[Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
[Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
Hmm...point on point coincident declares two points are at the same X and Y in the plane of the sketch.
Point on object declares the point will remain in contact with the selected edge. And, can move along the edge.
To me, this is enough distinction to warrant both.
Point on object declares the point will remain in contact with the selected edge. And, can move along the edge.
To me, this is enough distinction to warrant both.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
dead topic
dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
To me they are separate and being separate makes it very clear what they are intended to do.
Glomming them together obscures some detail about each.
But, maybe the details and subtleties are lost on most. It seems to me many get confused enough with FreeCAD subtleties.
I like clear use things.
There are lower level details that may need some thought. For instance, specific to vertex coincident, multiple vertexes made coincident are currently coincident in a stack. V2 is coincident to V1, V3 is coincident to V2, etc. If you want V3 and V2 coincident to V1, then the user must make it so. Why might this be needed? If you have multiple circles whose center vertexes are coincident in the first example, and V2 is deleted, V3 is no longer constrained. This may be obvious or not and unexpected solver behavior may ensue.
This may have little impact on glomming the PonP and the PonO together as a command, but at least to me having compartmentalized works well in my mind.
Glomming them together obscures some detail about each.
But, maybe the details and subtleties are lost on most. It seems to me many get confused enough with FreeCAD subtleties.
I like clear use things.
There are lower level details that may need some thought. For instance, specific to vertex coincident, multiple vertexes made coincident are currently coincident in a stack. V2 is coincident to V1, V3 is coincident to V2, etc. If you want V3 and V2 coincident to V1, then the user must make it so. Why might this be needed? If you have multiple circles whose center vertexes are coincident in the first example, and V2 is deleted, V3 is no longer constrained. This may be obvious or not and unexpected solver behavior may ensue.
This may have little impact on glomming the PonP and the PonO together as a command, but at least to me having compartmentalized works well in my mind.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
The discussion is whether it matters if they are to be atomic tools. You see them as the similar enough to have one command represent them.
When I click the icon for coincident vertex, I have already decided that I want PoP. I have made a deliberate action to implement my choice. I don't need or want to make more decisions. In fact, in my workflow, I seldom select the icon first, I have already selected the vertexes I want to be coincident.
If, as you propose, the command is going to think for me and make choices based on my selection, then it doesn't matter...as long as it is capable of anticipating my intentions correctly 99.9% of the time. At which point, the user need not even be aware of the distinction. It just becomes attaching the objects the user selected. What the objects are is just in the background.
But, personally, I prefer deliberate action on my part.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
I don't sketcher as a regular basis.
But once learned the distinction between the two tools is clearvand the scope different enough to have two distinct tools.
I care more about consistency in behaviour that a crowded interface, as more tools are available to ease a task is not sign of complexity.
If the intent is to reduce inteface clutter, and new users disorientation, maybe observing how similar software are implementing things, not to copy but to see if there are what are called "best practices" to adopt would be a more clever move.
We could discuss maybe if a toolbar is better than a contextual menu or other "input methods" but if reducing toolbar button number will result in increasing the complexity of tools or forcing FC to guess user intentions (I'm very sceptical about AI).
My two cents, and sorry if it is not very on topic.
Carlo D.
But once learned the distinction between the two tools is clearvand the scope different enough to have two distinct tools.
I care more about consistency in behaviour that a crowded interface, as more tools are available to ease a task is not sign of complexity.
If the intent is to reduce inteface clutter, and new users disorientation, maybe observing how similar software are implementing things, not to copy but to see if there are what are called "best practices" to adopt would be a more clever move.
We could discuss maybe if a toolbar is better than a contextual menu or other "input methods" but if reducing toolbar button number will result in increasing the complexity of tools or forcing FC to guess user intentions (I'm very sceptical about AI).
My two cents, and sorry if it is not very on topic.
Carlo D.
GitHub page: https://github.com/onekk/freecad-doc.
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
dead topic
dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object
I thought this was discussed quite thoroughly in the prior topic, but here goes.
For me those operations are completely different. Coincidence more or less fixes the points to a specific x/y relationship. On the other hand I use point-on-object all the time to allow a "sliding" constraint for the end of an element to another element.
They are just totally different for me. Sometime I want one and sometimes the other. I do not see how these could be combined.
Gene
For me those operations are completely different. Coincidence more or less fixes the points to a specific x/y relationship. On the other hand I use point-on-object all the time to allow a "sliding" constraint for the end of an element to another element.
They are just totally different for me. Sometime I want one and sometimes the other. I do not see how these could be combined.
Gene