Recently Stefan added highlightning to selected constraints in the assembly module, i have a proposal for another color theme then the gray he used:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
here is a patch file for the small change:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
The next thing i will be looking on is to change from just showing the constraint name to show the constraint name and what parts are affected. From "Coincident1" to "Coincident1 <block1, cylinder2>"
Assembly GUI Development
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Assembly GUI Development
Hello maidenone,
I added the highlighting after studing you document, so thanks for that! You may have seen that I used colors set in the preferences, currently just linked to the sketch colors (fully constraint and construction geometry). Thats green and blue. I wonder if you have seen those colors? Your patch just changes the default values, those are only used if no preferences are set. Later we may add a own assembly property page and allow to set the constraint colors by the user directly, so I put not much thought into those colors. But I'm fine with diffrent ones. However, setting the default line with to 6 is way too much. You can't see it in the screenshot as 2+1 is used there (as extracted from the settings) but 6+1 would be way too big.
I'm going to change the highlighting implementation soon (not the results, just implementation), so you should not create too big patches on it. If you want to change the names you have to look at the commands. Just provide a patch, I will add it to my branch.
I added the highlighting after studing you document, so thanks for that! You may have seen that I used colors set in the preferences, currently just linked to the sketch colors (fully constraint and construction geometry). Thats green and blue. I wonder if you have seen those colors? Your patch just changes the default values, those are only used if no preferences are set. Later we may add a own assembly property page and allow to set the constraint colors by the user directly, so I put not much thought into those colors. But I'm fine with diffrent ones. However, setting the default line with to 6 is way too much. You can't see it in the screenshot as 2+1 is used there (as extracted from the settings) but 6+1 would be way too big.
I'm going to change the highlighting implementation soon (not the results, just implementation), so you should not create too big patches on it. If you want to change the names you have to look at the commands. Just provide a patch, I will add it to my branch.
Re: Assembly GUI Development
I personally think that 6 +1 is fine, but you might be right. I think +6 is quite close to what SolidWork has:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
but they only highlight edges.
I am working on the assembly branch and all the highlightning was the same gray (25, 25, 25), it was hard to distinguish between selected and not selected faces.
When i run:
App.activeDocument().addObject('Assembly::ConstraintAlignment',"Alignment002 <STP_Part_1, STP_Part_1001>")
i get:
Alignment002__STP_Part_1__STP_Part_1001_001
however, if i rename it in the gui, it works fine. bug or feature??
i do not think that giving the object that cryptic name is the right way to go anyway. But not sure where the make the changes..
I might take a closer look at the naming tomorrow,
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
but they only highlight edges.
I am working on the assembly branch and all the highlightning was the same gray (25, 25, 25), it was hard to distinguish between selected and not selected faces.
When i run:
App.activeDocument().addObject('Assembly::ConstraintAlignment',"Alignment002 <STP_Part_1, STP_Part_1001>")
i get:
Alignment002__STP_Part_1__STP_Part_1001_001
however, if i rename it in the gui, it works fine. bug or feature??
i do not think that giving the object that cryptic name is the right way to go anyway. But not sure where the make the changes..
I might take a closer look at the naming tomorrow,