Yes. And after some more thinking, coming back here:
Would you choose ANYthing different here than the rest, then FOREVER a mapping of the two principles would be necessary
to keep, maintain, document, correct and explain. On the other hand: would you not, then simply NOTHING
needs to be done, everything can be interchanged 1:1 without mapping. The simplicity of this just struck me even stronger
today (sorry to annoy by repeating this argument).
Reading the posts above, I would like to also agree that you could always apply some
"better suitable default perspective" for certain sets of parts. For example, the parts tracker shows all 1x4x4 panels
rotated by 180 degrees to better display their usually patterned side, which otherwise wouldn't be visible.
As long as "something" in the file header "classifies" the part as "one of your magic sweepable ones",
you can apply whatever "better" default view you like in the tooling.
Just a last, 3rd thing: to me, these constituent files which get "swept" along some path, to me are PRIMITIVES
or SUBPARTS. A recent habit has established to treat them as PARTS, just because in that role MLCad will display them
in its "parts" tree. I always found that practice not a Good Idea ™, because it put wrong information into a file,
just because of a shortcoming of a tool. I had posted some thoughts on this in an earlier
thread.
Would you choose ANYthing different here than the rest, then FOREVER a mapping of the two principles would be necessary
to keep, maintain, document, correct and explain. On the other hand: would you not, then simply NOTHING
needs to be done, everything can be interchanged 1:1 without mapping. The simplicity of this just struck me even stronger
today (sorry to annoy by repeating this argument).
Reading the posts above, I would like to also agree that you could always apply some
"better suitable default perspective" for certain sets of parts. For example, the parts tracker shows all 1x4x4 panels
rotated by 180 degrees to better display their usually patterned side, which otherwise wouldn't be visible.
As long as "something" in the file header "classifies" the part as "one of your magic sweepable ones",
you can apply whatever "better" default view you like in the tooling.
Just a last, 3rd thing: to me, these constituent files which get "swept" along some path, to me are PRIMITIVES
or SUBPARTS. A recent habit has established to treat them as PARTS, just because in that role MLCad will display them
in its "parts" tree. I always found that practice not a Good Idea ™, because it put wrong information into a file,
just because of a shortcoming of a tool. I had posted some thoughts on this in an earlier
thread.