NewJoker wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:59 pm
By the way, in addition to the Move tool there's also Copy one. So the user can either reposition the selected geometry or copy it to another location. Would it be possible to allow for the same behavior of the rotation tool (either rotate the selected geometry and delete the original or create a copy = pattern with 1 instance) or would this require the separation of polar pattern and rotation ?
And one last thing, the number of copies has a unit of mm in your tool. Can this unit be deleted to avoid the confusion ?
Regarding move and copy tools, I plan on removing them. For several reasons :
- Move can be replaced by group dragging which feels much more natural.
- Copy tool can be replaced by ctrlC/X ctrlV
- It will be handled by the rectangular pattern tool the same way it is currently the case for rotate/circular pattern
Yes the mm unit in the number of copies is stupid it'll be fixed down the line
shamanths13 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:53 pm
Keep the rotation and pattern tools separate, but add rotation to a "Transform tool" like in part WB.
This allows the ability to move the sketch along either x or y (or maybe even specify a custom translation axis)or rotate about a fixed point. I have a example case for instance where the transform tool to move a sketch and rotate can be used: I create a svg on Inkscape to pocket as a template and then import to sketcher,but I want to move it to align within sketcher or rotate, wrt other sketch elements.
Its not easy to move it by say 50 mm on the x axis wrt other preexisting sketcher geometry by box selecting, and I cant just move the sketch because its not constrained.( I faced this problem recently when I tried to import a voronoi pattern I made in inkscape). What do you thing about this?
For the pattern tool, have 1 icon, add a dropdown like in the draft workbench that gives us the option to choose either polar pattern or the normal array pattern or maybe in the future a pattern based on equations. You can further combine scale, translate and rotate under one icon called transform(like we already do) with a drop down menu which has these 3 options. So in the end we will have all the functionality clearly separated and accessible without adding too many icons and taking up real estate. What is your opinion on this?
Cheers!
Having tool setting indeed opens up a lot of possibility to improve the toolsets. For instance things like current fillet tools 'normal fillet' and 'fillet preserving constraints' are heavy on the interface and can be easily replaced by a checkbox in toolsettings.
Same goes for rectangle tools. There could be a mode 'comboBox' (what you called dropdown) that let you choose the mode between 'rectangle' and 'rectangle by center' and possibly a checkbox that let you add round corners. This way 3 tools icon become 1. It doesn't change much so the question is : is it really useful/better from a UI standpoint?
For transform tools it's the same, we can group them under one tool that would have a combobox, or have them in one icon dropdown (as currently are copy clone and move). There would be 'Move/rectangular pattern' 'rotate/circular pattern' and 'offset'.
Can't wait to start using all the new features you are implementing! If Im understanding correctly, the scale, offset and circular pattern all create geometry which is unconstrained, irrespective of the constraints on the original selection right? Or are you selectively chosing which constraints to ignore or utilize? Is this the case? I am just curious!
