Constraint Dialog Proposal

[JST]

I'd be fine with ZERO NEW STUFF....... if the bugs were fixed. Have said that before.

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.

I was not cionfused, but you have managed to do it.

E is like the existing with more choiices added. That is why I prefer it, it is small on the screen, and has what it needs.

I am not a fan of :icons for icons sake".... "Icons ain't Bluebonnet", everything is not better with icons on it. They need to have a reason. If the icon iis super clear, and there is no need for text with it, well, that is OK, But when there is a need for BOTH, then the icon is insufficient, and needs fixed or left off.

So, no I did not like the bigger new version with icons. They seem confusing and not intuitive. If you cannot be intuitively obvious, at least be clear.

 

[anson]

I am not a fan of :icons for icons sake".... "Icons ain't Bluebonnet", everything is not better with icons on it. They need to have a reason. If the icon iis super clear, and there is no need for text with it, well, that is OK, But when there is a need for BOTH, then the icon is insufficient, and needs fixed or left off.

As long as the Icons have tooltips I think its a good idea as once you're used to what they mean its quicker (for me anyway) to find the icon then to find text.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

I have had a list of "desired improvements" that I have been submitting (off & on) since Alibre Design V10. I would like such things as co-rotate by ratio, counter-rotate by ratio, offset through range, rotate through angular range, angular rotate to linear offset, compound surface for contact and tangent following, and the like. The real issue is going to be: (A) creating a consistent nomenclature/description for them; (B) getting them well and clearly documented; and (C) finding and repairing/polishing things about them to become a world-class system.

 

[JST]

As long as the Icons have tooltips I think its a good idea as once you're used to what they mean its quicker (for me anyway) to find the icon then to find text.

There is a point to what you say. Tooltips might be a good alernate.

I am usually visual, and not test oriented, but for some reason I prefer the text in the case of menus. I think I react more to where the thing is, and secondarily to the text, though. That's why I do not like the ribbon, it changes too much.

 

[Max]

I am not a fan of :icons for icons sake".... "Icons ain't Bluebonnet", everything is not better with icons on it. They need to have a reason. If the icon iis super clear, and there is no need for text with it, well, that is OK, But when there is a need for BOTH, then the icon is insufficient, and needs fixed or left off.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big issue. If you don't like the text as shown in (D), which is primarily there to help new users, you would just collapse the icon section such that it only shows icons, as shown in (C) or (B). Takes 1 click. What am I missing?

Perhaps you simply prefer the look of radio buttons, but I'm not sure that preference qualifies the level of caps lock on this topic.

 

[Max]

I have had a list of "desired improvements" that I have been submitting (off & on) since Alibre Design V10. I would like such things as co-rotate by ratio, counter-rotate by ratio, offset through range, rotate through angular range, angular rotate to linear offset, compound surface for contact and tangent following, and the like.

co-rotate by ratio - check
counter-rotate by ratio - check
offset through range - check
rotate through angular range - check
angular rotate to linear offset - check (this is rack/pinion-esque case, not "unscrew a fastener" case)
compound surface for contact and tangent following - not yet

 

[domcm]

@Max

In general, I think combining the dialog boxes is a good idea. One feature that has always been somewhat hidden to me is how to delete constraints in the dialog box once they have been selected. You have to right click to get the menu which a casual user will not know. I see a red X in the dialog below. What is it for? What about putting a red X next to each constraint to make them easier to delete as shown in the doctored menu below?




Also, I know you said the icons are rough, but I hope the icons below are better in the released version. They look almost the same.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

angular rotate to linear offset - check (this is rack/pinion-esque case, not "unscrew a fastener" case)

Hi Max -- Actually I was defining a screw/nut type of "travel" relationship. The Pinion/Rack relationship is, essential, a perpendicular variation thereon. I had figured that a "parallel displacement" version might be harder to implement. [At least that is what "passed" as my thinking.] -- Lew

 

[Max]

In general, I think combining the dialog boxes is a good idea. One feature that has always been somewhat hidden to me is how to delete constraints in the dialog box once they have been selected. You have to right click to get the menu which a casual user will not know. I see a red X in the dialog below. What is it for? What about putting a red X next to each constraint to make them easier to delete as shown in the doctored menu below?

So this input box is for geometry that you want to constrain together. The red X there is a prototype concept that basically clears all input. So if you select the wrong thing accidently, perhaps an edge that is hard to pick, or you just want to start all over - you can click the X and it would clear all your selections. I'm not sure if it will make it in or not, or if this is the UI we would use. If not, the default "Right click > Clear all" would happen. We really need to implement this concept product wide, which we won't have time to do for v21, so perhaps this is a v22 thing after we think through it a bit.

Also, I know you said the icons are rough, but I hope the icons below are better in the released version. They look almost the same.

Yup, the icons will completely change. This was quick and dirty.

 

[Max]

Hi Max -- Actually I was defining a screw/nut type of "travel" relationship. The Pinion/Rack relationship is, essential, a perpendicular variation thereon. I had figured that a "parallel displacement" version might be harder to implement. [At least that is what "passed" as my thinking.] -- Lew

You're right, they are very similar. In the rack/pinion case, part A rotates and part B translates. In this case, Part A both rotates and translates while B is stationary.

Unfortunately this isn't free - it might be easy, but we aren't considering this a must-do at this time for v21. Perhaps later. This type of relationship is really better suited for animation rather than mechanical simulation, I think in most cases. "I want to watch a screw spin as it comes out".

I suppose some kinds of mechanisms could have a screw drive that displaces something else along the axis of the screw, but this is a corner case for the moment. But we'll consider it for the future, especially as it may be simple(ish).

 

[Max]

Hi all, we've been working this dialog a bit and have something you can try out. I'm deprecating this thread and starting a new one.