Use of word "Axonometric"

[garya]

I refrained from suggesting "3D" as the label as it seemed too pedestrian, but thinking about it more I think it would be a better term than anything else.

I completely disagree. I use "3D view" to refer to the area where the model is shown. I'm sure I'm not alone. An example of use is in Getting_started. Even if you set the 3D view (see what I did there) to a 2D orthographic view (top, right...), it is still a window into a 3D space. Naming this "3D view" would just bring all kinds of confusion instead of bringing clarity.

I agree we currently refer to the graphics area as the "3D view". I understand the views along an axis are actually special cases of a 3D view. As you point out, "graphics area" might be a better thing to call it. But the button would never be referred to as the "3D view" alone. One would always say something like "Click the 3D view button". One might well say "switch to 3D view", regardless of what the tooltip says; but that is very different from "Click in the 3D view area". Using "graphics area" would get rid of this issue. The tooltip would say "Set to 3D view". IMHO it would be better if all of the tooltips for views simply said "xxx", "Front view", "Top view" etc. and omitted the "Set to". I'd be happy to have some other accurate label; I just can't think of one. But I don't think having it incorrectly say axonometric (or isometric) is wise.

While it's true that all views are technically 3D, the 6 face views are useful precisely because they are special cases that reduce a 3D view to a 2D one. If they were actual 2D projections instead of 3D views, they would probably still satisfy 95%+ of how people use them. I would wager the number of times someone clicks a 2D view button and then rotates it just a tiny bit is miniscule. People probably often click a 2D view and then drastically rotate it to get a 3D view. In that case, the 2D view button is being used solely for orientation, as a reference for further repositioning.

And what about the three new view orientations: isometric (formerly axonometric), dimetric and trimetric? How would you rename them?

Good point.
Only two are new, right? Isn't isometric what axonometric actually is, currently?
I think you're assuming one might have perspective view mode set, and still want to get a dimetric or trimetric image? Does that even make sense in a perspective view mode? It seems unlikely, since by definition a perspective view distorts the dimensions the farther a point is from the viewer. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole purpose of dimetric and trimetric views to produce views where dimensions can be taken consistently from the other two axes? Otherwise one would use a perspective view and simply change the vanishing point(s). If all of the above is correct, dimetric and trimetric views should not be available when one is in perspective mode. Switching to an isometric, dimetric, or trimetric view should switch one to orthographic mode.

This is why I think the 3D/axonometric button should have a drop-down attached to it, and a default single-click action which is easily modifiable by the user. The dropdown would contain 4 views: isometric, dimetric, trimetric, and perspective. The initial default would be isometric. A single click would get you an isometric view. Right click (or click an associated down-arrow at the side) and you would get a drop-down. Clicking on one of the other views would switch to that view. Modulating the click with something like <shift> would switch to that view and set that view as the new single-click default. A side benefit of this is that you can then remove two items from the main view menu, orthographic mode and perspective mode. The mode switch would occur automatically when you choose a view. The existing shortcuts could still exist if one insisted. The only benefit of leaving orthographic and perspective view choices in the view menu would be allowing one to switch to perspective view and back without changing the current viewpoint. I'll admit that is perhaps a more common operation. In that case, having a single entry, "toggle view mode" would be better.

To me it does not make sense to change the terminology of views to unusual words that will have experienced CAD users scratch their heads, all for a perceived discrepancy that is after all very minor, and only happens marginally.

I would hope FreeCAD will be used by both experienced and inexperienced users. As you point out, axonometric is a word few people even know is a word.

Once orthographic mode encompasses three different types, would you constantly switch between isometric, dimetric, and trimetric?

Yes. This is why I've lobbied for it for many years, and finally got my wish! I've already mapped keyboard shortcuts. ;) (7 and 8, as it happens)

Ok, I'm a bit surprised at frequent switching; that's good to know. I will try to update my build to see how they are presented in the interface. Out of curiosity, can you give a quick explanation of the circumstances when you switch back and forth?

If the tooltip said "Axonometric", as it does now, one would write the tutorial to say "switch to axonometric view." If the user is in Perspective mode, some users will think, oh, I have to switch to axonometric mode and do that rather than switching to the 3D view. Things go downhill from there.

Uh, sorry but "I have to switch to axonometric mode and do that rather than switching to the 3D view" makes no sense to me.

That was a bit of a mouthful, I'll admit ;-). Forget that. If I want the user to click on the button that currently shows an isotropic/perspective view and is labeled axonometric, what do I call it? Do I say "switch to axonometric view"? As you point out, few people even know what that means. "switch to 3D view" makes much more sense. All of the other buttons are 2D views, and one would say "switch to the front face view", etc. As it stands, I would wager the current tooltip label works because it is totally ignored by 99.9% of users -- the graphic is sufficient, and if I say "switch to 3D view" someone will know exactly what to do because of that image. The tooltip could say "Jump off a cliff" and it would make little difference. I would prefer for it to be omitted entirely to what it says now.

In any case, I very much doubt that a beginner will ever have that thought. For one thing, they won't even know what an axonometric view is. And, they will probably not even know yet that they can switch to perspective projection. AFAIK there is no mention of it on the wiki, and orthographic view is the default.

I suspect most beginners will know you can switch to perspective view. Orthographic and perspective view are the #2 and #3 selections on the main View menu, and in my experience most beginners with any software program look at that menu pretty early on.

If you insist on this, we could always add to all the tutorials on the wiki to make sure to start in orthographic view.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm trying to resolve what is incorrect terminology regarding the tooltip on a button. I'm actually surprised at the heat I'm getting here. Most engineers I know prefer things to be as accurate as possible, and certainly not misleading. If there is a better term than "3D view" I'm all ears.

In any case, because orthographic mode is the default, I see no need to add that to the tutorials.

They refer to what I call the "3D view" as the "graphics area".

I personally prefer that term.

[Jee-Bee]

IMHO it would be better if all of the tooltips for views simply said "xxx", "Front view", "Top view" etc. and omitted the "Set to". I'd be happy to have some other accurate label; I just can't think of one. But I don't think having it incorrectly say axonometric (or isometric) is wise.

No i don't agree on this. one very simple reason is that which axis make the front view depends on business and norms you work with.
Currently i work for car industrie and there mark the YZ axis / plane the front view (with X+ axis in drive direction) but before i had to deal with other 'front' views.

Only two are new, right? Isn't isometric what axonometric actually is, currently?

No Isometric, Dimetric and trimetric are all axonometric. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometr ... arison.png for comparison.

I think you're assuming one might have perspective view mode set, and still want to get a dimetric or trimetric image? Does that even make sense in a perspective view mode?

No perspective mode is perspective. like we all see. Objects further away become smaller.
All tree Isometric, dimetric and trimetric the scale of the object is independent of it's location (and that is what you want while engineering).

See for more basic information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection