Hierarchical View in parametric History sidebar?

History-Based Parametric Modeling Beta
1

As it is now (unless I missed any choice for organization somewhere) the history list is just one long list of actions taken. Is it possible to get a hierarchical view? What 3D action is done on what body based on what sketch?
It is possible to guess it, but with a lot of items in a file, the list becomes very long and confusing very quickly.
A body - 3D action - sketch - hierarchy will help find what belongs to where.
Example:
Body
Extrude
Sketch

I have used Autodesk Inventor quite a bit and find the organization of the history more elegant with parent-child organization.

2 Likes
2

Great idea, this is something that we are considering.

One thing that already helps with this is that when you select something, the history list is filtered to the steps relevant to that geometry, so it’s easy to see the entire chain. The exact dependencies between the steps are of course not completely clear just from the list, but in most cases it allows you to get a quick overview. Have you tried that feature?

We will also be adding a lot of organizational tools to the history step list over the coming weeks & months: renaming, filtering, grouping into folders etc. Those would also allow you to build up a structure that’s easier to deal with later on.

2 Likes
3

I have tried it, and it does help, but still, a nice tree will reduce the visual clutter in the list when selecting something.

1 Like
4

Can you show me an exact scenario how you approach this problem? Are you strictly coming from a non-filtered steps list or you already have an active selection in the modeling space? If there is a selection which related steps are you looking for?
Thank you

5

Maybe we could see the “name of the body” the history entry belongs to in the listing?

(just thinking out loud)

1 Like
6

For me, this would be nice to incorporate on one of the main list, if a Sketched is used as part of a body, Include that sketch under the body that it is tied to, using a typical + / - tree system?

+ Body 001
   |_ + Sketch 001
        |_ Extrude
        |_ Fillet
            |_ + Sketch 003
                 |_ Extrude
+ Body 002
   |_ + Sketch 002
        |_ Extrude
        |_ Fillet
            |_ + Sketch 003
                 |_ Extrude

Having this type of Tree Hierarchical view would make it quick to find the various things related to that specific body.

The Auto highlighting in the History view is rather helpful, but It still causes me to get confused when looking for a sketch or relative feature. It seems more along the lines of having an automated Folder/filing system for your actions. “What are all the things that where involved in this body creation? Let me click this plus to see everything under/involved in it’s creation. A sketch was made, then a part of it was extruded, then that extrude was given a fillet, then another sketch was made off that, that sketch was used to create an extrude…” etc.

I do see some problems with things being tied to multiple sketches… though in this tree view, they could just be referenced and shown in multiple places as referenced?

2 Likes
7

Does that mean related features based on selection does not help? What are the dependances that you are missing?
The hierarchiacal view cannot show connections if different bodies are involved, that’s why we have a different approach on the subject. We are prioritising modeling interactions rather then managing a strucural tree view. If you find the time, let’s jump on a call, I’d love to have a better understanding of your case :slightly_smiling_face:

8

Sorry about the delay in my response @Zoli ! :open_mouth:
Related features based on Selection does help a lot! Things can just get a little cumbersome to locate a specific value once there are a lot of sketches and features going on.

It can totally be self organized, I could rename sketches after creating them and grouping bodies and sketches myself as they are formed into folders. Though, if there was a way for that to be done automatically(the grouping not the renaming), it could remove possible frustrations from users migrating from other CAD environments.

As with all software though, it could just be a process issue when learning and I am probably just being held back because of typical CAD processes. I am only dipping my toes into Shapr3D and really love seeing how much you all are up for refining it. It is Shapr-ing up to be a great software, heh.

I would love to hop on a call once I have this current project I am working on done in Shapr3D so we have a completed project to look into.

1 Like