Constraint Dialog Proposal

[oldfox]

When searching for constraints in the DE, how often do you manually look for the words Mate or Align in a sea of Mate<95>,Align<45>?

Never !

Usually people hover over them until the faces in question highlight, and then you edit it without regards for what it's called.

That's how I do it.

This was real handy for constraining fasteners. This way one really only needed two constraints to complete mating as opposed to three. Useful for other items as well, not just fasteners.

I've constrained a couple of fasteners in the past but I've never used 3 constraints. What would the third constraint be?
I use an align/align for flathead cap screws and an align/mate for non-flathead cap screws.

I'm really going to like the new one-click fastener method.

AD could give a warning when applying the constraint if it was over-constraining the assembly thereby allowing the user to make an adjustment or change to the constraint.

Are you meaning before "Apply" is clicked? If so, then I agree. I would also like it if some failure analysis could be performed to generate
a meaningful reason for the failure. Sorry, this has nothing to do with the "dialog box". (just the soap box )

If you want to make dialogs float and dock-able in multiple places like Alibre Script windows I'm all for that - but don't force covering the design explorer.

+100

Our current thinking is that previews are always on, there is no option.

+100

 

[oldfox]

Yeah we're past "touching", I think. There is actually a ton of subtlety going on here that I didn't expose earlier, but probably should have. For example, CoPlanar makes a lot of sense but where do you put an Origin/Origin double point constraint? It really belongs in what the "touching" one does - 0 offset mate. But, it's not really "Co-planar" intutively. Our current thinking for this "touching" constraint is now "Coincident" to accurately describe the wide variety of geometry inputs that will result in its usage. Thoughts?

A population-wide understanding of a term is almost an impossibility sometimes. "Co-planar" to me means "on the same plane".
"Coincident" to me means "one atop the other". Why not just make a new constraint: "Origin/Origin" or maybe more useful, "Point/Point"?
After all, you are promoting an expandable dialog box. (E)

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Can anyone tell me why someone would not want a preview? Our current thinking is that previews are always on, there is no option.

No, I cannot think of why "preview" should not ber a default. -- Lew

 

[JST]

I hear you. I also almost exclusively use quick constraint when I'm designing stuff. I get it - it's better, for us.

But, having 2 dialogs is bad. Being able to do some stuff in 1 and different stuff in 2 is bad. And being able to create stuff in 1, but only edit it in 2 is bad.

So we need to unify them, which means supporting everything. Now if we weren't adding new constraints and options like limits, we might be able to keep it very small, but we are. Do you have a suggestion on how we could take the existing smallest dialog (B) and make it smaller?

I hear you. I also almost exclusively use quick constraint when I'm designing stuff. I get it - it's better, for us.

But, having 2 dialogs is bad. Being able to do some stuff in 1 and different stuff in 2 is bad. And being able to create stuff in 1, but only edit it in 2 is bad.

So we need to unify them, which means supporting everything. Now if we weren't adding new constraints and options like limits, we might be able to keep it very small, but we are. Do you have a suggestion on how we could take the existing smallest dialog (B) and make it smaller?

All I ever use is the main one, never the quick constraint. One that has it alll is just what I like. On 1920 x 1200 or so, that is small enough to be fine. On 640 x 480 yeah, it would be unworkable. But the software would be generally unworkable at that resolution also.

Actually, the icons are pretty worthless as soon as you learn what is which, I prefer "E" because it just has what you need (except for the "undo") and is "small enough".

The icons as opposed to radio buttons take up more space, and are mainly useful for people who are learning, or only use the SW very infrequently. If you have any reasonable experience, you "know them" and have no great need.

Also, the icons should theoretically eliminate the need for the words. But since the words are still there (for obvius reasons), then the icons are really not sufficient, and are bigger than the radio buttons, so the entire window expands if they are used.

I may be reacting to the fact that "E" is the only one that seems to have the constraints labeled the way I am used to.... But I do prefer the smaller size and less "extra".

Probably all the consultants say that you have to do the icons etc. That is essentially the difference between consumer only, and more professional use, since folks are used to the extra stuff in consumer SW.

I do not think we here are as good a test group as you maybe want if you are going for new users who need "friendly" CAD.... We who comment regularly tend to be experienced curmudgeons who like it fine as it is.

Do what you need to do for newer users. Just try to not make it annoy the curmudgeons too much.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

I may be reacting to the fact that "E" is the only one that seems to have the constraints labeled the way I am used to....

I think you are confused. A and E are the existing designs. B, C, and D are the same proposed design with different parts expanded. F, G, H, I, and J are details of the proposed design explained. For example you can temporarily toggle the names for the icons - or you could pin it so it is always shown.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

Would Parallel replace Orient? If so will we be able to reverse the direction of it?

 

[Lew_Merrick]

I may be reacting to the fact that "E" is the only one that seems to have the constraints labeled the way I am used to....

So long as the "convention variables" are well documented (preferably in a User's Manual) changes should not be a problem -- though what passes as the "Help" system has a long way to go to work up to being classified as "unhelpful."

 

[MilesH]

I'm all in favour of a unified constraint dialog.
Any chance of a constraint for chain and belt drives? Rotational ratios but with the same direction of rotation...

 

[Lew_Merrick]

I'm all in favour of a unified constraint dialog.
Any chance of a constraint for chain and belt drives? Rotational ratios but with the same direction of rotation...

My proposal (originally written in 2010) is that a positive rotational ratio would define a "concurrent rotation" whereas a negative rotational ratio would define a "counter-rotation." The "issue" changes if you are looking at a "screw thread displacement" as a "positive/negative" value set need to follow "right-hand rotation" and "left-hand rotation" values to determine "positive" of "negative" displacements. Another of my arguments is that neither Roller Chain nor Belt connections need to "move" so long as the "driving" and "driven" shafts rotate correctly. Similar values and arguments to define them play out "nicely" in terms of Pinion & Rack relationships. Thet merely have to be documented clearly and completely.

 

[Max]

Would Parallel replace Orient? If so will we be able to reverse the direction of it?

The Parallel one is going away - originally yes, it was going to replace Orient.

However, Orient is really just a special case of Offset where the offset is undefined, so we've added an option in Offset to just make it "free moving" instead of following an offset value. At least that's the current thinking. We've been thinking through some changes that are not yet updated in the images here. On Monday, I think, we're having an internal meeting to discuss, and then I will update the dialogs here.

Also, the limits section is going away, since you can't define an offset and use limits. So, we've combined the offset / limits into one section "Options" and you use a radio button to pick if you want to define a regular value or use limits.

 

[Max]

Any chance of a constraint for chain and belt drives? Rotational ratios but with the same direction of rotation...

Yes, you can define the rotation to be positive or negative and along any axis, so anything that has rotation about an axis can be used in the gear constraint with a ratio of whatever you want. This covers belt drives/worm/spur/etc. Counter or non-counter rotating is supported.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

I'm just throwing out an idea here that I have no immediate need for - but I've seen a bunch of posts over the years asking for it. How about constrain to path (w/ or w/o offset). The path would be a series of edges that connect end to end. This would be useful for trains on tracks and cam / followers type stuff. If your changing a lot already maybe at least get it ready for this to be implemented.

 

[WdstJG]

All I ever use is the main one, never the quick constraint. One that has it alll is just what I like. On 1920 x 1200 or so, that is small enough to be fine. On 640 x 480 yeah, it would be unworkable. But the software would be generally unworkable at that resolution also.

Actually, the icons are pretty worthless as soon as you learn what is which, I prefer "E" because it just has what you need (except for the "undo") and is "small enough".

The icons as opposed to radio buttons take up more space, and are mainly useful for people who are learning, or only use the SW very infrequently. If you have any reasonable experience, you "know them" and have no great need.

Also, the icons should theoretically eliminate the need for the words. But since the words are still there (for obvius reasons), then the icons are really not sufficient, and are bigger than the radio buttons, so the entire window expands if they are used.

I may be reacting to the fact that "E" is the only one that seems to have the constraints labeled the way I am used to.... But I do prefer the smaller size and less "extra".

Probably all the consultants say that you have to do the icons etc. That is essentially the difference between consumer only, and more professional use, since folks are used to the extra stuff in consumer SW.

I do not think we here are as good a test group as you maybe want if you are going for new users who need "friendly" CAD.... We who comment regularly tend to be experienced curmudgeons who like it fine as it is.

Do what you need to do for newer users. Just try to not make it annoy the curmudgeons too much.

 

[WdstJG]

I have used Alibre for a number of years but sporadically so I consider myself a new user that needs reminders and/or help on some of the command actions.

The new constraint menu that Max proposes is good for me because it helps clarify the command.

Maybe it could be switched on or off to satisfy both new and expert users.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

I'm just throwing out an idea here that I have no immediate need for - but I've seen a bunch of posts over the years asking for it. How about constrain to path (w/ or w/o offset). The path would be a series of edges that connect end to end. This would be useful for trains on tracks and cam / followers type stuff. If your changing a lot already maybe at least get it ready for this to be implemented.

Like this???

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

Like this???

Sort of but when I wrote it I was thinking of things like this:

 

[JST]

THAT would be good...... Connects with my suggestion of being able to designate a series of connected surfaces as the path for a cam follower etc to go along.

 

[Max]

THAT would be good...... Connects with my suggestion of being able to designate a series of connected surfaces as the path for a cam follower etc to go along.

This is a good suggestion but is outside the scope of v21. Perhaps we will consider it for the future, depending on how complicated the implementation is. We're also trying to fit a lot of stability and bugfixing in too

 

[oldfox]

We're also trying to fit a lot of stability and bugfixing in too

+100

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Sort of but when I wrote it I was thinking of things like this:

Understood -- several Roller Chain and Belt posts were made leading to my posted file. In essence to get your "desire," we need a "tool" that will "link" Surfaces into a (if you will) Compound Surface (something far from trivial).