new Measurement tool

[kkremitzki]

Perhaps you don't understand my point

Or perhaps you didn't read the title of this thread and want to play the offended smartarse by hijacking a subject you don't care about ? Either you test or you shut up. What's so hard to understand about that ?

Please don't be like this.

[Zolko]

Please don't be like this.

yeah, sorry, but he got on my nerves.

[tom]

Ok, the Add-on Manager is working again. So, I could install the Assembly4 WB and test the new measurement tool. Here are my comments:

• I like the Tasks View. It is much cleaner and understandable than the Caliper Tool of the Manipulator WB. Especially I like the Results group box.

• I like the readability of the labels, but the positioning of the labels could be improved. In many cases the labels cover the subject being measured.

• I don't understand yet the purpose of the generated Measures group in the model tree. It contains objects representing the measurement and objects representing the labels. When I double click on the measurement objects, the I the Transform Tool opens letting me move the measurement object in 3D space. But why should I do that? Double clicking an label object activates the Edit mode. But what can I edit here?

• If I turn off the option "Show Label in 3D view", then of course no label is created and the measurement result is only visible in the results group box. However, that result gets lost once I create a further measurement. I thought that I can recover an old measurement result by clicking on one of the created objects in the model tree, but that action does not update the results group box.

IMHO it would be better to have only one object per measurement in the model tree. Double clicking on such an object should open the Measure Task and update the results group box. In the properties of such an object there should be an option to view/hide the label of that specific measurement. The existing option "Show Label in 3D view" in the results group box should also reflect the objects property value. For new measurements the option state of the last measurement should taken over.

I hope my comments are useful for further development.

BR Tom

[Zolko]

Thank-you for testing and reporting

• I like the readability of the labels, but the positioning of the labels could be improved. In many cases the labels cover the subject being measured.

Yes, true. If someone wants to step-in to improve would be nice

• I don't understand yet the purpose of the generated Measures group in the model tree. It contains objects representing the measurement and objects representing the labels. When I double click on the measurement objects, the I the Transform Tool opens letting me move the measurement object in 3D space. But why should I do that? Double clicking an label object activates the Edit mode. But what can I edit here?

The measures are static objects, there is nothing to edit about them. The labels are standard FreeCAD objects and behave like that. The Measures group is for convenience and was asked to avoid clutter in the model tree.

• If I turn off the option "Show Label in 3D view", then of course no label is created and the measurement result is only visible in the results group box. However, that result gets lost once I create a further measurement. I thought that I can recover an old measurement result by clicking on one of the created objects in the model tree, but that action does not update the results group box.

I have 2 uses for measurements:

1) for personal use during design, where I only need the information, then I modify the model accordingly, and measure again

2) to document a measure: in this case I position the view and the measure carefully to best show what is measured, and then I take a screenshot

IMHO it would be better to have only one object per measurement in the model tree. Double clicking on such an object should open the Measure Task and update the results group box. In the properties of such an object there should be an option to view/hide the label of that specific measurement.

You are right, but these improvements are beyond my programming skills