For want of documentation about 'Extrude Shape to Linear Form', the 4 'Modify Form' tools, and use of their Handles in Select - and frustrated by inexplicable non intuitive results - I've systematically explored and diagrammed all the options and how they work, as an operational crib sheet. I think I've got it now - and can safely say it's a dog's dinner, as presented in BD.
1) Mistaken icon. Extrude Shape icon shows an orthogonal L-shape being extruded, but nothing but a 4 sided orthogonal Block can be identified for extrusion.
2) Inconsistent terminology. In Extrude Shape, you enter Height and as expected, the Form extrudes that height off the (base) Shape. But then use Modify Form, or Select and look at the Tooltips at ea Handle, and Height (for extrusion) is no longer height - it's become width (for modification). Height (for modification) is now parallel with the original (base) Shape. This is daft - or is there some logic?
3) Inconsistent Settings. Ea of the 4 Modify Forms tools' settings dialogs have different look and feel. In some, coloured vector arrows appear. Yes, ea has different allowable modes but a consistent look and terminology could still be designed.
4) And what about that gem in Solid Modeling - Modify Solid Entity - the PushPull tool. It's clever, versatile and visually obvious, almost in AccuDraw league. Modify Forms tools vs PushPull is just like MS solid modeling pre- vs post-Accudraw. Clunky nightmare vs smooth as silk. All the Modify Forms tools could be amalgamated into the single PushPull tool, with a few more modes in PushPull Settings. One mode could even liberate the Accudraw compass in PushPull, to make even odder shapes. MS is surely clever enough to assess the effect of any modification, and provide informative message if nec, like 'yes you can do that but your Form will demote to a FreeForm (or to a SmartSolid) - please confirm'. At present, use of PushPull on a Form automatically, lazily demotes it to a SmartSolid even if its topography hasn't changed, just a couple of dimensions. All the nonsense about name/status of different faces of the Form would dissolve, even if internally MS keeps track. Direct Modeling!
What's the catch? Having messed lately with BricsCAD I realise that MS's solids manipulation is streets ahead - but its interface is archaic and ill-designed, still in pre-Beta lash-up state IMHO. How can this be, in the co that designed Accudraw, and already has a fab PushPull tool?
Now to investigate FreeForms, what can of worms there?
I am having trouble working in a BOX WORLD.
I will add another level to this discussion . Walls, floors, roofs and slabs.
We NEED TO STOP creating everything as something specific and new. Forms, Smart Solids, Walls, Slab, etc.
Everything is so specific and looses the initial intelligence so that it only works in a SQUARE WORLD.
EVERYTHING should be an intelligent FORM (I-FORM). And ONLY ONE type of form not several.
Then a wall or any other specific items can be placed and manipulated as its disipline (eg. wall) but it HAS TO STOP being ONLY that WALL.
It is still an I-FORM - SO
NOW I CANNOT extend to form a top-of-wall that is tilted - to both a side of a wall and a roof. If you currently go "outside the box" LITERALLY, you must go old school. Not all buildings are boxes. Not all buildings are boxes. Not all buildings are boxes. Not all buildings are boxes.
So all elements should be FORMS that have all the benefits of FORMS - AND
then specific elements can have the ADDED smarts of its associated construction type WALLS, FLOORS, ROOFS and SLABS.
In FINAL #I-FORM
Ustn since 1988SS4 - i7-3.45Ghz-16 Gb-250/1Tb/1Tb-Win8.1-64bEric D. MilbergerArchitect + Master Planner + BIMSenior Master Planner NASA - Marshall Space Flight CenterThe Milberger Architectural Group, llc
I think the concepts of a single Form type and a single Form modification tool are good ones. The issue, of course, is that in software development things are just never that simple. :-) Otherwise I'd imagine we've had this type of thing already - it would simplify testing and support as well. Reality is that the underlying "engine" was built to work in a certain fashion, and changing that reaches into so many areas of the product that it becomes unwieldy. Not impossible, of course, but a major overhaul.
So yes, if you have very specific requests on how you think the placement and modification tools could be improved, do file SRs. If and when these type of changes could be implemented is unknown at this point with x64 coming down the pike, but it does have to start somewhere...
Thanks Steve - I take comfort from your guarded words!
I was thinking that the old solid types could remain, 'under the hood', but MS get clever enough to largely hide that, in use. A single modification tool would offer the full range of modification modes in all cases: if unavoidable, makes-no-sense modes wd be greyed out depending on the 'under the hood' solid type being modified: but wherever possible every modification mode wd be allowed even if it would 'break' that Form or Solid type, resulting in its demotion to another type. When that occurred, an informative message wd describe exactly what aspect of the modification was disallowable e.g. 'A LinearForm cannot have non parallel sides, so this modification will demote to FreeForm - confirm or cancel?
This (with surly uninformative message) happens whenever the wonderful versatile reliable PushPull tool is used on a LinearForm - it demotes (often unneccessarily) to SmartSolid, So the engine is capable of transforming between different geometry-description formats, on the fly. Tho I'd have thought the underlying engine wd describe all geometries in a unified way, and the apparent differences between Form and Solid types are just abstractions for the purposes of creation routine and of parametric revision.
Another aspect is that certain modifications can be made e.g. to slice and dice LinearForms by Cut Solid by Curve, which are impossible to achieve by the standard Mitre, L, T and Modify Form tools - but which still then report as un-demoted LinearForms. So that modification was not disallowable, just that the standard tools are full of fussy refusals to do useful things. E.g. making Mitre or L joints not just between ends of LinearForms, but between sides, tops and bottoms, in any mixed combination.
Another great one wd be to allow all Forms and Solids to be Extended and/or Trimmed to another Form, Solid, Surface, Shape or even Line/Curve etc, almost as readily as 2D elements are. I'm astonished that it's not possible to Extend or even drag a Line end and have it snap to a Solid's face or to a Surface - but have to longwindedly create the intersection first. If that can be done 'manually', why not automatically?
In general, Direct Modeling is the coming thing and Bentley does need to catch up the others. Though History-like Features are proving v useful.
As a newby I don't know how such SRs should be phrased or whether I should ask an insider to sponsor it, or whatever.
No worries on the newby aspect - everyone (literally) has been there!
There's nothing specific regarding phrasing, the more important factor is to include the details you think are most relevant to that one item. I would not mix and match requests/ideas though - the more concise you can be with each specific request, the better. That way development can determine whether or how each aspect may or may not fit in to their current projects. As long as you avoid vague concepts such as "improve form modeling and editing" you should be OK. :)
Tom
Be precise and not verbose (easier for the reader, or 'analyst' in Bentley speak) prepare for some pretty picky questions to answer.
Put a link to this discussion in the ST and present the STnumber here.
regards / Thomas Voghera