idea: Folders/tree style in GPF (Global Parameters File)

[Drutort]

Folders/tree style in GPF (Global Parameters File)

As the title states, I would like to have a "tree" "folder" structure added to Global Parameters file (only for visual effect for organizational purposes for the user)


this would make tracking/editing things so much easier! After 20+ values its hard to find what you are looking for, having the ability to create folder and have meaningful things labeled would speed things up so much more.

also adding a filter to "hide" folders and just go traditional GPF would make everyone happy, and possibly make it easy to see parameters when trying to track them down and or name/rename things etc...

I understand that it would complicate things and unique values still might be a requirement, I mean you cant have dia, and then have duplicate dia in a different folder as calling up those values in a part/asm would not work and you would have to have then the location "folder" path "/bracket/dia" and I think that would be worse then how it is now, but having the folders just be within the GPF its self and not interfere with legacy files, and if needed for legacy files, just throw all parameters into a folder called "default" or something like that so that we can use older files and older GPF's just fine (if things have to be in a folder, it might be possible that legacy stuff just stays the way it is, and the user simply has option to create the folders and organize the parameters the way they wish, or leave it be)

All I am asking is for a visual feature, and only to make it easier to organize in the GPF, functionality wise be the same outside of GPF

And when trying to make a duplicate or an existing parameter, simple tool tip or dialog box popup stating the folder (if in a folder) the said existing parameter location (so that user can change the name)

(safety and feedback features are important to be in place; the user would get really upset and not be able to see where parameter is at)

Right now I end up with super long parameter names, because I try to shove descriptive key words so I know what the parameter is for, with the extra or unlimited tree style, I can go and name things less descriptive and possibly use shorter lettering or abbreviations in my actual parameters, and I would use the GPF as my goto reference to id the parameter easily

(I apologize if this was said by someone in some thread bared years ago or months ago)

 

[Drutort]

Interesting, do people not use GPF to the extent that I do at times? (or maybe I was not clear enough as to why folder/tree style is beneficial in the "name" "equation" "result" area, that is where the folder would hold your NGP)

I found its very powerful f or some designs that are scalable, and it seems to be the only way to redesign my parts to be driven by a few input dimensions from me to create almost endless part/asm configurations that would otherwise require each new design.

 

[HaroldL]

Glad your finding GPF useful. I haven't used it on any of my projects, yet, but do see its benefits. It seems like a logical option to have, just like folders in the Design Explorer. But we're told that Design Explorer folders are not going to happen so we learn to live with extremely long lists in the DE.

You can submit this as a suggestion to Support since the "Suggest A Feature" option doesn't seem to be kept up to date or even looked at.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

I've "played around" with GPF but not used it "professionally" yet since most of my projects are one-off designs.

A question: Are you using only one file for all projects or a separate file for each project?

 

[Drutort]

I found it useful for 1 master file, hence when the names are really long, the reason being is that I use a lot of scale values, I was able to do some parts that scale, ya it might be rare but it works really well, takes quite some time to come up with your scale ratio's and you have to think outside the box on dimensioning as that changes, and you have to figure out what dimensions go off of others and which are static values and not scaled and mostly offset

I would have to have a lot of duplicate values if I used individual GPF file for each part, and that would be nightmare to update/keep track, one mistake and your assembly gets broken or worse (crashes, freezes etc)

I think GPF also can have a lot of value in creating library of parts, most times you would have to modify but all of the general values are generated enough, that you can go and edit the individual parts, and then + - any values as you see fit.

At the end what I do is make a copy of the whole project folder, then change the values for the specific part, but whats so amazing is I have a fully functional assembly of said target part, and I can quickly look where I need to add/subtract material, add anything extra etc...

Its really amazing once you find the proper application for it. I have used GPF in past but it was simple boring stuff, nothing complex that drove many parts in an assembly

its like it GPF can give you a good starting template for your targeted parameters/specifications

To add more complexity and a more ready solutions the next logical step would be to utilize scripting and use logic statements, that control some GPF, but thats possibly way too much work, unless its for a product and that is a business main focus or product.

 

[Drutort]

I guess I wish GPF had conditional statements, that would be more then enough, if then, else with > < = , so that other results or other "scales" could be applied, but I guess apoplexy would need to know why they need such features and how to use them heh

I do not mind if it was only 1 line or 1 level deep, just something extra that can limit results or use different scale result.

But this would be probably for the very few individuals that would find useful

 

[otrotabi]

I adhere to what Drutort asks for. This feature is available in other software and makes the use of Global Parameters much more useful.