
  1. The whole 'composite' wall seem, during Draft Move command, move altogether
  2. But when the final location is clicked, only the Base object in the ArchWall follow the new location
  3. The wall object in Additions, still keep its 'original' position
  4. Then these walls with their (new/old) placement are fused together in the 'merged' wall
This seem not intuitive to me or this is what everybody used to?

I try to understand how codes in ArchComponent, ArchWall etc. with an attempt to subclassing it but far from figuring out the fundamental.

See anybody has more idea / understanding to share.

Thanks.

Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-03.png
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-03.png (211.04 KiB) Viewed 613 times
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-13.png
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-13.png (181.23 KiB) Viewed 613 times
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-24.png
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-24.png (194.82 KiB) Viewed 613 times
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-55.png
Screenshot from 2018-02-23 02-19-55.png (204.85 KiB) Viewed 613 times
Attachments
Test _ Arch Wall _ Merged_ Placement Problemfcstd.fcstd
(9.55 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
User avatar
bitacovir
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:23 am
Contact:

Re: Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby bitacovir » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:06 am

This also happens with 0.16
Never noticed before, because when I add walls I do not move them anymore.

OS: Windows 10
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.16.6712 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: releases/FreeCAD-0-16
Hash: da2d364457257a7a8c6fb2137cea12c45becd71a
Python version: 2.7.8
Qt version: 4.8.7
Coin version: 4.0.0a
OCC version: 6.8.0.oce-0.17
::bitacovir::
===================================
One must be absolutely modern.
Arthur Rimbaud (A Season in Hell -1873)

My Blog
Mini Airflow Tunnel Project
User avatar
yorik
Site Admin
Posts: 9922
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Contact:

Re: Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby yorik » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:16 pm

You need to turn the "Move with host" property of the child walls on.

This is a side-effect of having the walls added as additions to one "host" wall. And it is indeed not clear in my mind either: When you move the host wall, should only the host wall move and not its additions, or everything together? I begin more and more to think that walls should not be merged. That's how I've been doing recently....

They should stay as they are, independent walls, and when making 2D projections, all walls should appear joined. I am also experimenting with hiding some edges in the 3D view to make them look joined, even if they are not. But that's rather complex, because sometimes they are pieces of edges only that must be removed.
User avatar
bitacovir
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:23 am
Contact:

Re: Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby bitacovir » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:00 pm

yorik wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:16 pm
You need to turn the "Move with host" property of the child walls on.

This is a side-effect of having the walls added as additions to one "host" wall. And it is indeed not clear in my mind either: When you move the host wall, should only the host wall move and not its additions, or everything together? I begin more and more to think that walls should not be merged. That's how I've been doing recently....

They should stay as they are, independent walls, and when making 2D projections, all walls should appear joined. I am also experimenting with hiding some edges in the 3D view to make them look joined, even if they are not. But that's rather complex, because sometimes they are pieces of edges only that must be removed.
Like I said, what I normally do is to merge them after to placement them. But if you need to move them as a group I would be nice to know that you must activate the property on. It is not confusing if you see the option clearly. Maybe a checkbox option in the task window (after continue, copy) that change the properties to true, when you move merged walls...
::bitacovir::
===================================
One must be absolutely modern.
Arthur Rimbaud (A Season in Hell -1873)

My Blog
Mini Airflow Tunnel Project
paullee
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby paullee » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:20 pm

Thanks all!

Finally figure out how 'Move with Host' works - need to take into account previous comment somewhere that 'Move with Host' needs 'Draft Move' :)

Now the difference in concept is more apparent:-

Expected 'SuperImposed' Placement
The Additions / Subtraction's Placements are 'superimposed' over the parent ArchWall's Placement:
  1. It seems with other Part Object, after fusion etc, the resultant object is a 'coherent' composition / compound.
  2. Similar with Part Compound or Sketches in Mapmode (further w/ Attachment Offset settings available)
  3. Also, I always have Autocad (10 years ago knowledge) block concept in mind: it is a compound of 'parts' with a distinguishable Insertion Point
  4. So it is my (own?) expectation to have the merged ArchWall (w/Additions / Subtraction) works like a compound / block
  5. Then, it goes like Additions / Subtraction's Placements are 'superimposed' over the parent ArchWall's Placement
  6. So, it doesn't relay on Draft Move to have the whole merged walls to move it/them altogether
Move with Host - Command-wise (need Draft Move)
  1. The 'Move with Host' to my understanding only have Draft Move command acknowledge it
  2. So that's why changing / inputting figures in the Host ArchWall's Placement won't have the whole merged Walls move together
So could 'Move with Host' at least be interpreted as 'Superimposed' children's placement? - This may affect existing models.

Or simply added an option ' Superimposed Parent/ Children's Placement'. This is a matter of intuition, convention, productivity and common usage of the current users I think.


Because of my intuition or preconception w/ (acad's) block concept, it seems I am experimenting with expressions, usage of sketch, codes etc. to 'imitate' those 'superimposition' behaviour. So, a facade I experiment > 1 year ago with many parts merged in 1 ArchWall may more easily like one object. Better still, I always want to find a workflow: Model a prototype building, move the whole building in actual 'true world coordinate' / an actual site, then every building corners' true coordinates could be read (screencaptures attached again below). I have that difficulty with current Arch object's properties as experimented and commented in other posts.
Screenshot from 2016-12-11 12-56-03.png
Screenshot from 2016-12-11 12-56-03.png (228.71 KiB) Viewed 409 times
Screenshot from 2017-08-06 10-14-54.png
Screenshot from 2017-08-06 10-14-54.png (326.96 KiB) Viewed 409 times
paullee
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed May 04, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: Merged Walls: (Non-intuitive?) Placement of merged walls

Postby paullee » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:24 pm

bitacovir wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:00 pm

Like I said, what I normally do is to merge them after to placement them. But if you need to move them as a group I would be nice to know that you must activate the property on. It is not confusing if you see the option clearly. Maybe a checkbox option in the task window (after continue, copy) that change the properties to true, when you move merged walls...
I am not sure what other peoples find current Placement properties in FC, which is similar in Arch Objects.

The Placement simply most of the time does not tell much about an object's 'position' - for its current default behaviour in FC.

It is kind of confusion for me - that's why I think the Insertion Point / Autocad Block concept is clearer to me. And much more 'controllable' in positioning I mean.

EDIT

And if and how would you do, after completion of a building model, to move it around or position it in a World True Coordinates?

Thanks.