Transform Sketch and various other things. Many things (Problems)

[ProjectBP]

Thanks for bringing these 2 up, indeed same wishlist here

Maybe you should start splitting these into separate thread, or it would be too complicated to follow.

Looks like there's nothing to keep an eye on yet. the points discussed seem to be of no interest to anyone except me)

You can consider that in this topic I am drawing up a checklist of identified inconveniences.

If you create a separate topic for each item, there will be a lot of them)

If my message in your topic bothers you, I can delete it there

[paullee]

@ProjectBP Fine with me.

For the 2 issues about Sketch, there maybe only a few dedicated developers working on it but might not read this sub-forum/thread; one of them I understand who work on Sketch is abdullah

[ProjectBP]

@ProjectBP Fine with me.

For the 2 issues about Sketch, there maybe only a few dedicated developers working on it but might not read this sub-forum/thread; one of them I understand who work on Sketch is abdullah:)

You can tell me who's who accompanied by specific workspaces. (I am not a frequent visitor to the forum and have not yet understood the affiliation of the participants).

When I have accumulated all the identified features and suggestions, I can send them to the direct attendant.
Of course, he will be able to ignore them or take note.

I'll try not to be annoying.

[paddle]

There is a serious lack of autonomy in the array inside the sketch, which would arrange fragments between the starting and ending points.
Now the array uses a step and there is no precise control over where the last element will end up. The array often extends beyond the screen.

Current rectangular array is very limited. I have a PR that replace it : https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/11267
Though I have not added a mode to use start and end point of the array. But it could be added.

[ProjectBP]

Current rectangular array is very limited. I have a PR that replace it : https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/11267
Though I have not added a mode to use start and end point of the array. But it could be added.

This would be very cool (if it is not very difficult, of course).
I don't know how I could help you with this, but I could try to think about the icon in case it was a separate tool (I don't know how it would be better to do it).

I have a few more thoughts on sketching. If you are interested, I will try to arrange them.

In the same array it would be useful to have an input field for example for horizontal and vertical offset (element pitch).
This could be similar to the Draft_OrthoArray tool, but at the sketch level.

Of course, I don’t plan to bother anyone with new tasks. Perhaps everything discussed does not cause inconvenience to anyone except me) But I would be glad to be wrong.


Let me ask you a question regarding 3D windows in general, as you know the features of the program engine. (I just don’t know who else to ask about this)
Is the fact that almost no information is displayed on the screen in a 3D window a limitation of the engine? Or simply no one tried to make different parameters visible (lengths, element names)? Currently, much of this can be learned by hovering over an element and looking at the bottom left corner of the screen, but this results in losing focus on the element.
A 3D window could be much more informative and helpful, and not just display the result of the work on the screen.

For example, two rectangles.
I can’t find out the size of the right one until I assign restrictions to it (the left). But it would be great to see the dimensions at the time of construction, so that at this stage they would be close to what I need. The same applies to any movement. In the end, I will of course assign the restrictions that are required. But if at the time of assignment the construction geometry is close to the desired one, the assignment process itself will be much more comfortable (for example, the line will not fly off the screen, because the size is already almost the size that is needed).
You can focus on the grid, but it is often difficult, because... You have to mentally correlate the scale with the grid lines.

[paddle]

Is the fact that almost no information is displayed on the screen in a 3D window a limitation of the engine? Or simply no one tried to make different parameters visible (lengths, element names)? Currently, much of this can be learned by hovering over an element and looking at the bottom left corner of the screen, but this results in losing focus on the element.
A 3D window could be much more informative and helpful, and not just display the result of the work on the screen.

For example, two rectangles.
I can’t find out the size of the right one until I assign restrictions to it (the left). But it would be great to see the dimensions at the time of construction, so that at this stage they would be close to what I need. The same applies to any movement. In the end, I will of course assign the restrictions that are required. But if at the time of assignment the construction geometry is close to the desired one, the assignment process itself will be much more comfortable (for example, the line will not fly off the screen, because the size is already almost the size that is needed).
You can focus on the grid, but it is often difficult, because... You have to mentally correlate the scale with the grid lines.

- For the translate tool, if it is accepted the new 'translate' tool will overwrite the current rectangular array as well as the move/copy/clone.

Regarding your second point :
If you download latest developper build, you will find something called 'on-screen-parameter' that does pretty much what you ask for for the rectangle. Spinboxes will show you the dimensions while you draw. And you can even type in to create constraints.

[ProjectBP]

Regarding your second point :
If you download latest developper build, you will find something called 'on-screen-parameter' that does pretty much what you ask for for the rectangle. Spinboxes will show you the dimensions while you draw. And you can even type in to create constraints.

Thank you! This is simply wonderful!

I see some more new opportunities. I am very glad that new tools and opportunities are emerging.

If similar information appears at the level of objects (not sketches), it will be very cool. This kind of thing is basically missing everywhere.

[ProjectBP]

To build parametric models, you often have to define the name of the model element. To do this, you have to look down the screen.
In this case, focus on the object is lost.

It might be useful to display this information next to the cursor. This option could be an option and be activated if necessary, so as not to clutter the 3D window unnecessarily.

[ProjectBP]

Cosmetic type offer.
If it were possible to insert pictures into tables, this would allow you to “visualize” the entered data. Just for clarity.

The picture shows a schematic example of using this feature.
A picture + text is always more convenient than just text. Finding the desired parameter in this case takes much less time.

[ProjectBP]

I don’t know where it’s better to post a topic related to this (I can’t find a section on sketcher). So let it be here for now.
The test file is attached.

Even if the constraints are set correctly, if the dimensions change significantly, the sketcher solver produces an incorrect result. Moreover, the probability of an error occurring is not always natural. (this does not apply to the UI program, but during operation it often causes problems. )
Sometimes the error appears every second resizing. Sometimes it does not appear even after 10-20 elections.