Need some feedback on realtime preview

[Max]

Hey folks, you may have seen the realtime preview...preview. There is a specific challenge here that we want your feedback on. Please keep this discussion to the issue shown below:

The problem by example
You're making a fillet. You are used to seeing Edge<3> in the geometry input box of the fillet dialog when you click Edge<3>. This is fine when the feature hasn't been evaluated. However, realtime previews actually evaluate the feature and the <3> becomes potentially meaningless quickly. That edge you picked doesn't technically exist anymore because geometry has been changed. A new edge may now be Edge<3>. Situations can arise where the <3> you picked is actually now <4>, or there could even be duplicate <3>s. None of this is relevant to the final state of the model; it is only potentially confusing while you have the dialog up. It is simply a byproduct of showing the "before state" of the inputs and the "after state" on the canvas.

Our assumption on a fix - the part we need feedback on
There is not a ton of value in showing the identifiers at all in feature dialogs. In fact, many other softwares do not. They might show "5 edges selected" instead of listing each out with an identifier. Our assumption is that removing identifiers in feature dialogs entirely will have no side effects because:

• If for some reason you need an identifier, for example because you are making a script, you can still easily find that information by just clicking on an object and looking at the bottom right of the screen.
• It is not easy to correlate any particular value in a multi-input box with geometry on screen using the <#> identifier. It basically provides almost no value during selection.

Our proposed solution
Our proposed solution is to remove <#> identifiers from feature dialogs.

 

[swertel]

I concur. I always found the <#> quite useless and only cluttered the dialog. I think it is much cleaner without the <#>.

 

[ClaudeG]

No need for #.

 

[IonSteve]

Yep, the <#> has been useful to me exactly 0 times over the years. If I am in doubt about what's going on, I look at whatever is highlighted, not the <#>.

 

[simonb65]

The <#> has no real useful context unless the edges/faces, etc are visibly and correspondingly labelled on the model to cross reference to!!! So I would say remove the 'clutter'. If you want to know what edge/face it refers to, clicking on it in the dialog should highlight the entity on the model. Nothing beats simple highlighting for seeing where references are used.

@Max just so that thing are kept flexible for the user, can a system display option be created that either shows or hides them. You can't beat giving the user the option! The code is already there to append it to the entity type descriptor, just make the append of the <#> conditional on a system display option. It may be useful to display it for those who are trying to debug scripting.

 

[idslk]

hm, are all other "problems" solved? Or is this one more urgent? For me, this <#> functionality hasn't bothered me...

 

[Hunter]

You can dump the <#>, I don't find them useful at all and they just clutter the workspace.

 

[HaroldL]

I don't need them either, in fact I don't even use the Edges, Faces or Vertices lists in the DE so thank you for the toggle to turn them Off. Just more clutter to keep out of the way.

 

[JamesMC]

I've never used the # of edges faces or vertices either, so de-clutter away!!

 

[albie0803]

Only use it for scripting and as you say, it is available in the bottom corner if I need it, so dumping it here is fine

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

I find it helpful. Let's say you have 20 edges picked.
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge

It's not very easy to differentiate with your eyes between the 12th item in the list and the 14th. How would you even know if you scrolled to the right area? I would say that without identifiers you might as well not even have a list but I also don't want to run around a model to remove things from the "total count" either.

 

[Max]

I find it helpful. Let's say you have 20 edges picked.
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge
Edge

It's not very easy to differentiate with your eyes between the 12th item in the list and the 14th. How would you even know if you scrolled to the right area? I would say that without identifiers you might as well not even have a list but I also don't want to run around a model to remove things from the "total count" either.

The basic premise we're thinking is that while your example is true, it is not actually any easier if there are numbers because the numbers have no meaning to you, unless you happen to remember that 8 edges ago you picked edge<43> and that's the one you want to remove, which is I think objectively unlikely.

Our approach emphasizes a more "canvas-first" approach, which is select or deselect from the model and not so much from the list. Making that easier involves more clearly showing what has been selected - for example we increased the width of selected edges but on my 4k huge display they are still small - so we're considering an option to set your own width so they would be quite obvious. There are a few other approaches, such as hovering over items in the list highlighting the associated edge on the canvas. That at least has a real-world meaning that can be quickly verified.

 

[GIOV]

It's not very easy to differentiate with your eyes between the 12th item in the list and the 14th. How would you even know if you scrolled to the right area? I would say that without identifiers you might as well not even have a list but I also don't want to run around a model to remove things from the "total count" either.

I agree.

There are a few other approached, such as hovering over items in the list highlighting the associated edge on the canvas. That at least has a real-world meaning that can be quickly verified.

in the process of the realization of the sculpture, that is to say the strategy to obtain better the final objective of the form often makes necessary the existence of the number to begin again with another way of priority.
So,I think AD ,I needs (#) for specific Feature Boss & Cut edit or new path strategy so remember what feature gives the wrong path.

If for some reason you need an identifier, for example because you are making a script, you can still easily find that information by just clicking on an object and looking at the bottom right of the screen.

Some time is difficult due when is behind of some plane and need search in the design Explorer the appropriate edge or face.

 

[Max]

Some time is difficult due when is behind of some plane and need search in the design Explorer the appropriate edge or face.

Do you know about Right Click > Advanced Selector? That lets you pick through geometry and is much faster than searching the design explorer.

 

[simonb65]

Just make it an option @Max, then you please everybody!

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

The basic premise we're thinking is that while your example is true, it is not actually any easier if there are numbers because the numbers have no meaning to you, unless you happen to remember that 8 edges ago you picked edge<43> and that's the one you want to remove, which is I think objectively unlikely.

Many times I do remember things like that - but I was meaning more of a visual/mental placeholder to differentiate each edge in the list to reduce the amount of clicking. I don't have to count up 7 edges to find edge<43>.

It would be like a book without page numbers.
Do the page numbers help you read the page? No.
Do the page numbers help you find a page again without examining all the pages before that page? Yes.
Do the page numbers help multiple people get on the same page? Yes.

 

[VoltsAndBolts]

I like the idea of making it selectable then everybody gets what they want. How can you go wrong with that.

 

[Max]

Many times I do remember things like that - but I was meaning more of a visual/mental placeholder to differentiate each edge in the list to reduce the amount of clicking. I don't have to count up 7 edges to find edge<43>.

It would be like a book without page numbers.
Do the page numbers help you read the page? No.
Do the page numbers help you find a page again without examining all the pages before that page? Yes.
Do the page numbers help multiple people get on the same page? Yes.

That's kind of the point. Page numbers are meaningful. They are sequential and predictable. These entity ids are not. It would be like if your book had random pages numbers. Is that better than no page numbers? Perhaps by a miniscule amount, but what you really need is a bookmark.

My point is we need a better way than relying on IDs to manage this.

 

[Max]

I like the idea of making it selectable then everybody gets what they want. How can you go wrong with that.

Because the original problem statement is that these numbers are not only unhelpful, but more importantly may be incorrect during feature preview and for that last reason alone we are describing removing them. Making an option doesn't solve that issue.

 

[AlexB]

The <#> have been useful when I'm deleting entities from the list for features like fillet or sheet metal edges. It was hit and miss but still better than no unique identifiers at all.

If you're going to implement visual cues/ highlights on the model when selecting entities, then I can't see a reason for me to keep the <#>. But please keep, if not!