Parametric history
Anton Mymrikov
Just a regular Undo button and an Undo list would be enough for me. :)
Baganoes
Anton Mymrikov agree, a visible list would be perfect (for a while)
H
Hans-Joachim Maier
Sadly, without that feature. plasticity is nothing for me.
Nikoru
On shape has a pretty good one
Jack Taylor
I'd love to see a less restrictive history similar to the record history in Rhino to speed up workflow for tweaking sweeps and possibly , lofts etc with curves without the added complexity and thought that is required to build a good parametric model
J
Jeff Lord
Jack TaylorBased on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdbMcdroC5Q), I agree. While the name "History" and "Record" are misleading (for me), this method seems like a very "Plasticity" way to do this.
However, my guess is that it's still very difficult to pull off well (when compared to working undo-redo). This is still sort of parametric since, for example, the curves used as guides for a loft would have to be bound forever, and be considered the parameters for the loft, when they changed.
Still, I like it.
Jack Taylor
The rhino version allows you to easily break the history function simply by editing the child or deleting the parents which i find a great middle ground for an effecient design developement workflow. As a rhino user plasticity has alot to like but not having a basic parametric function like this really slows down the visualization process, perhaps thr workflow exists in plasticity already and im yet to discover it
J
Jeff Lord
Requests for parametric history in some form is unlikely to diminish, for obvious reasons.
Given that this feature may not be on the horizon, I propose a different approach to address the need. A strategy that reduces reliance on parametric history while enhancing the way Plasticity functions could be highly beneficial.
I suggest implementing a
robust and visual undo-redo system
(referred to as "history") that includes features such as "checkmarks" or "milestones," with default names for actions taken (e.g., Move, Patch, Loft, etc.). This enhancement could make a substantial impact by:- Allowing users to visualize the "history," thereby understanding Plasticity's approach to it.
- Providing a configurable history size in the preferences, with options to enable or disable the feature.
- Offering a brief explanation in the preferences on how "history" functions within Plasticity, clarifying why it is not parametric or editable beyond standard undo-redo operations. This would also explain that, for now, history is global to the window and includes all actions performed within it.
Key considerations:
- History must be saved with the file and retrievable in the future, not just held in memory.
- The undo-redo system must function flawlessly, even if this requires extensive snapshots, additional file storage, or memory usage.
- There should be an option to disable history tracking to accommodate less powerful machines.
- The ability to duplicate a point in history into a new window for further modification is essential. For example, if a user wants to make additional changes based on a previous state, they could duplicate the history up to that point into a new window, make the necessary changes, and then merge the updated items back into the original window. This feature would allow users to alternate between making changes to different objects and undoing changes to a specific one by working in separate windows.
In short:
Currently Plasticity lacks an undo-redo history system which a lot of users expect because it's incredibly useful for:
Error recovery: Quickly fix mistakes without losing work.
Exploration and experimentation: Freely try different changes knowing you can revert.
Learning: Step back through actions to understand processes.
Version control: Compare and revert to previous states of work.
User experience: Provide a sense of control and reduce frustration.
Bugsie76
Parametric History can be so retstrictching I often stay away from it these days. I trained using Solidworks, so coming from a CAD background and not a 3D modeler, when entities are changed later in the the timeline it breaks the tree or timeline and turns into a massive fault finding excerise and detracts from the creativity of modeling. Plasticity currently uses more of the direct modeling workflow which is so much more powerful and less restritching to the user. Plasticity offers a much more hands on approach and is often quicker to remodel the object than to fault find in a history tree. There are plenty of CAD solutions that offer history based modeling already. For plasticity, which is a small development team, adding complexity such as this doesn't make sense ATM at least.
Plasticity would at a guess need to develop two versions or the same software to allow for history or not. You can't compare Autodesk products to Plasticity without understanding the costs, HR and resources involved! Take BriscCAD, NanoCAD, IronCAD and so on (there are loads of them) that all are different but ultimately are using the Autodesk API for developing their products where all the heavy lifting is already done.
When all said and done PEOPLE need to learn the right tools for the job.
No creative design software should have history based modeling period! History based modeling if at all should come after, what do I mean, well in the engineering stages when enigeers need to keep changing a design for one reason or another. Time and Place. If you need History based modeling use one of the current 30 PLUS products (Alibre Atom) for example, Cheap mans Solidworks.
Alternatively gain 10 Years plus experience of working with history modeling in a professional setting, you will soon learn to hate history based software. Fusion 360 does well because you can turn OFF F**king History based modeling. If people look at the trend from Corporate CAD software, they are all transicioning toward direct modeling approach, SolidEdge, DesignSpark Mechanical, SpaceClaim, etc. You have to ask yourself, Why is this?
Arthur NY
Bugsie76 Well said!!! These youngster don't know an ant from a mole hill. They all seem to think that parametric modeling is the be all end all and it isn't. Like you said there's a time and place for it and when being iterative and just want to try stuff out Plasticity hits that mark in spades. Is it perfect, not yet, there's still much to do, but anyone that's being "held back" by the fact that it's not parametric should really take a hard look in the mirror, say Solidworks, Solidworks, Solidworks and then spin around three times and POOOF!!!
o
orange_soda
There are a lot of interesting points made in this discussion. At first I agreed with the idea of introducing parametric history into plasticity, and then I changed my mind.
But, perhaps Plasticity could take inspiration from an idea from BricsCAD, which now includes an AI based system for "parameterising" a non-parametric CAD model. I'm not sure of all the details of the BricsCAD system, but what I am thinking is that -- as an export option -- Plasticity could generate a nice-and-tidy parametric sketch-based history from a non-parametric model and its change history. This file would then be imported into a parametric CAD software -- I assume based on parasolid -- where it could then be tweaked and revised in the ways that parametric CAD solutions support. If implementable, this would mean that Plasticity users can still enjoy what makes its workflow distinctive, but also retain users who need a parametric options as part of their pipeline.
Stefaan Vandevelde
I am leaving Plasticity for Fusion 360 because the workflow in plasticity is just too destructive. Countless times I have had to restarted a design from scratch.
However, I miss how easy it is in Plasticity to do things. I hate the "you have to sketch everything first" of Fusion.
A combination of both systems - Plasticity with parameters - would be the 8th world-wonder. @Nick, you would get a god-like status in the 3D design world !
Bugsie76
I used Fusion 360 from it's first beta release and by the way you can if you like start with a solid and use push pull. I guess it boils down to experience.
A
Ali Anwar
Hi Nick, first I would really like to thank you and your team for work well done, I'm really enjoying Plasticity, and you don't offend anyone man, you have our love and support, everybody see Plasticity grow and because we really like it we want it to be that one tool, so I hope you be patient with us :)
I understand you have a scope and vision for Plasticity, and found out that you went through a complete migration process of the Geometry Kernel, can't say but, Amazing! well done!
I would like to contribute to this discussion, with some points, even if it's just for sake of documenting ideas.
I actually was hoping for parametric history feature in Plasticity, but now I read your point of view - and the others - and I respect it, I feel we are not getting it. IMHO, I think that Plasticity is missing a lot by not filling a need in the market for a one time pay license modeling software, that works offline + respect privacy, and available on all desktop operating systems, I would even suggest an increase of Studio license would be justifiable for this feature and people would pay for it - I pay commercial license for Rhino for these reasons, although I have access to OnShape for work.
Now, I also want to have couple of suggestions, some are also mentioned in the discussions below, I'm just grouping ideas.
If we don't get history, and I would argue even if we get it, maybe what we really need is repeatability, a way that we can constructed an object with some dimensions, and be able to reconstruct later with different dimensions.
What I suggest is:
- let's have 2D reference Sketches with constraints, so users can change dimensions and have a sketch updated, and then reconstruct the solids or the sheets, this would full-fill a lot of that users want history for, also it would allow for iterative modeling.
- let's have Solids and Sheets snapshots, users can rollback solids and sheets to a previous desirable state that they intentionally stored before certain operations, like fillet, etc.
- and maybe let's have macros, which could be used to store steps to reconstruct Solids and Sheets from 2D reference Sketches
This would use less memory and cpu resources than rolling back and forth a history tree, but it would have an impact on the file size.
I would say probably 2D reference Sketches with constraints is the most important of these, as it will allow most users to have a reference to reconstruct their objects, which is let's say some kind of workflow history.
Also, as I use Rhino and I used to use Shapr3D, I know that both products are in the process of adding parametric history, Rhino was suppose to release it with Rhino 8 and they pushed it to Rhino 9 (I have been following this for almost 2 years), as for Shapr3D I think it's due in few months, maybe it's already in their beta, but I'm out of their system now.
Any direction you decide to go, I think you are building a great product, Plasticity is actually replacing Rhino for me, I find myself using Plasticity more and more, so, well done! really! unfortunately it's can't replace OnShape for my other projects yet ;)
Sorry for the long post, I talk a lot :D
Stefaan Vandevelde
I'm 100% in favor of a full history in Plasticity.
One roadblock that I hit very often is that it becomes impossible to change the base of a design of a saved project that already has champfers and fillets. I often have to restart designs from scratch because of this.
If the full undo history were save with the project, then I could reverse all the fillets, change the desing and redo the fillets
D
Dmitriy Dyakov
Stefaan Vandevelde: We need a switch for two modes: with history and without history. This is done in Fusion 360 because some people need Design History, while others find it difficult to work with. There must be freedom in design approaches.
Anton Mymrikov
Stefaan Vandevelde chamfers and fillets are the last elements to be applied to a solid. According to your description you have no plan and vision of what you are doing, so it will be difficult for you to work in any CAD program.
I usually create a basic solid with all the elements, make a copy of it, and then experiment with all the roundings, chamfers and fillets on the copy. You can make intermediate copies in the same way. This way I don't have to look in the history of what and when it was changed, I just take the desired copy and edit it. And yes, I first describe the model I'm creating on paper or in a text file to understand what I'm doing and also keep a text history of changes to the model.
Stefaan Vandevelde
Anton Mymrikov Thank for your kind words. I'm still working in plasticity and have found about the same workflow as you're using. I have made +/-50 designs now, some of which are quite popular on Makerworld.
In spite of our mutually shared workflow, I find 3D designing to be a highly iterative process, not in the least because user requirements typically change when you show them a first prototype. I may have less vision than you or maybe my designs are more challenging.
Even with the improved workflow I feel that Plasticity could be more helpfull with undo/redo. My two main frustrations are :
- Undo history disappears after saving and loading a design
- No redo (at least it doesn't work on my computer).
This being said I really love working with plasticity, even with these frustrations.
Anton Mymrikov
Hi Stefaan Vandevelde, I'm glad you found a way out of the situation. Plasticity actually has a huge growth potential and many options for improvement. The main thing is that the program should not lose the advantages that got us all here in the first place.
Load More
→