Then perhaps it's best to remove the property from the UI file? If it's useless as it's overwriten?openBrain wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:31 am Can confirm change in the UI is probably useless as default value is overwritten when widget is created with actual object property value : https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob ... pp#L69-L70
PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FreeCadDevDiary
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
I support the change tho make inner the default.
However, we must assure that your UI is consistent. At the moment the Thickness feature of the Part WB can only make the thickness towards outer. To get towards inner, one must enter a negative value.
Therefore we should take the opportunity and make Part and PartDesign consistent.
Here is my plan for that:
- like we already do for the pad/Pocket, Part and PartDesign should use the same dialog. This will automatically assure we don't have inconsistencies like we have (Part has the Join type "Tangent" while this is missing in PartDesign)
A question:
- Part has the option "self-intersection" while PartDesign has not. What is this option about, meaning can anybody share an example file so thee the effect of this option?
I expect the unification to become not an easy task since e.g. the face selection mechanism of Part is very different to that of PartDesign. Therefore I cannot promise I can do the unification.
However, we must assure that your UI is consistent. At the moment the Thickness feature of the Part WB can only make the thickness towards outer. To get towards inner, one must enter a negative value.
Therefore we should take the opportunity and make Part and PartDesign consistent.
Here is my plan for that:
- like we already do for the pad/Pocket, Part and PartDesign should use the same dialog. This will automatically assure we don't have inconsistencies like we have (Part has the Join type "Tangent" while this is missing in PartDesign)
A question:
- Part has the option "self-intersection" while PartDesign has not. What is this option about, meaning can anybody share an example file so thee the effect of this option?
I expect the unification to become not an easy task since e.g. the face selection mechanism of Part is very different to that of PartDesign. Therefore I cannot promise I can do the unification.
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
A main point is that current modification doesn't require code for retro-compatibility, while changing in Part would maybe need (depending how we exactly implement).uwestoehr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:49 am Here is my plan for that:
- like we already do for the pad/Pocket, Part and PartDesign should use the same dialog. This will automatically assure we don't have inconsistencies like we have (Part has the Join type "Tangent" while this is missing in PartDesign)
OpenCascade documentation is pretty clear on this :A question:
- Part has the option "self-intersection" while PartDesign has not. What is this option about, meaning can anybody share an example file so thee the effect of this option?
Code: Select all
SelfInter tells the algorithm whether a computation to eliminate self-intersections needs to be applied to the resulting shape. However, as this functionality is not yet implemented, you should use the default value (false);
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
So we support an OCC option that does actually not exist?openBrain wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:02 am OpenCascade documentation is pretty clear on this :Code: Select all
SelfInter tells the algorithm whether a computation to eliminate self-intersections needs to be applied to the resulting shape. However, as this functionality is not yet implemented, you should use the default value (false);
- adrianinsaval
- Veteran
- Posts: 5541
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
that's silly, it should be removed from UI if it does not work IMO, the existing options are confusing already without this, it's also a waste of time because when the operation fails the user will likely attempt many property combinations to see if it works.
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
+1 the tools should have the same dialog. Maybe even the same command. Did you made progress on that project?uwestoehr wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:49 am Therefore we should take the opportunity and make Part and PartDesign consistent.
Here is my plan for that:
- like we already do for the pad/Pocket, Part and PartDesign should use the same dialog. This will automatically assure we don't have inconsistencies like we have (Part has the Join type "Tangent" while this is missing in PartDesign)
I expect the unification to become not an easy task since e.g. the face selection mechanism of Part is very different to that of PartDesign. Therefore I cannot promise I can do the unification.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FreeCadDevDiary
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
Re: PartDesign Thickness - inwards by default
I did not do anything in this regards. At the moment, when In find time, I work on FEM and I think this will need some more weeks.
So if you have time, please take over if you like.