[OBD U5] stfplace tool setting dialog

Just wondering if I can have a separate tool setting dialog for the stfplace commands (column, beams etc.) rather than as a ribbon? I have my ribbon in compact mode, I access to my required tools through toolbars. Everytime I place something that involve the Placement ribbon, I have to click on the ribbon to get to the settings. 

Best regards,

Tuan Le

Parents
  • Tuan,

    We found a defect in the ribbon where it's not behaving correctly in compact mode. It should be switching to the contextual tab so you don't need to click on that tab manually. It's supposed to switch to that ribbon tab whenever you launch a command that uses it and return you to the previous tab when you reset.

    As time goes on, I would expect to see more placement options in the ribbon, not in a separate dialog.



  • Can I submit a change request to have tool settings stays in structural property panel? I just can't understand why we need 3 different places for tool settings. 

    Can you please share the defect number? so that I can submit a SR to track it. 

    Also to clarify, the ribbon does switch to Placement ribbon, however, because it is in compact mode, I have to manually expand it to get to my settings. The fact that I have to refer to the ribbon for placement settings is already a massive time waster. 

  • Is there something in your workflow that requires you to do #2 first?

    without choosing the correct section shape (i shape vs channel vs angle), it is a little bit hard to work out where the placement point should be, and the rotation angle, and local offset, and placement method etc.

    However, regardless of working order, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 vs 1 - 3 - 2 - 4 would yield the same amount of mouse travel, does it not? Arguably, doing step 3 before 2 would takes a bit more time as you have work out the settings mentally in your head. 

    How is this workflow different from the toolbars? It seems like the number and type of steps be the same, except with the toolbars along the side instead of the top

    The difference lies in the placement settings now is split from the property panel. Hence the title of my post, it's not "get rid of ribbon". It's about bringing back the previous arrangement for structural placement workflow where all settings are in 1 place, less moving about the screen. 

    Do you find yourself changing between tabs often?

    Unfortunately, yes. 

    products more "usable" in general.

    Not in this case, it does not. Please refer back to my second paragraph of this reply. 

    What do you mean by docking the ribbon

    I think bear meant different states of ribbons (compact vs expanded)

    large-sized icons so you have bigger targets to aim for when clicking

    I find this is actually quite distracting when you want to find the small icons. After a while, you remember where all the icons are. However, then you try to locate something that is smaller in size, it takes a little longer to locate them.

    Again, I have nothing against or for ribbon. It's fine. It's ok, I just don't see a use for it. Just don't force it upon people. What was your team's rationalisation about having mandatory contextual ribbon tab that permanently sits in the ribbon while the ribbon is in compact mode. I'd love to hear about that.

    Just a side note, a little more than a decade ago, task menu was all the rage. We tested it, saw little to no value to it, and stayed with toolboxes. Our sentiment for ribbon at the moment is pretty much the same, adding the frustration that we are now forced to use it.

  • I don't mind the questions Tom, if it helps people understand the issues as we see them.

    '"Docking" means to take a floating dialog and attach it to a border of the screen. Do you mean something else by that?'

    Docked, hidden, minimise. All just names, but I believe that CE calls it minimised:

    '"Add to that you have to try and get rid of the Property Panel."? '

    If I've finished with it and want to use other commands it won't just go away. I have to close the dialog to get rid of it. If I go from placing a member to needing to the copy command the dialog, even though blanked out, is still there.



  • (reducing visual clutter and giving us enough space to use large-sized icons so you have bigger targets to aim for when clicking)

    I'm as blind as they come and I don't find the small icons an issue. What it does currently give to some is the impression there isn't room to work with for some commands. In the end the larger icons are only for a few commands, just don't see the point. I usually end up going in and changing all the groups to medium any way.

    I'd also, personally, like to see a LOT less clutter in common tools. Give me more in the application groups and have common tools sit in a group of it's own. Still easy to access and, again, it means I can have Place icons in the Structural group which is a bigger issue to me.

    Do you find yourself changing between tabs often?

    Yes. Especially when we need to access custom tools from our company interface.



  • However, regardless of working order, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 vs 1 - 3 - 2 - 4 would yield the same amount of mouse travel, does it not? Arguably, doing step 3 before 2 would takes a bit more time as you have work out the settings mentally in your head. 

    Actually you're right Tom, moving from structural tab to placement tab then property panel would be less distance than the other way around, if you have no need to change your placement settings after changing your section. 

  • 3 - Mouse from datagroup dialog goes back to ribbon to select rotation, placement point etc.

    One thing I have under SR7000823423 would make a big difference here to me. As it stands, you can't set cardinal point and other placement options in the catalog. I, personally, think that the way it stands in having these in the Parts rather than catalog is the wrong way around.

    The way I see it is I should define parts ONLY, but I should be able to break down different types of 'parts' using the catalog.

    An example below:

    These are all different beams that I can switch between using the 'Place Steel Beam' tool.

    I'd like to take this further for other 'parts', but I'm prevented from doing so as it would mean creating parts based on their member type which, to me, is NOT what I want this part of the tool to do.

    Horizonal Bracing can be broken down into angles and CHS, each with it's own unique settings. One Part, but multiple catalog options.



Reply
  • 3 - Mouse from datagroup dialog goes back to ribbon to select rotation, placement point etc.

    One thing I have under SR7000823423 would make a big difference here to me. As it stands, you can't set cardinal point and other placement options in the catalog. I, personally, think that the way it stands in having these in the Parts rather than catalog is the wrong way around.

    The way I see it is I should define parts ONLY, but I should be able to break down different types of 'parts' using the catalog.

    An example below:

    These are all different beams that I can switch between using the 'Place Steel Beam' tool.

    I'd like to take this further for other 'parts', but I'm prevented from doing so as it would mean creating parts based on their member type which, to me, is NOT what I want this part of the tool to do.

    Horizonal Bracing can be broken down into angles and CHS, each with it's own unique settings. One Part, but multiple catalog options.



Children
No Data