Better control of default design option

[thesleepofreason]

The default design option is set to main model when opening a view where the current default is inactive. This becomes quite an annoyance when working on multiple options concurrently as it first forces the user to keep track if the default changes or not and if then reset it to the correct option. Otherwise elements will be added to the main model instead of the option. 

Although the problem is obvious the solution is not. Having a prompt smilar to when trying to create an element on a hidden layer would be rather tedious, having default option saved as a view setting would run into issues with multiple option sets in addition to the added management.

This is a drawback of the shortcut approach taken by GS where design options just adds more of complexity for the user to manage without bringing much to the CAD/BIM table. Design options should be about distinct states of the model (as outlined here) and not about about separation of elements within one state. For the latter we already have layers and it should be noted that enhancing layers with the functionality of design options rather than introducing a new feature could have achieved the same result but with the bonus bringing a substantial increase in efficiency for the layer based workflow which GS is determined to stick with.

[Laszlo Nagy]

---

@thesleepofreason wrote:

No I did not - and if you read the whole sentence and not just the part you decided to highlight then it takes some real effort to missunderstand it as a factual claim. Primarily as I explicitly state that it is something I think but also due to the hyberbolic use of "every" and the vague use of "looking into".

So whats the reason for your nitpicking?

---

I wanted to know if you have some information about other CAD/BIM packages I am not aware of or you are just speculating.

Maybe my English knowledge is not that good to be able to decipher those nuances, but from that sentence I did not get the meaning that you think that every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches, it seemed to me like you are stating it as a known fact, not as your opinion.

[Barry Kelly]

@Laszlo Nagy  ,

I think your knowledge of English is just fine.

I have been speaking it for the last 50+ years and I did not pick up on the "hyberbolic use of "every" and the vague use of "looking into"."

@thesleepofreason 

This sentence and I quote ...

"Unfortunately I think we will be stuck with this for a while now while every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches...."

Says to me you think we are stuck with the design options not being an enhancement to layers and/or visibility for a while (as that is what you were quoting Marc H about), "while every other CAD/BIM is looking into history based approaches".

Laszlo was just asking if you can back up your claim.

I am not even sure what you mean by "history based approaches" in relation to how design options work.

So if you could please explain, that would be appreciated.

Maybe I missed something - there is so much to read.

Please remember that the way your post reads, may not be the way you are thinking about it in your own mind.

Also, I find your posts are bordering on being rude - just my opinion of course.

I'll quote another ...

"Are you for real and how do you contribute to the discussion here? And more importantly is this post made in a personal or any official capacity - because the lines are quite blurry."

If I was to ask you, if you were for real and how do you contribute to the discussion, I am sure you would be offended.

I don't think Laszlo was being personal, he was just asking you to back up your claims, quite professional really.

So if you are asked to explain more, please do so in a civil manner.

Barry.

[thesleepofreason]

I apologise if my response came across as rude or uncivil but its harsh tone is prompted by @Laszlo Nagy  entering the discussion from the sideline - isolating one clause of a sentence, treating it by itself as a factual claim made by me and asking me to support it with "verifiable sources" and "for each" of a list of applications. Quite an aggressive way to enter a discussion and hard not to read it as nitpicking. Add to this that it comes from an admin which makes it unclear in what capacity the post is done - if it is a formal request to provide proof (official admin capacity) or an actual interest in the discussion (personal capacity). I can honestly say that I wouldn't be offended by getting backlash for such an entrance - I would simply try to clarify the situation and move the discussion forward.  

Regarding the sentence. I still don't see how the full sentence can be read as a factual claim rather than as "I think that A and B will happen". It starts with me declaring that it is regarding my thoughts. Does it really need to be broken up and phrased as "I think that we will be stuck with this for a while now and I also think that every other.... "?

Am I wrong in assuming a charitable reading of my posts? Does it make sense for me to claim something for literally "every" other application or is it a deliberate exaggeration used for the general progress of CAD/BIM workflow? And does it make sense for me to claim as a fact that they are "looking into" (as opposed to already have announced/implemented) something or does the vagueness just indicate the direction of said general progress? If I was to make an actual factual claim wouldn't it more reasonably be phrased as "application X,Y, and Z are working on implementing a history-based approach to change and alternative designs" - no thinking, no vagueness, no hyperbole. 

But perhaps I'm mistaken and @Laszlo Nagy  actually was interested in the discussion at hand and not just the truth of some conceived factual claim. If so I find it strange that three responses wasn't enough to settle the question of conjecture vs fact. And since there wasn't any questions about the meaning of "history based approach" I guess we have a shared understanding of the concept which is also a bit strange as it is far from established as noted by @Barry Kelly . The meaning is perhaps best explained as the ability for one element to have multiple configurations by creating distinct model states  - givning elements a history that makes it possible for identity to hold despite change or alternatives. An outline and discussion of the concept is found at A new approach to change and alternative designs. As for other applications - Rhino has its named position and history command, and Shapr3D has history based parametric modelling in beta, Speckle has its branches. None of which are complete approaches to the issue but shows the potential and highlights the shortcoming of the AC design options feature.

[mthd]

Hi @thesleepofreason, It appears that @Laszlo Nagy  was asking for clarification and verification for the statement in question above. If you are able to help us all understand better what the other CAD apps are doing, then that’s a good thing for all of us going forward.