Poll: What should superPlacement be renamed to?

[peterl94]

I can't make up my mind on what is better name for superPlacement, so I'm deferring to popular vote. Here is a link to the previous discussion about it: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=22872

[NormandC]

Reading again that topic, it seems a few people liked Offset Placement. The thing is, when you only affect the Angle and Axis, you rotate the Sketch (or in Part --> Attachment, you set Pitch/Yaw/Roll values). Then, the plane is not really offset, but rotated, right?

Even though nobody supported chrisb's suggestion, I rather think it describes best what it does: Override Placement. Unfortunately it's a verb rather than a name...

[triplus]

I vote for Placement offset.

[peterl94]

Then, the plane is not really offset, but rotated, right?

Yes, that is the problem with the term offset. It is generally thought of as a positional offset and not a rotational offset.

I rather think it describes best what it does: Override Placement. Unfortunately it's a verb rather than a name

Switching it around to be "Placement Override" would solve the verb problem I think. Same as triplus' suggestion with offset.

I still kinda like "Relative Placement," because it fits my way of thinking about it better, but the only problem is people might think it is relative to the object placement which is not true. The formula is: object Placement = calculated Placement by attachment * superPlacement. So it means it is relative to the "calculated placement."

[peterl94]

I've edited the poll based on your feedback.

[NormandC]

Thanks. I guess no matter what is chosen, some people will find it confusing until they see a practical example.

[bejant]

Isn't all Placement actually Relative Placement, although it might be relative to only the origin?

Maybe the answer to the following question will help my thinking:
When would the use of SuperPlacement be preferred instead of the use of regular Placement, and vice-versa? Why, for both instances?

[peterl94]

Isn't all Placement actually Relative Placement, although it might be relative to only the origin?

Of course, and the more local coordinate systems you have, like Body and Part, the more levels of "relative" there is. Although, I would argue that since it is under the Attachment property section, what it is relative to can be inferred.

When would the use of SuperPlacement be preferred instead of the use of regular Placement, and vice-versa? Why, for both instances?

The Placement property controls the position and orientation of an object. Attachment doesn't change this fact, it just sets the object's placement automatically based on the map mode, referenced entities, and super placement. So lets say you attach a sketch on the top face of a cube. Then the Attachment Engine calculates the needed Placement for the sketch to put it on the face, and it can't be set manually by the user. Now if you wanted the sketch to always be some distance away from the top face, you would set the super placement, and the Attachment Engine would take the position and orientation of the face again, apply the super placement relative to this, and update the sketch's placement with the result.

[chrisb]

Isn't all Placement actually Relative Placement, although it might be relative to only the origin?

Of course it is, although I would call that placement Absolute Placement
Perhaps the very exact meaning is not really important it is rather some sort of hierarchy that could be improved.

[looo]

Then the Attachment Engine calculates the needed Placement for the sketch to put it on the face, and it can't be set manually by the user. Now if you wanted the sketch to always be some distance away from the top face, you would set the super placement, and the Attachment Engine would take the position and orientation of the face again, apply the super placement relative to this, and update the sketch's placement with the result.

So this is somehow related to objects which needs there placement for edit mode? So necessary for objects which apply there placement in the inner dependency structure.

So my conclusion would be to call one placement "linked placement", which can't be touched by the user. The other is the user-defined (but also possible linked) placement. But I have no idea what other problems the super-placment should solve.