Adding "symetric" option to up to vertex

otaolafr

for example in the extrusion feature, we have the option for symmetric that is a semi-blind option (where we do it as first blind and a second end position with a second blind) but would be a great option to do up to vertex and do a symmetry of it. obviously it is something that can be solved by creating a sketch and creating the second vertex but would nice to have this option.

lougallo

@Otaola_Franco How is this symmetric?  Are you wanting the up to vertex to define the depth and then assume that same up to vertex distance in the opposite direction?

S1mon

@lougallo I'm voting this up based on the idea that the second direction is just mirroring the distance set by the vertex in the first direction. I can see this being useful.

lougallo

@S1mon since our second direction can go the same direction as direction 1, I find this a bit odd in practice and one of the reasons whey we have featurescript so anyone can fork things and add obscure needs as they wish.  From a design intent perspective, mirror is a better approach.

otaolafr

lougallo said:

@Otaola_Franco How is this symmetric?  Are you wanting the up to vertex to define the depth and then assume that same up to vertex distance in the opposite direction?

the idea I had is to do an up tu vertex as normally and then the other would be in the opposite direction but the same distance, this could be practical, and allow us to dont use mirror in this instance, it would be interesting the same thing for revolve. I find it that could be quiet useful as i found myself needing to do this some times. different people have differents approaches to how to design... yeah I know that could be donne in a custom FS, but I find that some of them should comme from the get go. as other features, like for example measuring a distance and stocking it to a variable.

matthew_stacy

@lougallo I support the idea that @Otaola_Franco proposed.  I would like the symmetric option to simply mean 'extend this feature the same direction in both directions.  That distance can be defined with the first end condition. 

To me it does not make sense to have to define that distance twice.  By your logic the symmetric option could be eliminated completely, forcing  the user to specify double blind (please don't do that).

Some of us, myself included, are just paying Onshape customers who have not yet found the time to learn how to write our own feature scripts.  That's why we love the the 3 week update cycle!  And yes, we know that the Onshape development team has a full docket.