PAD & Trim tools - talk and suggestions

[pperisin]

Hi,

Couple weeks ago I started mantis issue 0000320: Allow extruding faces on parts

So yorik made this function, and I think that it is great. I just have some small suggestions after working with it for couple times. These are all minor suggestions.

1 - you can extrude in any direction, but if you press SHIFT key, you get to extrude in the direstion of face normal. I would prefer vice-versa, so that it exturdes on normal initially, and if you want to extrude in any direction you use SHIFT key.
2 - I noticed that after doing this you do not get pad shape - I think that you get a solid shape, and if you want to modify height from parameters afterwards you can't. Maybe it would be good if Pad shape was created, with height option that can be changed later on.
3 - The function is great, and it is perfec how you can see where everything is going, and at the same time you can numerically imput height value. Now, IMO this is the way regular pad function should work. So, is there a way that PAD function can be "updated" with this, because selecting trim from User interface is OK, but this should actually be PAD.

All in all, I'm quite impressed with how it is working now.

Regards,
Petar Perisin

[yorik]

The idea of shift doing the contrary I'm not sure I like too much because until now I always used shift to restrain, not to "liberate"... The idea is that restrained movement involves extra calculation, and I always want to leave the "normal" behaviour (without any key pressed) the fastest possible.

The extrusion producing a pad, I agree, I'll have a look at it.

The pad tool indeed could be more visual, but at the moment none of the basic part tools have visual "tracking". I think that should be considered as a next evolution level, or maybe a whole new workbench. Anyway, that would require quite some work to upgrade them all. In fact the draft module begins to "leak" and occupy areas outside its domain maybe some time there should be some split, or extend the draft module to more 3D operations...

[pperisin]

The idea of shift doing the contrary I'm not sure I like too much because until now I always used shift to restrain, not to "liberate"... The idea is that restrained movement involves extra calculation, and I always want to leave the "normal" behaviour (without any key pressed) the fastest possible.

I understand this, but IMO this is from programmer perspective. I think that from user perspective it is more intuitive to have it constrained to face normal without any key pressed (because in 99% of cases you want this normal, so this should be simpler - no key), and if you press SHIFT, you "enable" different kind of extrusion. Extrusion on face normal is the way PAD function works. I understand that there are some extra calculations if it is constrained, but it is not so slow. Also, when you are placing line, it will automatically snap to already placed lines/points without pressing anything - because it is more intuitive. You need to press extra key to have core (faster) place line function. This is the same thing.

few more suggestions (first two are google SketchUp based, and can be checked out in here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miC1hvWQjlQ):

1 - Extrude multiple faces at once (of course, all those multi-selected faces must be on the same plane)
2 - Extrude can have one more constraint, so that if you want to extrude face to be alligned with another face that is on paralel plane or up until one edge, or point - so constrained extrusion up untill some height that is graphically set (in video around 2:45 min).
3 - The way it works now is that you can have face normal or some unknown normal. But what if you want to have normal like [X, Y, Z] = [2, 3, 1]. YOu can not set it. How about adding 3 more Text boxes in draft (I can't remember the name now - the place where you set height) in which you will be able to set normals by which you want a face to extrude.

The Push/Pull function from Sketchup is (although it might not seem like it) the best, most useful function in sketchup. Because of this function and the way it works sketchup is so easy to use - this function makes sketchup easy to use. That is why I would love to see something similar in FreeCAD.

Regards,
Petar Perisin

[pperisin]

2 - Extrude can have one more constraint, so that if you want to extrude face to be alligned with another face that is on paralel plane or up until one edge, or point - so constrained edtrusion pu untill some height that is graphically set (in video around 2:45 min).

I just played some more. It seems this is the way it works already. Cool. Thanx

Regards,
Petar Perisin

[yorik]

Okay I'm convinced about shift.
Now, for all the rest, upgrading that draft function into a sketchup push/pull tool isa big job and begins to leak much outside the draft module area... This was normally just a tool for extending lines... There is also the problem that the pad and pocket tools are designed to work with one 2D shape, so they won't work well with multiple faces.

But it is true that a push/pull tool would be a great addition. But I think it would be probably more at home in the PartDesign workbench. The thing is, outside the draft module, there is no common framework for displaying visual feedback stuff on screen (snap, etc...) So before anything else we'd need to set that up...

[pperisin]

Okay I'm convinced about shift.

Thank you.

This was normally just a tool for extending lines... There is also the problem that the pad and pocket tools are designed to work with one 2D shape, so they won't work well with multiple faces.

OK, then forget about multiple faces extrusion.

But it is true that a push/pull tool would be a great addition. But I think it would be probably more at home in the PartDesign workbench. The thing is, outside the draft module, there is no common framework for displaying visual feedback stuff on screen (snap, etc...) So before anything else we'd need to set that up...

OK. I agree that it would be good to be inside PartDesign, but since there is no framework for it there, I do not see rally big reason to implement it either (especially since you guys are very time-limited).

I know that you recently implemented use of Draft tools with PartDesign. I know that if i create a box (from Part Design) and place rectangle on one of it'+s faces (from draft) I can use pad and pocket with that rectangle. so my suggestions for this functions are this:

- Change SHIFT behavior.
- right now when you use it you get "Extrusion" object. Can you make it get "Pad" object, what appears in the upper example I described.
- enable pocket
- add few more text booxes in draft "toolbar" (what is that object's name anyway) so we can write down custom normal for extrusion.

Regards,
Petar Perisin

[yorik]

Okay, you're right. better something than nothing.
I'll do the 3 first items, and for the normal dialog we'll see how it works, maybe handier to simply add an extrusion property to the pad and pocket objects...

[jriegel]

Mhh,
we have to be careful with mixing things up.
Pocket and Pad are PartDesign features. They use (with others) the extrusion as tool, but
have a very dedicated focus! They will always produce (as all PartDesign features) under
all circumstances a water tight 2-manifold (solid). They will only work on planar shapes
derived from Part2DObject.

[yorik]

Ok... the idea at this point is only that Draft extrusions produce a pad or a pocket instead of a dumb shape.

But I see your point, if the extrusion direction of a pad could be changed, there might occur the possibility of
the resulting shape be problematic (for example if the direction is in the same plane of the 2D shape, or inwards like a pocket)

But neverthless, wouldn't it be interesting to allow a pad or a pocket in another direction than the normal? Or that should be
another kind of object?

[jriegel]

Actually I lack the idea what this is good for. Extruding a single face of a solid makes no sense to me. And I model now
nearly 10 years with Catia and I never have the need for a Pad in a other direction as the Sketch normal.
Call it stubborn, but I want at least a use case before we build in all kind of parameters in well used and known features.