Improve "Groups" feature

It makes sense to use the app icon if a dialog remains on top so you know what the window belongs to, but in the case of the tool dialogs they only show on the app screen so you should know what app your in. I just like clean lines. :slight_smile: [/quote]

That’s what I thought as I was looking at it… I plan on adding the ability to add other attributes to a group - such as line color, type and width - so you can place objects in a group with a given style if you will. Then when creating a new tool you would be able to select which group an object goes in, automatically styling the object without having to select the color, type, and width everytime. So the groups will do more than just setting an item visible or not. I may at some point redefine the “groups” as “layers” in keeping with the AAMA/DXF format. The groups tool as it stands acts more like layers than it does grouping items.

Moderator note: This thread picks up from post here - Susan

1 Like

It would make even more sense then! :+1:

The only drawback I see to that idea is that one node may belong to numerous layers then, & that would be weird. Of course, most of my experience with layers is doodling around with rasters in the GIMP. So whatever terminology is standard in the pattern-drafting/vector community I’ll be happy to get used to.

1 Like

I already addressed that… an object will only be able to added to 1 group at a time. Otherwise with all the permutations that can result with adding an object to different groups does get weird - and unpredictable as to it’s visibility. That “other” program who’s name shall not be said, has this problem. Again, the groups tool acts more like a layer than it does grouping objects in a vector program, where groups can be nested. Even then in a program like Corel Draw, you can’t group objects across groups, because when you click on an object it selects it’s whole group… which could then be nested. You can’t nest layers.

1 Like

Two thoughts regarding this:

  1. Is sub-groups something which we do not want to have, or is it just something that has not been implemented?
  2. Would it be most excellent to name the concept something different? Such as “Bundle” or “Family”?
1 Like

Currently this has not been implemented. What is currently implemented is being able to add objects to multiple groups. Not good. Do we want subgroups? Since the groups are like I’ve said more like (visibility) layers it really makes no sense. The groups are not like you would have in a CAD or vector program, where you group items and perform operations on them.

Bundle is not a good term to use… it has a different meaning in the garment industry. Family sounds too font related.

With that being said, what ever the name, I will have some much improved ways to create and manage groups / group items. The biggest change will be a different paradigm in adding items to a group. You will be able to add a new tool item to a group right in the tool dialog when you create the tool. Likewise it would be a simple click in the group combobox to change a tool item’s group. Currently you would have to delete groups and recreate them with the correct items. Pretty lame.