Glenn:
With all due respect, I have to most emphatically disagree with your
statement "As you can see, the default of English template is more
natural than that of Metric."
Although the assignment of X, Y and Z are arbitrary mathematical
conventions, we've all been brought up (trained, indoctrinated) with the
use of X as being the principle axis, followed by Y, then Z.
If you are describing linear motion, say the position of a dragster on a
drag strip, one would tend to use X.
If you are laying out equipment on a factory floor, you tend to use X
and Y, the X-Y plane being the floor.
On that factory, when you stack crates on each other, that becomes Z.
If you were arguing that X should be toward the bottom left, Y to the
bottom right and Z up is more natural (presumably because no axis points
away from you), I'd agree. Given a choice of the orientation I've just
described and the 2 you illustrated, I'd say Y up is the LEAST natural
of the three and the other two are a toss up.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to IV giving me the flexibility to
follow my own perverted logic.
Richard
Glenn Chun (Autodesk) wrote:
> Bill,
>
> The view orientations (front, top, right, etc.) used in IDW are already
> fixed in IPT and/or IAM.
>
> Based on my own experiment, I found the following mapping:
>
> XY (+Z) = front
> XY (-Z) = back
>
> XZ (+Y) = top
> XZ (-Y) = bottom
>
> YZ (+X) = right
> YZ (-X) = left
>
> where XY (+Z) means that you look at the XY Plane from +Z.
>
> Attached is a screenshot comparing default isometric views of
> English and Metric templates. As you can see, the default of
> English template is more natural than that of Metric.
>
> You can redefine the isometric view in IPT/IAM, but that doesn't
> affect the above mapping.
>
> I believe the view orientations (front, top, right, etc) of 3D DWF
> follows the above mapping as well.
>
> Currently, the user cannot redefine the above mapping.
>
> However, as Andrew Faix (Autodesk) mentioned in a previous thread,
> http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4079515
> he has been recently tasked with looking into this issue.
>
> Glenn
> Inventor Development
>
>
>