Do we need 2 move commands?

[Tom Klaber]

We have Move - and then we have to Move 3D.

Is the only difference that MOVE 3D adds a z-value?  If so - can we combine?  

I am going to try it - but want to see if anybody has a good reason why MOVE 3D should not just be the move tool.

[markdd]

What's good about the Move 2D command is that it works in the primary Orthographic Views (Top, Bottom, left, Right, Front, and Back). When viewing an object using one of these Views, the 2D or 3D object you selected will move relative to the view on the screen. This can be more intuitive, especially when using Working Planes etc. 

 

The Move 3D command uses absolute 3D values which aren't always as helpful.

 

That's my reasoning for keeping them both....

Edited June 21, 2023 by markdd

[Tom W.]

2 minutes ago, markdd said:

What's good about the Move 2D command is that it works in the primary Orthographic Views (Top, Bottom, left, Right, Front, and Back). When viewing an object using one of these Views, the 2D or 3D object you selected will move relative to the view on the screen. 

 

But doesn't Move 3D do exactly the same thing when you're in one of those views?

[Tom W.]

The difference perhaps is in Rotated Plan...

[markdd]

If you are working on a Working Plane, then things can get a bit confusing, especially if all you want to do is move an object up the screen by a certain amount. Often I have changed the Z value in the Move 3D command and the object has moved in the opposite direction to what I was expecting. The Move 2D command seems to be foolproof in that regard, and will always move the object relative to the view of the object on the screen.

[Tom W.]

8 minutes ago, markdd said:

If you are working on a Working Plane, then things can get a bit confusing, especially if all you want to do is move an object up the screen by a certain amount. Often I have changed the Z value in the Move 3D command and the object has moved in the opposite direction to what I was expecting. The Move 2D command seems to be foolproof in that regard, and will always move the object relative to the view of the object on the screen.

 

You're right. This is the same phenomenon as when you're in Rotated Plan. Move 3D always moves the object relative to true X/Y/Z + doesn't respect the rotation or the working plane. But the fact remains that I always only ever move objects using the X/Y offsets in Move 2D + the Z offset in Move 3D. So in that respect, the two commands could be combined because there are no circumstances where I use the X/Y offsets in Move 3D... Are there circumstances where you'd use the X/Y offsets in Move 3D instead of in Move 2D?

[markdd]

Yes, if you are working on an object and you are looking from beneath the Working plane, then the only reliable way to move something Left/Right, or Up/Down along the X/Y axes is to use the Move 2D command.

[Tom W.]

The question was in which circumstances would you move an object on the X/Y axes using the Move 3D command. I agree with you that Move 2D is indispensable. I'm just wondering how useful the Move 3D X/Y offsets are.

 

[markdd]

If you are in an Isometric view for instance, the Move 3D Command will move the object along either axis according to the Axes of the Active Layer Plane regardless of your view. If you were to apply the same values using the Move 2D Command, then the object will move the same distance, but relative to the view you have of them on the screen in front of you. It's just a different way of thinking. If you were to combine the commands, then you would need 5 fields divided into Screen (X and Y)  and World (X,Y,Z).

 

 

[Tom W.]

6 minutes ago, markdd said:

If you are in an Isometric view for instance, the Move 3D Command will move the object along either axis according to the Axes of the Active Layer Plane regardless of your view.

 

Yes of course. I didn't think of this. I never do this as my models are rarely square to the axes but I can see that this would be useful sometimes. Thanks!

[Mark Aceto]

Also, each command remembers the last distances that were entered in the fields, so a pretty common workflow for me is to alternate between the two commands. For example, I can have 2 different distances entered for Y and Z, so when I'm in an ortho front view, I'll use Y but if I'm in any other view, I'll use Z.

 

BTW I've noticed that this ortho behavior is fairly consistent with other apps (Blender comes to mind).

 

That said, if you find the 2 commands redundant, the workspace and/or macOS shortcuts can be edited. Move 3D could simply be CMD+M if that's easier.

[bcd]

2 hours ago, Tom Klaber said:

Is the only difference that MOVE 3D adds a z-value?  If so - can we combine?  

I agree - not that they should be combined simply as they are currently configured but redesigned into a single more useful command. Anytime 2 tools / commands can be streamlined into one while keeping & even expanding the functionality then I'm all for it. There are lots of examples of where this sort of cleanup would be helpful,

Dimensions (constrained, unconstrained)

Rectangles (sharp & rounded corners)

Move (2d, 3d)

Wall (straight & round * already done, although I'd prefer a modifier key press&hold so we could easily flip between round & straight segments in the same drawing operation)

[E|FA]

9 hours ago, Mark Aceto said:

Move 3D could simply be CMD+M if that's easier.

Seems like a simple solution.  Time to update my custom Workspace.

[Mark Aceto]

10 hours ago, bcd said:

Dimensions (constrained, unconstrained)

 

Not sure about this one. N or OPT+N are easy enough shortcuts. BTW I may have customized that OPT+N... 

 

10 hours ago, bcd said:

Rectangles (sharp & rounded corners)

 

Agreed. This one is a no-brainer. Add a few parameters to the OIP.

 

10 hours ago, bcd said:

Move (2d, 3d)

 

Disagree. CMD+M and CMD+OPT+M are easy enough. BTW it seems that OPT+M is available if that's easier. This one is good as-is. VW should preserve ortho workflows for power users. It's easy enough to modify the workspace (or just hold the OPT/ALT key).

 

10 hours ago, bcd said:

Wall (straight & round

 

Hard disagree. This change screwed up tool modes for experienced users. Now, pressing U changes a straight wall to round (instead of the control line mode), and nukes the entire wall. This was another classic case of fixing something that wasn't broken.

 

In case anyone has missed me pointing this out, the CTRL modifier is wide open on Mac. There's not a single shortcut mapped to CTRL. Make use of that in macOS shortcuts in Sys Prefs. I'm assuming the Super / Windows key is analogous on Windows (because CTRL and CMD are analogous with VW, presumably leaving Super / Windows available).

 

[Tom W.]

1 hour ago, Mark Aceto said:

12 hours ago, bcd said:

Dimensions (constrained, unconstrained)

 

Not sure about this one. N or OPT+N are easy enough shortcuts. BTW I may have customized that OPT+N... 

 

I agree with @bcd on this. I would prefer to have a single Dimensions Tool. It's a pain having to switch between two different tools when dimensioning a drawing, regardless of the shortcuts. It's not intuitive for dimensions to be split this way. Several times I've started a dim using the Constrained tool then realise I need to change to Unconstrained + can only do this by deleting out of the tool + starting again with the other tool. Be better to be able to change mode midway through the operation in my opinion.

[Mark Aceto]

44 minutes ago, Tom W. said:

 

I agree with @bcd on this. I would prefer to have a single Dimensions Tool. It's a pain having to switch between two different tools when dimensioning a drawing, regardless of the shortcuts. It's not intuitive for dimensions to be split this way. Several times I've started a dim using the Constrained tool then realise I need to change to Unconstrained + can only do this by deleting out of the tool + starting again with the other tool. Be better to be able to change mode midway through the operation in my opinion.

Same but the tool modes for each look different, so I think it might be a little bit more complicated than we realize. That said, it would be great if it could be solved without deprecating any functionality.

[Tom W.]

10 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

Same but the tool modes for each look different, so I think it might be a little bit more complicated than we realize. That said, it would be great if it could be solved without deprecating any functionality.

 

Couldn't it just be like the new Wall Tool where you toggle between the two different modes - Constrained + Unconstrained - via the first two tool modes, with the subsequent options adjusting accordingly?

[markdd]

50 minutes ago, Mark Aceto said:

Same but the tool modes for each look different, so I think it might be a little bit more complicated than we realize. That said, it would be great if it could be solved without deprecating any functionality.

The Lighting Pipe Tool in the Spotlight workspace has a multi-level mode bar depending on the mode the tool is using so I think this is something that could easily be possible. ....

[Mark Aceto]

8 hours ago, markdd said:

The Lighting Pipe Tool in the Spotlight workspace has a multi-level mode bar depending on the mode the tool is using so I think this is something that could easily be possible. ....

 

Excellent point! I didn't realize VW had context-aware tool modes! This is definitely a VE.