Le0Michine / FusionGridfinityGenerator

Other
629 stars 40 forks source link

Feature request - Add the ability for dividers #8

Closed ZeroNull42 closed 1 year ago

ZeroNull42 commented 1 year ago

Add a feature that will allow you to configure bins to have any number of dividers and direction i.e. width or depth wise.

Le0Michine commented 1 year ago

Hi, that's actually is in progress, initial version is available today, it adds an option to generate compartments in uniform grid or allows you to configure which cells to cut/merge. Let me know if that's what you were looking for. Here is couple examples of what can be generated now

gillesguillemin commented 1 year ago

Awesome 👍

sdlafferty commented 1 year ago

This is awesome, thanks.

Would there be the possibility of adding the ability to define different depths for each compartment (i.e. raise the bottom of that compartment)?

gillesguillemin commented 1 year ago

This is awesome, thanks.

Would there be the possibility of adding the ability to define different depths for each compartment (i.e. raise the bottom of that compartment)?

Actually +1 on this suggestion. I had thought about the same thing when playing with the new functionality.

Le0Michine commented 1 year ago

Hmm, that might be possible, though can you help me understand the use case?

gillesguillemin commented 1 year ago

Imagine a 3x2 bin of say 6u height, split in 2 lengthwise, with the right compartment full depth to store blocs of post-its sideways, and the left compartment only half (or 1/3) depth to store pens.

It could be done with 2 separate bins for sure, but those clearly go together so why not build something like that.

First thing that pops to mind though, I’m sure there are plenty of other scenarios like that.

sdlafferty commented 1 year ago

My use case so far would be for a 2x2 bin that is split into four compartments. This will be storing scissors, knives, and similar sharp items. Some of these items are smaller, so I want to raise the base of one of the compartments so that the small items in there are still easily accessible, and keeping all these items together.

asanjabi commented 1 year ago

I had a similar use case. Was able to get it done using the Press Pull tool, which I found intuitive than doing it at create time, since you can adjust as needed.

Le0Michine commented 1 year ago

are you thinking of it more as compartment depth measured from the top or a bottom raise measured from the bottom? I'm also thinking about what units would be best to use there and so far seems like mm would be the easiest way because compartment width and length is already expressed in sort of compartment grid units so I probably wouldn't necessarily want to mix it with height units unless it makes things more convenient comparing to mm

sdlafferty commented 1 year ago

I think mm would work best.

I also think that either option for depth would work (maybe give user the option to switch between depth from top or raise amount?). Would probably just be simplest to have it as a bottom raise offset value

I can also see a use case where someone may want to raise the bottom of all compartments the same amount, to either raise up all compartments if the bin might be behind other objects on a desk, or to increase the distance from the base to the comportment bottoms for additional modifications after the initial creation, maybe cutting a hole in the bin from one side between the base and the compartment bottoms for storage or to run power cables into the compartments.

Le0Michine commented 1 year ago

so I got a version with mm and depth working. I realized that I have no idea what to call that parameter if it is measured from the bottom (one word so it would be obvious what it is). I don't think I can easily add a swap functionality. And that parameter currently can only be changed for individual compartments when editing custom grid which potentially could be inconvenient. Also added a few quality of life improvements

hope that helps

Le0Michine commented 1 year ago

I'm gonna close it for now as it seems that current implementation seems to cover your use cases