Transform Tool in Part Studio is hard/uncomfortable/slow to use

martin_kopplow

This came up in another discussion, as a side remark, though we better discuss it as a separate subject.

In fact, when coming from a different CAD, the OS transform tool appears very basic and clumsy. I've gone through that myself. What it is, is precise, analytical and it creates features. Some other move tools in other CAD doesn't do that.

What it does not is supporting the user while moving parts. It is clear that we better design them right in place, but we don't always have the choice to do so. There are unforeseen changes, there are imported models. When in such a situation, the user might expect the transform tool support him doing the obvious. I think that recording the translation to create a feature could be seen separated from the handling of the part that is to be moved. The user interaction does not need to be limited to the exact parameters recordes for the 6DOF if the part.

If I could move a part relative to a second part and get support like pulling and pushing in surface normal of the face I grab, if there would be edge and corner snapping, if there would be magnetic faces (at least when planar or congruent) it'd already go a long way. I'm talking about the software assisting the user trying to achieve the goal fast, and then still record it as a feature to be edited later. That is what I miss in the Transorm Tool.

MDesign

I can appreciate the thought process of designing in the right place but its not really practical with the way design work ebbs and flows and information about the design comes to light. The transform tool while cool that it contains the functionality that it does lacks some flexibiility that makes it frustrating and cumbersome sometimes depending on what you need to do. Scaling is the worst for me. Most times I want to scale by reference distance points not a percentage. The other part that other CAD users and myself struggle with is move/copy from a reference point. Its hard to explain but essentially if you move your objects and then realize you should have moved the tool to a different ref point on the objects being moved…you can't.

eric_pesty

A bit confused by these comments… You talk about "CAD" but you must mean "non parametric" 3D modeler? A parametric modeler must create a feature representing a transform for it to be parametric!

The whole point is that you can edit the transform later if you need to adjust it (i.e. to pick a different "reference point" for the transform). And when design "ebbs and flows" you go back and edit earlier features in the tree to adapt the design (rather than add a transform at the end…)

Transform by mate connector has to be one of the best CAD transform tools out there, providing complete control of "to-from", including "snapping" from vertices, edges, etc…

MDesign

My apologies. We are on 2 different pages. I'm in sketch mode when you are in model mode. I didn't read thoroughly. I can't comment on the transform tool for model transforms. Haven't done many of them. I can say it is a "challenge" when coming from other "CAD" programs to have move, scale, and rotate all in one tool takes a bit to get use to.

martin_kopplow

Sorry for the confusion. I wrote CAD because it does actually not matter much if it was parametric or not. Maybe non-parametric CAD has more freedom in this case, but there are in fact diffent approaches. Let's take my snaps example: That would be a bit like "transform by mate connectors", and the result would be recordable, only it would be more interactive and probably more intuitive than the current method. We do already have snaps in assemblies, and they mix well with the other methods of creating mates. Also, "up to" actions could be recorded in a feature. It is just the interface that's lacking.

For the user, this leads to him/her possibly doing multiple translates on top of each other, when things get complex. I theory, it can always be done in one translation, but it is harder to understand and accomplish. So what I call for, is not a new way to feature translations, but only a more supportive way to manipulate the objects involved.

MDesign

Like I said I can't really comment on the model side of the tool, but I can say in support of your suggestion to make the tool more supportive/suggestive…. One thing that would help the process in a sketch mode at least would be if the tool allowed repositioning of the triad mid modification. For whatever reason I find myself moving a selection set and then realizing I should have picked a different point or need to move it twice or more or need to move and rotate and you can't pick a new point mid stream, so you have to move the set off to the side so that you can re-select it and then do your positioning before moving it into its final resting place. From a programming point of view this seems challenging. So a comprise might be a select previous selection set tool/work flow to aid in not having to start over with the translations or moving out of the way of other selections to enable re-selection… phew that's a lotta selects..

eric_pesty

Fair enough about the interface… If it defaulted to "transform by mate connector" and behaved like the "snap mode" in assemblies it might be easier for new users to get the desired result.

That said, users coming from a mesh modeler that create a shape in random space and a bunch of transforms in a row would not be "saved" by this, it's better to learn the "correct" workflow instead.

Personally, I almost never use transform. I have mostly used it is when deriving "pre-built" geometry from another part studio and placing it on a model, now that the "native" derive supports placing the derived part directly I don't even use it for this anymore. The only other time I can think of was when creating configurations representing different shapes of a "flexible" part.

Basically what I am saying is that the vast majority of case where the tool is used (especially by "new" users), there would be a better way to solve the issue that doesn't involve using the transform too at all!

The sketch transform is a bit of a different animal… This one definitely has more use cases (especially when working from imported DXFs etc…), although even here there are often alternative workflows, for example converting a sketch to an offset surface (or surfaces made into a closed composite) and using the transform feature to manipulate this.

martin_kopplow

We should not think that everything not parametric is per se a "Mesh Modeler" and look down on it. There are other approaches out there to handle transformations in geometry, and some of them feel much more advanced and are so much faster than what we get to know when we learn Onshape. I did in fact feel like traveling back in time say 20 years, but it is apparently just me. I admit: The best way to deal with transfortm tool is not to use it. ;0)

eric_pesty

To be clear, I am not "looking down" in any way on mesh modelers. They are just a different type tool with different capabilities.
I think part of the issue is the expectation of users, especially in the hobby/casual user (which there are quite a few of thanks to the free tier) that are just not familiar with the concept of parametric modeling and try to use the tool in a way it was never meant to, and as a result find it confusing/inadequate.

The problem I see is how would a more "freeform" transform behave when the surrounding geometry is modified parametrically (for example with configurations) and this is the difficulty of allowing both types of workflows together.

You summed it up really well though: the best way to use the transform tool in parametric modeling is to not use it!