digitalcarbon Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 not really but... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxp7OJDRSGM Quote Link to comment
0 Christiaan Posted November 30, 2010 Share Posted November 30, 2010 Gotta go. Bring on direct parametric modelling. Quote Link to comment
0 Jershaun Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 This is my point about pio's as I mentioned in other posts. It's too restrictive. PIO's gotta go. Quote Link to comment
0 AndiACD Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 i can't say i've ever been happy with VW's[to quote Shaun(*****)] restrictive attitude to PIOs and with MD, there have never been trailer loads of usable options, BUT, as has often been suggested, "IF" we were given more "COMMAND" capabilities over these "Plugs" they would become a great deal more "Friendly". "N'est Pas?" It's "Referendum" time!! Again . . . . . . . Quote Link to comment
0 Kaare Baekgaard Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 It is not just for PIO's: With the Offset tool, you can enter a value directly in the databar. For any other drawing tool, you have to open a dialogue in order to enter a value - for absolutely no reason at all. My wish: Give the guy who programmed the Offset tool a raise and let him reprogram all the tools to the same standard. Quote Link to comment
0 Kevin McAllister Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Kaare, That's an awesome wish! Direct access to a tools preferences.... which aren't really preferences anyway, but instead are drawing values. Kevin Quote Link to comment
0 CipesDesign Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 About three or four versions back (maybe more?) there was a huge shift from direct editing via the OIP (and other means) toward more and deeper dialogs. At that time I expressed great frustration and felt as if this was a very very bad decision and also that it seemed (to me, a mac guy) that the program became more "windows-like" in that it took way too many mouse actions to dig down to the element that you needed to edit. Also, the dialogs tended to (and still tend to) cover the screen thereby obscuring the drawing. All of which was and still is not good... As I recall, one of the most compelling reasons given for the change was that as PIO's became more feature-rich there just wasn't enough room in the OIP for all the possible (and needed) parameters... So now we have this somewhat awkward mix of direct editing and dialogs... Although I have forced myself to 'get used to' the dialogs I still dislike them on a very fundamental level. So, IMO, anything that can be done to limit or get rid of them entirely will be quite well received.... Quote Link to comment
0 Kaare Baekgaard Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I don't really mind a mix, if there are lots of features to a tool. But not all features are equal. Most of them you only need some of the time, but some of them has to be accessed all of the time by every user - like the value of a fillet. If we could at least get those 'on top'... Quote Link to comment
0 AndiACD Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 i have to agree with Peter on this one. The OIP should have more made available to it and dialogues do tend to get in the way. This wouldn't be so bad, if once a dialogue was moved out of the way, it would stay where you put it instead of jumping back to "Centre Screen". Ray Mulin Manages this with "Reshaper", so it obviously isn't beyond the Code Bashers at NV, but still not used. i just couldn't manage without R.M's Reshaper, it offers so much more, just in case you hadn't already guessed. . . . . . How about adding more Tabs or TearOffs to allow more in the OIP? Quote Link to comment
0 Christiaan Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Peter I think you've muddied the waters a little. Direct parametric modelling is not adjusting parameters in a palette. What we're talking about is direct manipulation of the geometry. i.e. precisely the opposite of adjusting figures in a palette or dialogue window. See, for instance, Cadimage's stair tool (not as a perfect example but it's an example): http://www.cadimageworld.com/support/viewmovie/856-stairdesigntechniques Another example is Siemen's Synchronous technology: Quote Link to comment
0 VincentCuclair Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 (edited) Gotta Go! What we need is the push-pull tool functionality directly in PIOs ie. double click PIO and Push-pull active geometry.... ....or/and (like in ArchiCAD) have handles for most parts in Top/Plan view ie. grab a handle on the frame and widen the whole window/door grab the mullion handle and move the mullion, grab the door handle and change the door opening angle etc etc......these are all MUSTS. In the video at the beginning of this thread it's almost painfully obvious that modeling/creating/editing a hybrid symbol for a window is almost faster than placing and editing a window with the window tool (the same applies for the door and stair tools) that's a definite No No! Edited December 8, 2010 by Vincent C Quote Link to comment
0 CipesDesign Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Christiaan, you may be right. If so please accept my apologies. And as if they weren't muddy enough already! So carry on... Quote Link to comment
0 Christiaan Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Heh, all right all right, ya cynical old farts. Quote Link to comment
0 AndiACD Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 OK! As a "Prime" Grumpy old fart who still knows SC exists, viewing it from the Synchronous Technology vista, then yes, good point. But the OIP "STILL" needs more available to it. And when Nemets manages to make full use of this power(if it is part of the Parasolid licence used in VW) then we will have reached that point that i feel is missing. Part 1 of the same vid, this one gives a good example of fillets that do as they should. Adjust to mods . . . . Hhmmmmmm! Synchronous Technology! i was told yesterday by a reliable source that SW is heading towards a Mac version like AutoCAD has. We'll see. Quote Link to comment
0 VincentCuclair Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 No Santa!? VW is sure to have a workaround for that one too! Quote Link to comment
0 digitalcarbon Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 grab and go Quote Link to comment
0 AndiACD Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Thanx DM for the simple and direct approach. Goood, InIt? Quote Link to comment
Question
digitalcarbon
not really but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxp7OJDRSGM
Link to comment
16 answers to this question
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.