-alex- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:18 pm
wandererfan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:43 pm
Picking a length/angle constraint and saying make a dimension in this view is likely quite possible. Assuming the projection direction aligns with the sketch normal, among other things. It would be a kind of free floating dimension, not actually linked to an edge in the drawing.
"not actually linked to an edge in the drawing": yes, that's the point
From sketcherWB's developer point of view, what's your opinion about the possibility to code such feature? I mean to export constraint dimensions from sketches to Techdraw projected views?
I can understand (and have discussed) a feature of reusing the constraints of the sketcher to create TechDraw dimensions. The idea I got from the power users that actually do blueprints (I do not do blueprints myself) is that good sketching practices lead to constraints in places that one would not put when creating a blueprint. They suggested that it was best to get a projection in TechDraw and create the dimensions that are necessary there.
Last year I had to do a blueprint for one room of my house. I found rather effortless to click an edge and get a dimension. This makes it even harder for me to understand why such feature would be desirable, if the information is not directly reusable.
Now, what it is shown in the first post is some kind of projection over one sketch. So the constraints are not TechDraw dimensions, but sketcher dimensions. It appears to be intended to show how to build a solid from a constrained sketch, or to show how one should constraint one sketch to create a solid.
Then I read the exchange with wandererfan, where the focus is on a "free floating dimension". I am not sure I follow this part. I do not understand what the purpose of this may be. I do not see how this would substantially speed up the creation of blueprints. But, I do not know much about blueprints.
Now, you ask about the Sketcher. There are two different sources of information that can be obtained from a Sketch. The first source, which is the main source, reflects the geometries in edit mode and is contained in two properties called Geometry and Constraints. These assume a sketch in XY plane. However, orientation can be obtained from the placement property. The second source of information is the edges that are generated from the edit mode properties (the shape). This shape contains edges(wires) and vertices, but not constraints or values of constraints.
I think that the approach that is presented in the previous post involves using the second information (the shape) and somehow try to get the constraint information and link it to this shape for representation. I think this approach may be over-complicated if what is desired is what is shown in the first post.
I think that if you want to do something in the line of the picture of the first post, it may make more sense to use the edit mode information, and transform it with the placement and projection information. But, TechDraw will need to be able to interpret all the sketcher edit mode geometry and be able to draw it (if the profile is actually necessary), or interpret it if the dimensions are only necessary.
This approach would make the toponaming improvements / reordering of edges in wires irrelevant (as far as I understand), because the edit mode sketch does not have edges or wires, but actual geometry objects (lines, circles, ellipses, ...). But, as said, representation of constraints, within the sketcher, relies on geometry information of the geometry it is applied to. This means that to draw constraints, the geometry information shall be interpreted.
As an evaluation of the effort, I will say that this is doable. I would say that there is enough information in the sketcher module to understand how this can be done. I will also say that it involves quite some work.
I am not sure this reply is what you were expecting or if it is helpful. Feel free to refine the question for more answers
