Question: Name features automatically

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I try to name features in my designs like "Extrude new body from Sketch Main Profile". This documents it enough that I can understand it a year later but it's a bit time intensive. So I've created a little PoC to test if I can automate it. Interesting? Please like the following posts and / or comment your opinion. 

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Interesting? Yes

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Interesting? Yes, but differently

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Interesting? No

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Interesting? I don't care

[lichtzeichenanlage]

@TrippyLighting : Do you want to throw in some thoughts on this topic?

[TrippyLighting]

Sure!

This could be useful, but for the most part, my own projects are comprised of relatively simple parts and assemblies and for the most part, I usually don't rename timeline features as finding what I need to modify is usually straight forward.

However, I would like to understand better what sort of naming would be provided by auto-naming.

I've tagged the usual suspects for comments:

@TheCADWhisperer @laughingcreek @chrisplyler @etfrench @g-andresen @davebYYPCU @jhackney1950 @jodom4 @HughesTooling @Phil.E 

[laughingcreek]

I think each and every dialog box for feature creation (or anything that can be named) should have the ability to name it at the point of creation.  put it at the bottom.  you can give it your own name, or just let it auto fill the way it does now.

generally speaking I only name a very small number of features, if any.  I handle the issue of understanding my model a year from now by having most every important value in a sketch.  I change the values there instead of rooting around in the features.

I'd be open to looking at auto naming schemes, but it's hard for me to imagine one that would be more meaningful.  If you manage to come up with such a scheme that would be a neat trick indeed.

what I would REALLY love is if I could hover over a feature and have a pop up show me all the settings/values for that feature .  The only way to get settings/values now is to either go in and "edit" it, which rolls the timeline back temporarily,  or dig around in the parameters dialog box and find it there.

[chrisplyler]

I don't name/rename timeline features either.

I am quite easily able to figure out which Extrude came from which Sketch, or whatever. At least in my own files. It's harder when looking at somebody else's file, and they've done things in a weird order that doesn't jive with my sense of logic. Even so, probably still easier than hovering over each feature to read it's name.

It also helps if the Browser organization is good and logical, such that you can quickly discover which component you want, activate that component, and have the timeline narrowed down to only those features related to that component.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Thanks. The naming scheme would be pretty straight forward and mostly based on the the action (extrude, revolve etc.), operations (e.g. join or cut) and the source (e.g. sketch or face (best with name of the body if accessible)).

Examples:

• Extrude new body from Sketch Beame Profile
• Extrude join from face (of body1 if possible)
• R-Pattern component Beam:1
• Rigid join Beam:2 Beam:1

Sometimes it might be useful to go from the destination to the source, too:

Example:

• Plane for Sketch Beam Profile

Right now I wouldn't have an idea for e.g drafts or fillets.

This is an little example (UI is just a dummy)

[jodom4]

Interesting idea! It’s along the same lines of a conversation I’ve been having with the head of UX. I’ll bring this thread to her attention.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

• I totally agree that each and every dialog box should expose the name field. To make this a multi-click process is not understandable at all. Same goes for the name generation: Why do they name a joined e.g. Rigid1 and not Rigid component:1 otherComponent:3
• Hovering over it to get all details is a great idea, but I don't think this is possible via the API. Main reason why I do name the features in the timeline is, that the parameter window is much nicer to read. And you can see and edit at least the numeric parameters. 

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I agree. If components are used properly and the the timeline is kept clean by keeping features close to each other and buildings group, navigation is not to bad. Perhaps it's just me and my on/off relation ship to make things 😉

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Bringing more options into the product would be great. Even getting input from the UX team would be very useful. Thanks!

[laughingcreek]

@lichtzeichenanlage - I can see naming in that way possibly being useful.  I wouldn't find back naming sketches useful though, I have to many things in my sketches for that wot work with my particular workflow.

Nice to be able to run it after naming sketches.  as sometimes that gets done later, but I wouldn't want to over write any naming I did in the interim.

@jodom4 - while your having that conversation with UI folks, would be nice to also talk about naming in the dialog box, and also having a pop up showing settings/values in features without having to edit.

[TrippyLighting]

I "liked" the "interesting" post.

I do use this frequently for Joints and use something like "Component 1 to Component2". I find that much more efficient than having to use Fyiosn 360's functions to identify the components involved in a joint.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

That's exactly the way I would implement it. Running over the features list, checking if the name is a default name (e.g. Extrude5, Revolve1, Sketch1 etc.). If it's a match, rename it otherwise proceed with the next feature. This way you could run the job at any point and as often as you want to run it. The only problem is, that I'm not sure if I can provide a regenerate function, because I haven't found a way to write attributes to the feature. 

EDIT: Format adjusted

[lichtzeichenanlage]

The idea is to make the add-in configurable that user could choose what feature types should be processed. I would do it like I did it with the ExportIt add-in, where users can define defaults that are presented on the first run, but can be overwritten per design. Those amended settings would be stored in the design.

[HughesTooling]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

I agree. If components are used properly and the the timeline is kept clean by keeping features close to each other and buildings group, navigation is not to bad. Perhaps it's just me and my on/off relation ship to make things 😉

---

Personally I only rename components and groups, groups end up with the same name as the component they contain, like below.

Noticed with the last update, when you create a component with a left click on a component in the browser it uses the New Component dialog, in the past it just created the component. No sure if I like this but does make naming when you create a component a bit more convenient. When creating a group it seem a bit odd you don't get to name it but have to right click and rename.

@jodom4  Is any work being done to allow adding features to a group? Usually I try rolling the timeline back and add features inside the group but sometimes that's not possible and you have to delete the group then recreate.

Thanks Mark

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Thanks for the inside. I use groups a little more finely. More like "base shape created", "connector added". I also tend to group fillets at the end. Same goes for applying clearances by using offsets. Perhaps this is why I would like to have groups in groups ;-). If I have to filter on a component, I'm activating the component. 

I also try to keep stuff together by rolling back the timeline. But sometimes I just miss it and moving features is not always possible.