Maneuvering in the 3d Space

peter_barclay

I have a serious question. WHY has every 3d modeling software ignored the standardized method of maneuvering in a 3d space and gone with a completely opposite and thus non-intuitive method?

I can appreciate WHY the method you rely on exists and why it is needed in this space. But the fact that you have abandoned the standard and not even included it as an optional means is an unforgivable sin. Before ANYONE ever even thinks of using an 3d modeling software they have been exposed and become accustomed to the standard of maneuvering in 3d space because everyone plays games. I don't care if it's Minecraft or Half-Life with all its derivative games, this method was standardized decades before this company was started. There is no forgivable reason why the standard A-S-D-W with center screen mouse focus wasn't included as a means of maneuvering. I don't want to hear any excuses such as you already assigned S and W. Because S (shortcuts) should have been assigned to Q (quick links) and W should have been F (focus) and where what is currently F should be R (refocus). There is also nothing stopping you from putting it in there and switching those key assignments now.

My kid is 11 and in the 6th grade. He will be entering a 3D graphics design class in his second semester. A class that has been a standard class for many years. The number one thing that has turned kids away from 3d design is the failure to include the standard maneuvering method. Many of the kids have gotten completely off-put, had to force themselves to push through the class to the end, and then NEVER come back to it. Maneuvering in the 3d space is the first thing anyone does and by not including this you are tripping everyone who walks through the door. It is no surprise they walk right out and don't come back. In the 90's, anyone who had a computer HAD access to a printer and many would brag they owned a color printer. I am convinced if just one company had thought for one second, "Hmm maybe we should use what everyone already knows", that today, anyone with a computer would have access to a bed slinger with many bragging about how they owned a core-xy.

I could go on this rant for hours but I want an answer to my question from Onshape. WHY as a company have you chosen to push people away from this industry?

_anton

While a WASD free-flying mode actually would be cool, in my personal opinion, there's a meaningful difference between game navigation and design software navigation (which is very standard - it's not unique to CAD). In a game, you're the pivot. You're moving yourself. In CAD, you're moving relative to whatever you're working on, so it's more in line with the paradigm to prefer controls that make that easier, rather than free-form movement.

Besides, even in standard video game controls, there's a lot of variation. Inverted pitch controls, different names and conventions for buttons, etc.

It surprises me that kids get turned off design software primarily because of the controls. I'd assume it would be because of the learning curve. How much have you seen this happen?

peter_barclay

My experience is more anecdotal, but I've spoken to the teacher at the school and I commented on it and he says kids will either give up on computers and others will just switch to doing the programming only. A lot of the classes are robot-based for the wow factor of getting kids excited. On the graphics design side, 3d printing is the closest they get to the instant gratification of "I drew a picture and it came to life or "I made this thing" that would have taken forever to try and do with arts and crafts, woods or metals classes. The other side is the Arduino programming side, where a quick command and a click turns an LED on or off or spins a motor.

As for the learning curve. I am OLD-SCHOOL tech, we're talking Basic, Pascal and ADA programming. Although I can be a bit of a computer-savant. That said, 3d design is one part I've never done. Call me wierd but looking at the g-code gave me flashbacks of having to program Apple Turtle graphics. So 2 weeks ago I was brand new doing this stuff. Personally I wanted to try it so I would be able to mentor my kid when he needed help. The maneuvering was really off putting to me (although I'm older and already have the self motivation skills to push past). I tried Tinker, Blender, Fusion, Sketchit you name it. My kid's first day of going back to school, I said, ok, I'll sit down and get this. Once I got past doing the maneuvering it took me 3 days to get a good grasp of Onshape. I drew up a couple real easy things and printed them. It then took me a week to build a working, proof-of-concept solution for having a heated AMS for the Bambu P1S printer using variables and assembly modes. It's now taken me 2 days to do a second completely revamped streamlined version using a lot more of the functions.

Long story short, the learning curve of drawing is nothing. But when it comes to maneuvering it still causes me to fumble. On top of that, it's like getting in the pool You jump in, it takes a bit to get used to the water and then you're ok. But if you get out,,, every time you get back in you have to get used to it again. Just like the teacher said he had with kids, the hardest part of getting my kid motivated on this is the maneuvering.

The only other thing, he's also like me and more inclined to mechanical engineering so he likes Onshape better than mesh based CADs like SketchUp or Blender. If I had to pick one other thing that I had to overcome with him to keep him interested it would be that. I think the schools chose to go with CAD's like SketchUp because they used to teach drafting classes and drawing up plans to build houses and stuff. So, switching from paper to 3D CAD you can see it as an easier shift for them to pick SketchUp. It's fewer changes to the curriculum since it's tuned for that industry. That said, showing my kid parametric stuff and Onshape kept him from walking away. Mesh and Parametric are 2 completely different brains. It's like Apple vs Google. It has nothing to do with preference. It's biological in source and religious in conviction. Simple test, make a sphere in Onshape and one in SketchUp. One of them will make sense to you and the other will have you going, "WTF is wrong with your brain".

Oliver_Couch

When you have an object you can hold in your hand, do you walk around it or turn the object?

Also the CAD industry standards are much older than 3D games. Maybe even older than you.

Also, neither you nor your son are the target customers of CAD software. That you can have some benefit of it is nice. That PTC provides free accounts at all is extremely nice, comparatively. CAD software is targeted toward qualified engineers and designers whose profession it is to operate the software. Deviating from the industry standards would make it hard for professionals to adopt, and they are the ones that keep PTC's lights on.

peter_barclay

Oh Oliver, you obviously don't know who you're talking to. Since I'm in a mood, I'll school you for fun. If you googled my name, with the word Pantent, you'd find that I'm the guy during the Y2K bug fiasco was lead architect for dealing with the internet architecture issue of the 4 billion object limit. I even teamed up with the VMWare guys, helping them expand their systems so that I could test the new architecture. We were able to push it up to 186.4 billion and still getting nowhere near the new limits. The reason you can have a cell phone, 3d printer, fridge, washer and whatever else you want connected to the internet, is cause of me.

If you google my name with Alber Alerts, you might find some old news broadcasts of me explaining a new venture to create the national missing children amber alert network. It was used as a proving system for the current EMS which fully integrated cell phones, road signs and everything else including instant messengers on desktops at the time. At 5th Space Ops, I launched a couple dozen satellites from GPS to GOES and bent pipe communications for the shuttle. This barely scratches the surface of everything I did before turning 32.

While I don't call myself successful for any of those things., I do feel I am one of the most successful because I haven't worked a day since; that's over 20 years. I spend all day with the most important people in the world, my family. My kid I mentioned, I get up every morning with him at 6. Why, because he has an alarm for 20 minutes before going to school that requires me to sit on the couch with him and snuggle watching silly videos. He set another one for an hour before bed and we are currently watching Big Bang Theory while I hold him as he lays against me. That is what makes me one of the most successful people in the world.

Now, as for your analogy for HOLDING an object. THAT is not how it appears. Especially since the software has the "Transform" command. You know, a command that allows you to actually move or turn an object. Maybe if you only moved your mouse in one direction and only for a short distance it might appear that way a little. However, click, move your pointer 3 inches and then make a circle motion around the original point. You will feel more as if, you have grabbed an immovable object in space. As you motion to turn, it is YOU who is being thrown in the opposite direction of the force, aka inverted on spun. I've seen plenty of complaints about how to move objects. Because instead of seeing a free-floating object in your hard, it is fixed in the 3d space.

Also, your defensive reaction paints you as such a huge snowflake you can't handle watching someone else be given criticism. Interesting, you jump to the defense of the maneuvering method which I stated I appreciate why it both exists and is NEEDED. So let's get you a little focused here before you melt. My criticism is that they do not "include" (as in ALSO HAVE) what is well-accepted as the current standard. A standard that every younger person is well versed in instead of the method employed in the CAD applications. You might as well be showing these kids a rotary phone. The closest any CAD has come is Tinker. However, instead of including it, they let you import your Minecraft environments.

SPEAKING OF WHICH,,, have you seen the stuff people have done in there?! Think about it! There are over 166 MILLION ACTIVE users on that application every month. Tell me OnShape, how many do you have? Then I would love for you, Oliver, to tell us how well they are doing when they can't even compete with a CHILD'S PLAY TOY!!! The target market of OnShape is everyone on the planet. You get new customers by getting the kids. The local schools here are using SketchUp BECAUSE it's free for teachers, mentors and students. If you look for jobs in my state for 3d designers, most are all asking that you know SketchUp because that's what people get taught. Hmmm, I wonder WHY Onshape is doing the same thing of offering free access for teachers, mentors and students?

As for my suggestion as to HOW specifically to implement this, I would recommend using the WASD for up-left-down-right in a strafe movement with the mouse wheel for moving in and out. The movement of the mouse pointer would thus change your, the viewer's, perception as if you are wearing a jet pack. W is always going up for you. Additionally, you can add different variations like _antwon mentions such as inverted pitch by holding shift or ctrl. I would recommend having one of them directly connected to movement on XYZ. If you are in a sketch, homed/focused by the cube, zoomed in, and you needed to end your line or drawing off-screen, you wouldn't have to zoom out or use the ctrl-rightclick-mouse to move across the plane otherwise risking moving out of alignment with the plane you are sketching on. The basic difference between the two is you are strafing based on mouse movement and the other strafing regardless of mouse movement and in line with the XYZ.