[Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by adrianinsaval »

aapo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:57 am This is actually quite a good idea, but it's pretty far from the original suggestion to completely combine the constraints. For me personally, that'd work perfectly, but would it be easy enough to understand for a novice user?
IMO yes, the combined diameter/radius constraint is not hard to understand and to avoid confusion we can put a tooltip that explains it.
User avatar
pathfinder
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:27 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by pathfinder »

adrianinsaval wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:19 pm
aapo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:57 am This is actually quite a good idea, but it's pretty far from the original suggestion to completely combine the constraints. For me personally, that'd work perfectly, but would it be easy enough to understand for a novice user?
IMO yes, the combined diameter/radius constraint is not hard to understand and to avoid confusion we can put a tooltip that explains it.
Agreed.

Given that the diameter/radius tool already exists, it really doesn't add that much extra complexity, because the concept itself already exists anyway.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by chrisb »

Every now and then I see the example of radius/diameter quoted to be equivalent to point on object/coincidence. It is not. Diameter and radius constrain exactly the same thing: the size of a circle. Point on object constrains rather different objects.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
pathfinder
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:27 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by pathfinder »

chrisb wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:46 pm Every now and then I see the example of radius/diameter quoted to be equivalent to point on object/coincidence. It is not. Diameter and radius constrain exactly the same thing: the size of a circle. Point on object constrains rather different objects.
How does that invalidate the suggestion?
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by obelisk79 »

aapo wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:57 am This is actually quite a good idea, but it's pretty far from the original suggestion to completely combine the constraints. For me personally, that'd work perfectly, but would it be easy enough to understand for a novice user?
I know I've since deleted most of the original conversation, however I did propose a drop down similar to the radiam/radius/diameter tool.
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by obelisk79 »

pathfinder wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:40 am How does that invalidate the suggestion?
The arguments against are based on what is considered an acceptable level of abstraction to some users. Attachment between a point and line behave differently compared to point on point. However it's not far from also observing that both functions are an attachment between simple sketch elements regardless of the degrees of freedom affected. It's a chicken vs egg argument imo and there is a mix among professional software regarding these being combined or separated, somewhat favoring a combined tool vs separate.
User avatar
pathfinder
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:27 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by pathfinder »

obelisk79 wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am The arguments against are based on what is considered an acceptable level of abstraction to some users.

Hm well, I would argue that the drop down option adds another option and does not take one away. So if you don't like the combined solution, you can just ignore it. But I admit that combining the two constraints from two into one button leads to more inconvenience for those who prefer to keep them separate but don't use shortcuts because now, they would have to enter a drop down to select the tool they want. Given that the combined tool is supposed to be more convenient, this is a valid point – if the majority ends up not using it, it made things more inconvenient for them, which defeats the purpose.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that every constraint that could reasonably be combined into a third tool should be (e.g. width/height, horizontal/vertical; there's even an argument to be made that the parallel and right angle constraint could be put together as well), but I admit that this is a fringe position.
Last edited by pathfinder on Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pathfinder
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:27 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by pathfinder »

Double post, sorry
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by obelisk79 »

pathfinder wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:14 pm Personally, I'm of the opinion that every constraint that could reasonably be combined into a third tool should be (e.g. width/height, horizontal/vertical; there's even an argument to be made that the parallel and right angle constraint could be put together as well), but I admit that this is a fringe position.
So I think there is a more clear distinction between width/height, horizontal/vertical, parallel/perpendicular. Those are diametrically opposite functions, whereas coincident/point-on-object are so similar the distinction is small so a combo tool + dropdown possible makes sense. If you are merely suggesting grouping each of the mentioned pairs into drop-down buttons, I will have to disagree that such a move would be ideal or offer any tangible improvement.
User avatar
pathfinder
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 10:27 am

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by pathfinder »

obelisk79 wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:24 pm If you are merely suggesting grouping each of the mentioned pairs into drop-down buttons, I will have to disagree that such a move would be ideal or offer any tangible improvement.
I agree that simply putting them into dropdowns wouldn't be an improvement. Less icons is nice, but if it means you need two clicks instead of one, it defeats the purpose.

I was thinking of a combined solution for them, but it's not something I would advocate for, it's really more of a personal preference.

Why it makes sense in my mind is exactly because they are so different to each other. Most of the time, if you want to give a line a vertical or horizontal constraint, it's already positioned in a way that makes it easy for the solver to detect whether it's supposed to be one or the other. Same with parallel/perpendicular and width/height.

But as I said, it's really just a personal position, not something I suggest FreeCAD to move towards.
Post Reply