Group objects into a subassembly?
All  1-4  5-9

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
5231.5 In reply to 5231.4 
Hi Mike, yeah I want the grouping mechanism to enable a hierarchical structure so you could have parent and child groups.

I think that an instance mechanism will be another separate mechanism yet from groups, since it needs a fair amount of specific tools for it such as having a way to swap out the base definition and have all the instances update. Also an instancing mechanism is maybe more related to a type of library or catalog of stuff in some ways, while a "group" will probably be more of an structural organization tool... That's at least some of my current thinking anyway.

It would be nice though if object names, groups, and instances could maybe be more parts of one single system instead of 3 different types of things, but I'm not entirely sure yet if trying to combine them too much might make things more complex instead of better.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Mauro (M-DYNAMICS)
5231.6 In reply to 5231.5 
<<Michael:
I want the grouping mechanism to enable a hierarchical structure so you could have parent and child groups.>>

This will help Moi to be more quick and easy to use...i mean:on a hand we got the best UI,quick and powerful tools;on the other we have a basic grouping mechanism that often deboost workflow.
(you see,Michael, users that post models more complicated are growing,lot of sub-objects,details etc...)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
5231.7 In reply to 5231.6 
Hi Mauro, yup I definitely want to boost the organization capabilities.

But also I want to do it carefully too, once systems like that are put in place it's very difficult to go back and change them so I've wanted to be pretty sure about the path to take before jumping in.

I've seen many organization systems that can end up being quite inflexible and can cause a lot of problems with side effects from how they work, so that has made me be fairly cautious about the whole general area.

So far the initial steps of being able to have 3 different methods of organization (by object name, by types, and by styles) has turned out well as a starting point I think, especially since they are able to interact with one another instead of only one system taking total precedence. So at least so far it's nice and flexible and I want to try and preserve that going forward too.

One of the main things missing currently is hierarchy though, and I definitely want to incorporate something for that.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
5231.8 
A little big headache :)
---
Pilou
Is beautiful that please without concept!
My Gallery
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
 From:  Mauro (M-DYNAMICS)
5231.9 In reply to 5231.7 
<<Michael:
But also I want to do it carefully too, once systems like that are put in place it's very difficult to go back and change them so I've wanted to be pretty sure about the path to take before jumping in.>>


I think all we know your approach and "philosophy" about Moi's programming,take time you need..we'll be here to support your work !
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
 
Show messages: All  1-4  5-9