User enhancement requests

[Neil Harris]

I'd like to see an option on the box and fence move commands to include moving the hook point.

I would also like the Alter/Box to reflect the current axes rotation as it used to do in Classic GDS. Currently it only works with the normal rotation, so the fence option is often the only way with rotated objects and primitives.

[ColinMcNab]

Hi
I used to find this a frustration till view align was introduced.
The selection box always aligns with the rotation of the current view.
So you just rotate your axis and your view too then use box select.


What I do miss though is vertex mode in block moves...where you could easily move and rotate axis in-between selection and moving vertices ...I know you can do this ...I just liked the separation of the selection from the action...also you could bulk delete vertices using this feature

[James McClymont]

It would be nice if one could select multiple/all object and specify a new hook.....
I'm sure it was possible in a previous version?

[Brinley]

James, If you are meaning 'to one location' then it can be done - select all objects required, move the axes to where you want the hook point (or query position required), then in the properties window, click in the 'hook point' - which will initially report 'mixed', then type 0/0 or pos previously retreaved....

[Brinley]

or......
if its a certain distance from current, you can select the objects in primitive mode and move graphics - hook point will change accordingly - but this won't be 100% fool proof depending on objects rotation....

[James McClymont]

James, If you are meaning 'to one location' then it can be done - select all objects required, move the axes to where you want the hook point (or query position required), then in the properties window, click in the 'hook point' - which will initially report 'mixed', then type 0/0 or pos previously retreaved....

Brilliant! Works a treat. Why didn't I think of that?!

Thanks again, you've made my day!

p.s. Let me know your e-mail address for the 3d Library. mine is jamesmcclymont2003@yahoo.co.uk

[johnwarburton]

While I have no doubt that at least some of what we users post on this thread does find its way into a version of MicroGDS, it is very, very frustrating that only occasionally do these post generate feedback of any kind.

I would like to see a proper mechanism in place for recording these posts as Product Change Requests.

I would like to see each unique post given a unique PCR identification and I would like to see the status of each of these posted for all to see, even if the status is "this request is too daft."

That way we would at least know that we are not just being ignored.

[johnwarburton]

The addition of Chamfer and Fillet values to the standard rectangle data entry box would be a useful feature.

[jpsa]

The addition of Chamfer and Fillet values to the standard rectangle data entry box would be a useful feature.

This is a good example of the kind of action request which often causes us difficulties! It has the following characteristics:

• It asks for something which is reasonably easy to do already (Construct>Rectangle, Alter>Fillet/Chamfer).
• It would be an comparatively easy enhancement to implement, although (by the time the documentation has been brought up to date) still involves significant effort.
• It would complicate the user interface, making it harder (or just scarier) for the novice user.
• It's often difficult to judge whether the enhancement would be of benefit to many users, or just a few with unusual needs.

We often have to strike a balance between trying to keep the user interface comprehensible, and saving a few keystrokes for expert users, and it's always a difficult decision.

Of course, one of the incentives for implementing and releasing the integrated Adk is that users now have the ability to write this kind of specialized command themselves.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be doing these kinds of enhancement, if their benefit for the majority of users outweighs the costs; but it does give you the ability to address the problem on a shorter timescale than we might, or if we end up judging that the change would not be of enough benefit to enough users.

[johnwarburton]

Given the complexity of some of the dialogues that confront MicroGDS users, I don't really think that a couple of extra options on the Rectangle dialogue is going to overwhelm them. It would be easy enough to just have the X and Y size boxes dispalyed by default, with the Area and Chamfer/Fillet options only displayed if a user clicks a "More" button.

I know that there are separate chamfer and fillet commands, but it is not just a couple of clicks to apply this to all four corners of one rectangle - and certainly not when repeating for several (I'd expect the chamfer/fillet options to be sticky, just like the X and Y sizes.)

Where I am coming from with this request (and many others that I have previously posted) is that I am producing a document for AutoCAD users who are migrating to MicroGDS, highlighting the different terminology and (where relevant) the different functionality for apparently similar commands. The idea being to make the switch easier for them. But, there are a surprising number of situations where I have an AutoCAD command listed which has "No Equivalent" in MicroGDS. The Fillet/Chamfer built-in to the Rectangle command is just one small example. There are plenty of cases where "No Equivalent" means that MicroGDS does things in a better way of course (e.g. there is "No Equivalent" for "Layer 0", and there is "No Equivalent" for "Explode") but there are still many where "No Equivalent" means AutoCAD has better functionality ("Dynamic Input" is absolutely brilliant, for example.)

Anyway, expect more posts from me in a similar vein ...

As for using the ADK to implement this feature, that is really not the point. To compete with AutoCAD, MicroGDS has to do EVERYTHING that AutoCAD does and more without resorting to add-ons if you are going to persuade people to make the switch.