[Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Post Reply
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

[Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by obelisk79 »

dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by drmacro »

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.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

dead topic

Post by obelisk79 »

dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by drmacro »

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.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

dead topic

Post by obelisk79 »

dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by drmacro »

obelisk79 wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:23 pm ... I still view this as "both tools attach objects to each other" one allows different object types and one only allows a single 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."
User avatar
onekk
Veteran
Posts: 6144
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:48 am
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by onekk »

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.
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/
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

dead topic

Post by obelisk79 »

dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: [Discussion] Coincident vs Point on Object

Post by GeneFC »

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
User avatar
obelisk79
Veteran
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:01 pm

dead topic

Post by obelisk79 »

dead topic
Last edited by obelisk79 on Mon Sep 12, 2022 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply