Horizontal/Vertical constraints take precedent over perpendicular constraints

[maruska]

When you currently draw a horizontal or vertical line in sketch, if it happens to be coincident to another vertical or horizontal line, F360 will automatically insert a perpendicular constraint.

This makes sense if the existing line is not horizontal or vertical, but I think it's a big assumption that the vertical line I'm drawing should be perpendicular to the one that exists. I would think it should gain a horizontal/vertical constraint instead.

Horizontal and vertical lines should be treated as special when they are drawn.

I hope that makes sense - and feel free to offer a reason why the existing behavior is better - but I'm always deleting perpendicular constraints and replacing them.

J.

[scottmoyse]

Lessons learned from Inventor with parametric design indicates this is a bad idea. Using excessive horizontal & vertical constraints meant that if the model ever rotated, sketches using H&V constraints would fail, as well as everything else downstream from them.

If this idea was implemented, this issue would need to be resolved... essentially, the H&V constraints would need to be converted to parallel & perpendicular constraints... but how would you switch out the last remaining H or V constraint to ensure the rotated sketch is fully constrained?

Having F360 favour one or the other would be a good option for those who want it. But default should remain as it is... unless the above restriction is solved.

[kb9ydn]

But how often do you ever rotate a sketch?  In 5 years using Solidworks nearly every day I think I might have needed to do that once.  And there it could be done easily by first converting all the geometry in the sketch into a block, then realigning the block to whatever you need.

I for one would prefer that horizontal/vertical constraint be given priority over parallel/perpendicular.

C|

[scottmoyse]

@kb9ydn you may not with your type of work. But we used to often.... and anyone using templated parametric designs will quite likely need to as well, especially if they need to be rotated and positioned in space so they can interact with other objects in fixed space in a parametric way. The point is... like in Inventor it needs to be an option. The preference by default is perpendicular & parallel base on 15+ years of the product maturing.

[kb9ydn]

Ultimately an option for either behavior would be the way to go.

C|

[maruska]

One idea that occoured to me is that the contraints pallete could be re-orderable so you could re-prioritize the constraints. If I want one to supercede another, I could just move it to the top of the list.

[scott.nsbtt]

This is a big frustration of mine as well. If the line that is being used as a reference is deleted then you have another unconstrained line or lines. This is adjustable in inventor with the "Constraint Options". In my opinion Autodesk should reorder their defaults entirely (but that's just me); at least provide us the option to set a new default and make it the default for all future parts created.

Thanks

Scott

[haughec]

This is a classic sketching debate, and I agree that we need to support both (likely with an option).  I've logged FUS-20541 to track this internally.

Charles