[Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

About the development of the Part Design module/workbench. PLEASE DO NOT POST HELP REQUESTS HERE!
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
User avatar
paddle
Veteran
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by paddle »

chrisb wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:30 pm What an unfair comment! Here have very honourable helpers raised their voices, e.g. GeneFC, user1234, TheMarkster, openBrain, who have proven that they are willing and able to help others without any personal advantage.
Hey I didn't point a finger at anyone. I said how it feels from my perspective, my lack of background knowledge and all the negativity I received for ideas that were not worth it.

Be honest, how many positive comment did I get? While I'm sorry but arc slot is a useful tool that was missing. How many people complained that it should be a macro and how many thanked me for the dev?
Last edited by paddle on Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by GeneFC »

Haavard wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:11 pm So why dismiss this idea so hard, and not even encourage paddle to give it a go? If he makes a pull request, we can test it and find out if it will work, and if not, it won't get merged. :?
You continue to miss the main point.

Changes are fine to ADD.

Don't REMOVE the tools I have been using for years just because you think I am stupid or lazy and that your way is "better".

This change does not fix any bug or other problem, it does not improve any function or operation in FreeCAD, it does not improve the computation in any way. Perhaps for some it might slightly improve user efficiency if they can avoid the inevitable screwups from choosing the wrong tool and ending up with constraint conflicts.

Who knows? I might try the new scheme and like it. Just don't force me to use it.

Gene
User avatar
paddle
Veteran
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by paddle »

GeneFC wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:41 pm Don't REMOVE the tools I have been using for years just because you think I am stupid or lazy and that your way is "better".
I understand that and I didn't implied anyone is stupid. But it is very easy to become used to how things are even if they are not optimal.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8864
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by drmacro »

paddle wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:44 pm
GeneFC wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:41 pm Don't REMOVE the tools I have been using for years just because you think I am stupid or lazy and that your way is "better".
I understand that and I didn't implied anyone is stupid. But it is very easy to become used to how things are even if they are not optimal.
"optimal" in whose eye? You feel your way is optimal. That doesn't mean it is considered so universally.

I actually don't feel your way is optimal, but, that doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there for those who do.

Unless the option to choose is provided, you are going to have angry consumers.

But, that's what happens when you add any feature.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3320
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by user1234 »

paddle wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:16 am This is a made up situation. Hovering on top you would immediatly see if it's 2 or 3 lines with preselection. This is a non-sens argument, it makes no point. Why would you want to know if it's 2 or 3 lines? It's such a rare made up situation that in this case you just put your mouse on one line and see it's 2 separate lines.
Not when you have
- new user, they are not know, that overlaying elements are (often) not allowed
- T-junction can be in skeleton models for structure (i do not use it, but others)
- T-junction are used also from people who use Arch functions based on the Sketcher (i also did not knew that since someone pointed this ~ 2 years ago to me)
- also this or mixing versions above can accidentally happen, when you you get a flipping from the solver, especially on circle elements near any quarter, combined elements, where its extrapolation intersections is near 45°, an so on. This behavior gets lately very rare, but can happen).


paddle wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:16 amFirst I don't say we need separate icons in the backend. My point is that one TOOL should do both constraints.
This was no clear to me, maybe i have overseen this. But as chrisb pointed, you click AB and get A or B, related so the selections, which is in the first sight not explicit.


paddle wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:16 amSecond, following you argument, why don't we create more constraints type then? We should have PointToLine and PointToCircle and PointToArc and PointToEllipse.
I do not get why do you think that i mean this? Line is in this case not a straight line.


chrisb wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:33 pmThis sounds as if you haven't seen many sketches from other users.
This is what i am all about. I was always one of the fools in the company, who had to correct or rescue the CAD models for others. And often because they use not the appropriate tool/function/constraint/and so on. This is the reason why a good overview and unambiguousness is so important for me in CAD. Of course you always have to make a compromise.

Also many people have many good UI changes (eg. uwestoehr). But like anywhere in the world, silence means consent.


Greetings
user1234
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by chrisb »

For what its worth: I had made a poll in the German forum with three questions
1) Merge coincidence and point-on-object (3)
2) Don't merge (9)
3) Make it optional (6)

(Must be quite some Autocad payed trolls there)
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
bambuko
Veteran
Posts: 2160
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: UK, England, North Devon

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by bambuko »

chrisb wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:30 am ...(Must be quite some Autocad payed trolls there)
:lol: :mrgreen:
I am using Link branch and Assembly3
you can also download ... and try it here
excellent Assembly3 tutorials here
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by adrianinsaval »

Regardless of the merits of this specific proposal (and I think this was a good one) the way some people are rejecting many proposals (with a bad tone) just because it's not something they would use is really a shame and maybe some of you guys should reflect on how you approach these cases. Especially considering that paddle is most of the time volunteering to code his proposals, not demanding someone else does it.

It's ok to ask for an option, if it's done as was proposed pages ago similar to the auto radius/circle constraint then you have the built-in option of adding the tools from the dropdown to a custom toolbar if you want them separate so I don't get all the fuss when there was no PR that removed anything.

On the other hand, user1234 made good point, I'm sorry paddle you'll have to get used to the fact that detractors to something are far more likely to comment than those who agree, that's just how it is, so please don't think everyone is aggressive because of this. Usually if I have nothing to add I will not post on the same subject every time I agree with someone. Regarding your complaints about the arc slot proposal, I think that discussion got very mixed up and some of the comments about making it a macro were more about the complex fillets.
Grub
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 7:28 pm

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by Grub »

adrianinsaval wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:45 pmUsually if I have nothing to add I will not post on the same subject every time I agree with someone.
I'm agree with you, (and moreover I received insults by private message from a person who didn't agree with me, so it doesn't really make you want to discuss the evolutions of Freecad.)

Continue Paddle and don't get discouraged, Freecad needs new motivated developers like you, it would be a shame to have a new fork like RealThunder did...
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: [Behaviour suggestion] Merge 'Coincident' and 'point on object'

Post by GeneFC »

Grub wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:04 pm and moreover I received insults by private message from a person who didn't agree with me,
That was me. I did it privately after you insulted me publicly. :o

Gene
Post Reply