Poll: What should superPlacement be renamed to?

[kkremitzki]

+1

[GeneFC]

This is undoubtedly very language dependent. Subtleties argued here may not translate well.

In my view there is no difference between "shift" and "offset" with respect to rotation.

However, "shift" carries a primary meaning of simple movement for any reason, while "offset" carries the meaning of movement for the purpose of compensating something.

"Shift" is probably better in this case.

Gene

[chrisb]

This is undoubtedly very language dependent. Subtleties argued here may not translate well.

In german "Offset" is better than "Shift".

[renatorivo]

This is undoubtedly very language dependent. Subtleties argued here may not translate well.

+1
in Italian the best is still SPlacement with a tooltip that shows "Superimposed Placement" -> Overlapped positioning.
Offset and Shift are almost impossible to translate, in this conception.

renato

[triplus]

If all +1 votes are against Attachment Offset i guess it would be hard to argue with that. Therefore it might be this challenge is more or less done.

I guess I was just trying to shortcut the process. How should I proceed now? I thought if we had enough votes for Attachment Offset, it would outweigh the other options anyway (although it might be a little biased ).

Yeah when moderating such challenge the thing you need to leave behind is bias and you need to be capable of adapting.

If you look this and the previous icon challenge i mentioned you will notice what is the benefit and why it is worth the hassle. As basically each contributor slightly modifies the original proposal and when things evolve the final result is usually forged with all this little suggestions in it. For example evolution from Offset Placement to Placement Offset to Attachment Offset happened only due to more users contributing suggestions. One single person usually doesn't have the brain power working behind to muster it.

It is important to have such challenges in my opinion. As they usually resolve the primary task of the quest by reaching high level of consensus and they strengthen the process of collaboration in FreeCAD community.

[chrisb]

If you look this and the previous icon challenge i mentioned you will notice what is the benefit and why it is worth the hassle. As basically each contributor slightly modifies the original proposal and when things evolve the final result is usually forged with all this little suggestions in it. For example evolution from Offset Placement to Placement Offset to Attachment Offset happened only due to more users contributing suggestions. One single person usually doesn't have the brain power working behind to muster it.

It is important to have such challenges in my opinion. As they usually resolve the primary task of the quest by reaching high level of consensus and they strengthen the process of collaboration in FreeCAD community.

That comment is worth a: +1!

[DeepSOIC]

In case of a doubt. The technical meaning of Placement and SuperPlacement are:
Sketch.Placement is the total placement.
vector_in_global_coordinates = Sketch.Placement.multVec(vector_in_sketch_coordinates)
That is true for every "Placement" property in FreeCAD, for every object. Attached or not.

When a sketch is attached, its Placement becomes driven by attachment, and thus read-only (except for "Translate" mode of attachment). That's when superPlacement begins to work. It is a placement that allows one to move the object relative to attached position, expressed in attached-placement coordinate system.
Sketch.Placement = placement_as_computed_by_attachment * Sketch.superPlacement
In other words, to convert a vector from in-sketch coordinates to global coordinates, one uses:

Code: Select all

vector_in_global_coordinates = placement_as_computed_by_attachment.multVec(
    Sketch.superPlacement.multVec(vector_in_sketch_coordinates)
    )

I called it "superPlacement" as a shortened version of "placement superimposed on attachment". sort of .
"AttachmentOffset" may not super correct IMO, but it is much easier to understand what it does, from the name alone.

BTW, there is one more way to consider, which is used in attachment editor: "Additional Placement".

Please excuse me for not replying for so long .

[chrisb]

"Additional Placement"

That's a very intuitive notion.

[cox]

"Additional Placement"

That's a very intuitive notion.

Interesting, please elaborate. How do you find this intuitive? To me it sounds like you could have one object placed in 2 locations.

[chrisb]

I am thinking of the process of modelling:

• I create a part and think of where to place it.
• Next I create a body and think of where to place the body within the part. The fact that this might require a special name itself should not be discussed now.
• Then I have several sketches inside the body. I know that they have the same Placement as the body and if I want to have something different I give them Additional Placement. It reflects - similar to the notions of Relative and Offset - the fact that this Placement depends on the Placement of the part and the body.

I have the feeling that I have opened Pandora's Box with the original post, but let's consider what came out last of this box.