Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Max, Oct 23, 2019.
No idea why it wasn't implemented that way. But moving forward preview is on by default.
I do appreciate your willingness to engage with the users and have a conversion about the functions of Alibre, if Alibre had not gone to the dark-side for those years I believe Alibre would be much further alone in its development. At least to me you guys are making an effort not only to listen to the users but trying to improve the product making up for lost time.
Thanks for the feedback. I agree this is extremely productive, and makes our lives so much easier when we do this before any coding has taken place. Win win for both you all and us.
I think you're autocorrecting Alibre to Agile btw ;D
Its ok. Looks different but don't see much difference beyond that.
Sorry after using Agile for almost 20 years I type that name it before I think. Let's try that again Alibre.
Hi Max -- My thoughts run like: Co-Rotate where in a "positive ratio" makes the (two) selected Items rotate in the same direction (ala belt or roller chain components( and a "negative ration" makes them rotate in opposite directions (ala gear drive componets) seems most sensible to me. The thing I have not figured out in this would be how to handle bevel gear rotations in a sensible manner. My current best guess is that a Right Hand Rule system taking the axis of the first entity as the "fingers straight" direction and the rotation direction of the second entity as the ""fingers curved positive rotation" is the place to begin. Hopefully this is all sensible to you... -- Lew
I would like to see some positive rotation indicators in the 3d model. Then the user only needs to look at it and reverse the relationship if needed.
I'm really not sure why this is such a big issue. If you don't like the text as shown in (D), which is primarily there to help new users, you would just collapse the icon section such that it only shows icons, as shown in (C) or (B). Takes 1 click. What am I missing?
Perhaps you simply prefer the look of radio buttons, but I'm not sure that preference qualifies the level of caps lock on this topic.
CEO of Alibre, LLC"""
The only good thing about the radio buttons is that they are smaller. It's all about the size of the d**n dialog window. if it is too big, then it covers up what you want to do, and it is necessary to move it around.
I'd take text over the unclear icons.... But NOT the unclear icons over the text. But that is not an option offered.
Choices seem to be:
1) enough info, linked with a rather large dialog box that looks to cover the screen too much due to the icons and larger text..
2) Unclear icons only, but the dialog box is smaller.
The choices do not look good.
Show the box as it would appear on a screen, and then we'll talk. I mean the whole screen, when working, with the box on it.....
Did you...try...the demo? If so, did you click the green button?
It's modeled currently to be sized almost identically to the existing regular constraint dialog, assuming you collapse the constraint buttons.
Which icons are unclear? Are they all unclear to you? Others have indicated they find the new icon set clear, so I'm trying to figure out what the root issue is here - if we need to change one around that's easy enough - if you think they are all super unclear then perhaps a different approach is needed.
I agree. There are some limitations around this that we are researching. It seems like it should be really easy - but it is not. This will likely not make it into v21 for that reason, but we'll see.
Very good direction !
The principle is one - few cliks , big effect.
Win10 (64 bit) Destop AMD Ryzen 3 1200 32 GB RAM NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
Alibre Design Expert 2019 (build 20065)
Thanks to everyone for your feedback. We have moved into the final spec phase and I feel that we are in a good place where further feedback will be marginal, until you get to actually try it and use it yourself. We'll close this thread and perhaps resume any final tweaking during the beta if we have time - or we will move those final tweaks to v22.
Thanks for your participation!
That's awesome! I love the way the stuff is broken out into sections.
How does the Offset Minimum & Maximum work? In what case would this be used?
Once again I argue that, in the Model space we need both "Design Dimensions" as well as "Documentation Dimensions" as it is perfectly fine to design something as (say) "Centerline Symmetrical" whereas, without desigantes a Feature that creates a "Centerline" there is no such thing in manufacturing. Therefore "Design Dimensions" and "Documentation Dimensions" are needed for proper records keeping. Further, being able to define and notate Datums within the Design Model would fall onto the "good things" category.
Separate names with a comma.