mmccall Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a way to deform or stretch a face about a point in version 5.2?... can't seem to find it in 6.0... I found an old file I had, and I am having a hrd time remembering how I made this shape..... I dont believe I used a saurface to do it... Looks like we need a "regen steps" option in ironcad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Owens Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 There used to be a command like that, but I canft find it in 6. It seems that this command has disappeared! Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmccall Posted March 24, 2003 Author Share Posted March 24, 2003 Hey... Ironcad !!!! I had a use for that tool !!! Help us find it !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Murphy Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 You can stop looking for the old deform face tool. It was removed with the introduction of the new surfacing functionality in 6.0. We are sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. Our rationale for this action was based on the feedback we gathered that hardly anybody was actually using it and the belief that the new surfacing functionality would be an adequate replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Owens Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Shaun, Sorry for the blunt reply, but that tool was not being used much by anybody because of its implementation -- it was practically useless! Not completely useless, but almost. IronCAD needs a Deform Faces tool, but one with functionality. For example: Allow the pull point (green dot) to be moved horizontally too, instead of just vertically; Have settings for influence region, 'elasticity', 'gravity', and 'size' of the deformation; Allow another shape to be used as a template for the deformation; Allow multiple faces/pull points to be operated on at the same time; Etc. The new surfacing commands are in a different class than the Deform Faces tool. Think about it this way. Have someone in your office make a half dozen different parts using the Deform Faces tool in IC 5.2, and have them write down how long it took to create the faces. Now, try to recreate the same faces using the new surfacing tools. How long did it take you to reproduce the results? Don't just take the old command out, make it better. I personally would like the option to choose the Deform Faces tool if its the right tool for the job, especially if produces faster results. I love IronCAD, but as I've said in this forum time and time again: "The main weakness of IronCAD is its apparent unwillingness to fine-tune the existing functionality". New tools and features are always welcome, but the fact is that there are literally hundreds of features that are either implemented in a half-ass fashion, or dont work altogether. Id be happy to list them if you like. Im certainly not trying to bash IronCAD; its the best, most productive MCAD design product on the market. I just want you to turn those weaknesses into strengths. Sincerely, Andrew Owens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmccall Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 Surely Ironcad has to streamline itself to make way for the most usefull tools, but in this case I had a use for that tool, which made it valuable to me and maybe others. In the meantime I will try to recreate the shape using the new surface tools or anything else I can find. Wish me luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mwalls Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Shaun, I must agree with Andy on some of those issues he brought up! I would also ask what your source for the "feedback" came from. I for one do not recall much if any talk in this forum about the deform feature, so if it was based on beta testing, or testers, how large of a cross section would that represent? I would just caution you as to how you eliminate an exisiting function of your product. I would not treat that lightly. While you may not think the function to be important, or hardly used, you can bet someone is using it. I would have a huge use for the deformation tool myself IF it had just a bit more capability/flexibility to it. I would have to think that many others would also, but because of the lack of function, just let it go as I did! Please don't get me wrong on this issue, as I have been using Ironcad even when it was still Trispectives, and absolutely love it for design work, up to the point of the surface abilities and other small issues. It's getting there, and I realize you cannot please everyone in every area, but to eliminate a function is something that should be looked at in greater detail. Keep up the good work, and please take this as constructive criticism. No bashing intended! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Lohman Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mwalls: I would have a huge use for the deformation tool myself IF it had just a bit more capability/flexibility to it....I would have to think that many others would also, but because of the lack of function, just let it go as I did! id=quote>id=quote> So what you just said though Mike is, you didn't actually use the deform face tool because it wasn't useful. IF it were improved, then yeah it could be useful, but since it was lame, you didn't use it. So instead of arguing that it's removal has been damaging (which is hasn't because the tool was so lame that no one used it), may I suggest you re-phrase your comments as productive enhancement requests over in the ER forum? As you can see in 6.0, we have added enhanced surfacing capabilities to our plan for ironcad, so by requesting additions to our current surfacing, instead of arguing over a worthless tool that *will never be reintroduced in that exact form*, you have a better chance of bringing in the functionality that you would have found useful in the old deform face tool had it been enhanced so that it were useful. It is our goal, of course, to provide you with USEFUL and productive tools. We are introducing our new surfacing for that purpose. If you tell us how you would like to deform faces, and provide us with details on just how a useful deform face tool would work (details), then your productive feedback will most certainly be part of our design process for new revs (just as all ER's are). Best Regards, Chris Lohman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mwalls Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Chris, I agree with what you say completely except for one point. If the tool is not there, even in the "worthless state", there is no way for people to see the possible functionality or potential of a tool. No, the tool was not very useful in the state is was in, but Yes, the tool had possibilities that could be enhanced by feedback from users only if they see it! I would agree that I, as well as others should have and could have made more noise as to how this tool could be changed, but like you and everyone else, there are definite priorities and it did not fall in the higher level of enhancements. Then there is the problem that once you take the function out, it would not be wise to put it back in, as you stated, with it not working in a very functional way. This leads to the catch-22 of users not seeing the potential it has, to make suggestions. That is why I felt that taking out any tools, no matter how underdeveloped they are is something to not be taken lightly. I can assure you my only message was to be constructive, so I hope you do not think otherwise. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cborer Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 About this Question I was playing around a little: The good thing on the deform tool was: -Easy & fast to use -Changing the direction of the handle The bad thing was: -Low control -Just one handle I think we can do it very well with the new UV faces cause we have much more control with the improved 3d lines. Only: we still need some more control about 3d lines. See my suggestions about 3d lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.