nicolas d Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 i want to see the rectangles' dimensions in the object info window as 'x' and 'y' like it used to be. i don't understand why or in which cases the new 'width' and 'height' system could be good. often times i'm wasting extra fractions of time thinking if the rectangle is rotated or not and where is the width and where is the height. can this be disabled or changed back somehow? can i edit rectangles like before, like i can still edit polygons for example, with the good, proven, 'x' and 'y' system? i use duplicate a lot, and many times instead of drawing a new item (this not only applies to rectangles) i duplicate another of the same sort and modify it. this is to me a reasonable thing to do, for example, when one wants to incidentally draw an object in a class that is not the active class... anyway, the thing is, i duplicate and rotate rectangles and other objects a lot and now i wind up confused with how my rectangles are oriented, whereas i'm never in a situation in which i am grateful to know which side is labeled 'width' and which is labeled 'height'. Quote Link to comment
Ride Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Agreed....I prefer the old method as well. Just wish I had a fix to change back to it. Quote Link to comment
nicolas d Posted March 26, 2008 Author Share Posted March 26, 2008 at last someone says something... i was starting to feel lonely with this. but, am i so wrong, am i missing something from this new way of editing rectangles? it would be nice if someone from nemetschek could explain what's the idea behind this change. for that matter, it would be good to hear anyone argue in its favor... Quote Link to comment
CS1 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 youve got my vote width by height only seems to confuse things. Not sure of the benifits Quote Link to comment
Dieter @ DWorks Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I really like the new method. You'll have to look differently at rectangles, but once you understand it, it's far better! See the arrow as the start point, then the first side as the width and the second side as the height. Quote Link to comment
Ride Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ok....I can figure that. But why? X-Y seems to be less complicated. Whether a rectangle is rotated or not, the X-Y axis are still obvious. What was the reasoning behind the change? I've read another post recommending that I change the rectangle to a polygon, and then the X-Y references are used, but that just seems to be another step for no reason. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.