Why left is right and right is left ?

[huguesacker]

Hi,

Why the view selector (upper right of the screen) is inverted between left and right ?

If I design an object, Top and Bottom and Front and Back are correct. But Left and Right are inverted...

When clicking on Left, we access the Right of the object and vice-versa. Other directions are correct though.

Very confusing.

Hugo

[JDMather]

I cannot generate unexpected behavior.

Can you create Screencast demonstrating the issue?

[huguesacker]

Hi, Thank you for answer.

I have attached 3 image files which illustrate the problem. For that, I quickly built a simple model: a car whose directions are of course obvious:

- Home view:we can see that the right actually show the left, even if front and top are ok.

- Left view which shows the right of the car (!!!)

- Right view showing actually the left of the car.

There is (from my point of view, and without words game) a problem...

(I cannot do screencast;I begin with this tool, sorry).

Thank you.

Hugo

[mavigogun]

I reckon "left" and "right" is a matter of perspective: they refer to the viewer's.    Were we standing in front of a house discussing which side to paint what colour, we might gesture to our right and say "paint the right side of the house pink", likewise, "left blue and back with green poka-dots".   Better still, think of a mountain- or the Moon -when considering the model: it is always on a stage regarded from the perspective of the audience.   Insert the word "stage" before "right" or "left" and- BOOM! Hey-presto! -problem solved.

[Phil.E]

@mavigogun

Thanks for your description, spot on.

At some point an Inventor user had a hack that replaced all the words on the view cube (that is what the cube is called) with images of a cartoon character that is yellow, notoriously square and wears pants. In that view cube, the concept of right and left were replaced by the corresponding views of the character. It might help to think of the view cube in that sense.

@huguesackerI do want to help and perhaps I don't understand. Can you describe how this becomes a problem for you or your workflow? 

Thanks,

[TrippyLighting]

The Screencast tool is a free download form Autodesk and integrates nicely with Fusion 360.

Tere is also a Tip on how to create a screencast.

[kshea9RNL8]

Look into the "Named Views" in the browser and create new view names that's are not confusing

Rotate with the cube to the desired view orientation (irregardless of what it shows for a position name) and right click on the "Named Views" in the browser and name accordingly, then select the desired view from there rather then the cube.

There already is a "Named View" Top etc, so call yours "My Top" for example.

[JDMather]

Ha, now I see what you are saying.

It always made sense to me the way it is because I use 3rd Angle projections on 2D drawings.

So the View Cube labels relate to the named orthographic projected views on a 3rd Angle projection 2D drawing.

Reference: Giesecke et al

[huguesacker]

Thanks everybody for answer.

- At mavigogun and Phil.E: I understand what you mean, but I disagree. If it where like that, then, why front, top, bottom and back are correct ? After all, we could say the same and name top the bottom etc. Furthermore, orientation is essentially a matter of project itself. My house has a front and a back; so the left and right are ALSO related to the house. Same thing for a car, or bigger, a ship: if I want to see the front of the car I click on front; so if I want to see the left I should click on left. It is weird to click on right, and obtain a left view ! And it is not only a matter of name it is also (maybe more important), a matter of space concept from the beginning, from the view cube: the home cube view shows front and top and right (which is NOT correctly indicated on the cube; should be left). To see the top, I (logically) click the TOP of the cube, but now, if I want to see the left of my model, I must click the right indication (???). So I have to learn to completely ignore these false (left-right) indications.

It is a problem, because sometimes, assemblies are not obvious to orientate when inside, and we could make the mistake to click on right, and obtain the left, and unfortunately, draw the part the way it should not. It happened to me, and after that, we have to make a move to put wrong sketches the way it should (or redraw it). Loss of time, efforts, and potentially defects/flaws in the design. For example interior of a turbine is not easy to tell where the front/left/right is. This is provoking errors (gasket the wrong way, according to pressure coming from...).

- At TrippyLighting: Ok many thanks, I was in the idea that cast was for Ultimate of something.

- At kshea9RNL8: Yes, I can rename certain views with your method. But we cannot rename the view cube names, which I find very useful (more handy for direct access).

* Please *: is it possible to put a LEFT on the left side of the cube and vice versa ? At least, to put an option on preferences, to have the LEFT as Left, or the opposite ?

[huguesacker]

At JDMather. Thank you for your research and answer. You posted just before me. I see what Giesecke means. I presume that relates to the projection centric of the concern.

But, as a designer, my concern is assembly centric, and I orient the movements of my model according to the model that I design; this has nothing to do with a projection, which is a 2D concept.

So if I build a turbine (a ship of anything), there is actually a specific direction for everything. So I would like to make my movements and vews according to my model: it is the model which drives everything I think, and not the side of the sheet of paper when printed in 2D.

Otherwise, this is the open door to mistakes which can have serious consequences. I agree that we can "manage" to pay attention to where we orientate the model, but it is not instinctive and a big nasty mistake can happen (at least for me ).

[Phil.E]

@huguesacker

Thanks for sharing your concerns about it. I think we should be very clear here.

The term "view" in ViewCube is very much tied to the idea of "which view am I looking at" and in a 3rd angle projection CAD/Drafting world, it is 100% correct to call that the "right view".

What you want is for it to be called "the right side". Which it is not, but I get your point.

The problem is this: the ViewCube is an Autodesk-wide asset. Fusion cannot change it and I don't know of other Autodesk apps that allow for edit. But not to discourage your from your position, you might want to post in our Idea Station.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/ideastation-request-a-feature-or/idb-p/125

Otherwise, there is but one workaround: Use Named Views to define what you think the view should be and use them.

 

Thanks,

[etfrench]

---

@huguesacker wrote:

But, as a designer, my concern is assembly centric, and I orient the movements of my model according to the model that I design; this has nothing to do with a projection, which is a 2D concept.

So if I build a turbine (a ship of anything), there is actually a specific direction for everything. So I would like to make my movements and vews according to my model: it is the model which drives everything I think, and not the side of the sheet of paper when printed in 2D.

Otherwise, this is the open door to mistakes which can have serious consequences. I agree that we can "manage" to pay attention to where we orientate the model, but it is not instinctive and a big nasty mistake can happen (at least for me ).

---

---

---

Actually, you should be creating your model to correspond with the world view presented by the modeling program if having the view names in the modeling program correspond to your view of the model is important to you.  In your car case, the model may or may not correspond to the modeling program's view.  I see the model as a dune buggy heading off to the right of the screen.  How is the modeling program supposed to know which world view is correct?

[huguesacker]

@Phil.E

What is not logic in my opinion, is that ALL the other directions are ok. Because if I click on TOP (for example) the top view is actually the top of the model (or the view). So we see the model from the top, which is correct.
Furthermore, when we click on the left side of the cube, we see the cube actually turning slowly to the left (which is correct) and we see the left of the model (which is correct also). So the problem is not with the orientation of the cube (which is absolutely correct 100% in all the directions); the pb is with the label (the label only) "RIGHT" (and "LEFT"). So the left side of the cube is labelled "RIGHT".

I didn't know that the cube was an AutoDesk asset, and that it is difficult to modify it. The cube is actually useful, except the label Right/Left. And it is wrong, otherwise other labels should be also their opposites if all the cube directions labels worked the same; but it is not.

Anyway, I accept your workaround suggestion, to define new views, even if I used this tool more for specific views, rather. (By the way F360 does not offer the LEFT view in named views, so I did).

I will also try to suggest something in the IdeaStation, like you indicated.

@etfrench

Yes I always create the model with the World view, so that everything is logical, according to what the model is doing in true life.

The little car image was just to illustrate the problem. In fact, I participate to drawing a turbine, and for us, the front is where the air is coming in (the front of the aircraft also), and the back is where the exhaust gas goes out. Then the left and right (for me) are the left and the right of the turbine. For me it is logical to have the front on the input: everything works, except left and right labels. And if I place the left and right correctly as indicated by the labels Left/Right, it will not work better. The cube itself works fine, the ONLY problem is the labels (2 of them).

The modeling program does not work with the labels, it works with the true coordinates x,y,z and some axis vectors for rotation. The screen is a plane in the geometry. Some software use this x,y,z as user reference, and do not use such label like Right which is the opposite.

[JDMather]

---

@huguesacker wrote:
I didn't know that the cube was an AutoDesk asset, and that it is difficult to modify it. . 

---

This labeling is common in all of the CAD softwares that I use - I started out on the drawing board, so I guess I am used to this convention.

Since moving from 2D to 3D I have not paid much attention to relative labels like Top or Front or...

[mavigogun]

"What is not logic in my opinion, is that ALL the other directions are ok."

Referencing the previous theatric explainer, the top-bottom, front-back relationships fit the logic perfectly: the problem isn't a matter of logic, but preference.   While I share your preference- and was also irked, at first, by the design logic -the rational for it is practical: the work space may include any number of parts oriented for modelling convenience; moreover, models may have more than one- or no -"front", or lack a "top" or "bottom" entirely.   Simply, the view box does not label the model, as doing so would be an imposition- and as such, a limitation.

[huguesacker]

To everybody, I see your points, and are explainable if we refer to historical reasons from the time where design was in 2D, with a drawing (a projection) on a sheet of paper.

So I understand that the cube labels are a heritage from there, especially if we still consider the 2D drawing as a major step, and want to keep the habits of that.

However, working face to a screen which illustrate the reality of the design, and where the movements and views of the model drive our mind, it would be a real plus to start to think with this new mean of thinking of today, in 3D where a movement is clearly seen: if I orbit towards the left it is to the left, not the right, so the view label should be accordingly.

At a time where everything is customizable, it would be fantastic to give the option to the user, to choose the labelling he prefers to obtain the maximum of his software. It is why I have posted in the IdeaStation for the possibility to customize this viewcube, not necessarily with a complex way.

@Phil.E

By chance, do you know the hack whose you spoke, which was used to change the aspect of the view cube into a character ? Or refer to a people whos knows it ? I would be really interested.

[Phil.E]

Once it was discovered it was blocked. Sorry.

[huguesacker]

@Phil.E

Ha ok. I was thinking that it was just to rename a word in some user config file. I see that it's sensitive: sorry for asking, and apologies.

[Phil.E]

Hey it's no problem. This has been an interesting conversation. It's always fun to talk about things you take for granted. 

I don't think it's a bad idea and certainly could be done. I like the concept of a "model cube", or "view cube" option for the customer. Fully customizable isn't out of the question either, but to be clear it's not something that can happen quickly. Thanks, really thanks, for pointing this out.

Take care,

[Anonymous]

I agree - it messes up my head from time to time - because it is a cube you manipulate as though it were a model, I always see it as a model cube, not a view cube.

If it looked more like a view cube somehow I would change my mind, but the way you interact with it moves the model space around, not the view space (it has to do this or the interactions would be madness, like riding a reverse bicycle) but it means the interaction with the cube makes it a model cube, not a view cube to me.

If you have a fancy mouse things change, but on a regular old laptop, I use that cube to rotate my model all the time (not my view of it). Even if I used other tools to rotate the model, the way the cube then moves with it copies the model space movement.

So I get why they are swapped, I just don't like it and would like a preference to show either model space or view space names.

because I also ended up make 4 entire models with the names of the features the wrong way around 😄 😄 😄