“aapo” thanks for your reply.aapo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 11:43 amI certainly agree with that. Linus is not afraid to say how it is.domad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:24 amI invite you to reflect on Linus Torvalds' thought, this is what it says:
- It's not that i refrain from taking sides. It's just that i deeply blame anyone who tries to impose their morals on others. And you can replace the word "moral" with religion, computer faith, or more.
- As a technician, i know that technology doesn't transform a damn thing. Society is changing technology, not the other way around. Technology only sets the limits of what we can do and how much it costs us to do it.
These are words to be framed don't you think?
Well, I did say that the idea of "snapping" would be a good one in theory. And, I also believe that a possibility of "snapping" the dimensions would probably have solved the problem in the topic of the original post; namely first by the creation of a "floating" dimension, and then "snapping" the ends to the desired geometry points. It is a good idea, but the whole idea is unfortunately off-topic in this thread, because the functionality is yet to be programmed, and in this thread the discussion was about finding immediate solution to the problem of creating a dimension with the current version of FreeCAD TechDraw. Fortunately, the problem was that using multiselection was not intuitive for a new user, so it could be solved without any new code. Probably, this problem would be best solved with UI hints or documentation improvements, at least for the immediate future. With your suggestion, there would be no definite requirement of using multiselection (if I understood the idea correctly); but someone would first need to code it. It's the harsh reality.Having said that i tell you that your speech is off topic since you too do not express your thoughts on what the topic is: the "snaps" extended to any workbench including TechDraw would be a positive or negative fact for FreeCad (?), also explaining reasons.
No, I'm just a fellow user and not a developer, at least for now. Although, I'm also a hobbyist programmer, that's why I suggested the same path for you. I also dedicate some "free" time for bug reports and testing in FreeCAD, and I sometimes also read the code. Thus, I fully agree with your idea of contributing to its development by means other than coding, because I try to do the same.I know very well (!) That the developers (maybe you are too) of FreeCad, LibreOffice, Gimp, Inkscape, LibreCad, Blender, Meshlab, etc. are enthusiasts who program by sacrificing their free time:
- so remember and never forget it (!), even we, professionals, use our "free" time dedicating it to FreeCad (i assure you that it is not for "playing"!) and thus contributing to its development.
However, the harsh reality in the open-source world is that if you don't code, your ideas may or may not be forgotten depending on whether any of the developers are personally interested on them. There might be goals or roadmaps, but everyone is free to develop the things they are personally most interested in.
In my opinion, perfectly understandable English. Although, English is not my native tongue either, so who am I to judge. Good day to you, too.I hope my English was decent…. good day
Very well I see that we are on the same line, what I regret is that you intervened to defend the work of the developers or moderators at all costs even when they say nonsense:
"Chrisb" said: “For what do you need the technical drawings? They may still be common for communication with a shop where you get your part machined…..” if that were the case it would make no sense what commercial parallels continue to develop for technical drawing: Medusa4, Tekla, Autocad, Invetor, Catia, SolidWorks, solid edge and many others.
He also criticized an example non-standard design: “….but let me tell you, they will not be happy if you give them drawings showing a hole with an arc length of 6.28mm for a quarter arc which should have a distance from its border to the borders of the model of 6mm….. They probably expect and sure will be faster if you tell them to drill a 8mm hole at a distance of 10mm to the borders” not remembering that we are not lecturing on how to dimension a drawing according to standard (i am a professional in the sector, I certainly cannot accept such criticisms which in this context make no sense)
The purpose was and is to demonstrate what can be done with the tools that TechDraw has, this was and is the meaning of the example drawing.
But I also understand that "chrisb" did it without hurting me
As a wise moderator he should have appreciated and suggest me to describe step by step how I did it, surely it would have helped “RSA” much more.
Regarding the smaps in TechDraw, we have the humility to say: sorry, your proposal is valid but at present we are not able to turn it into code because it would also involve a lot of additional work.
Developers, users of any level, translators, front end designers, etc. we are all in the same "boat", everyone can say nonsense things but not because you are a developer you are privileged, we all contribute to what our knowledge allows us.
In any case, certainly from this controversy we have all drawn something positive for the good of FreeCad, therefore i consider the controversy closed here.
Good job everyone!