Anyway, from past discussions, on why we have this discussion in the first place. Some feel using a number below 1 isn't suitable anymore. As FreeCAD is matured enough project now. Majority of participants expressed, number representing a year of release or development cycle works good for them. He...

So this discussion is really about our development roadmap. And it seems to me we need to get serious about laying that out more explicitly if we spend this much time discussing version numbers and the elusive '1.0' release. In scheduling terms, we need a 'critical path' - a list of things which mus...

Maybe for arch work FreeCAD is very near a 1.0 stage, but on the mechanical design side, a native assembly wb is a must, and that requires the Link development . after a month of daily work using assemblies at least A2plus is as usable as the assemblers in other CAD programs. Differences in opinion...

PS: I don't know how to implement the suggestion from Joel Graff in my code. At very least, the dependent parts' scripted objects would need a property of the type 'App::PropertyLink', and a reference to the carcass part saved in that property. Then, when the carcass changes, the execute() methods ...

Comparing the two lines makes it clear to me... Carcass.CarcassShape(myObj,Thickness,Width,Height,Depth) # THIS WORKS myObj.Placement.move(App.Vector(Carcass.width*0.5,0,0)) # move second door 1/2 cabinet width in X direction You didn't fully qualify your reference to 'Carcass' in the second case, w...

an incorrect vector is taken as a reference to calculate the start and end angles of the arc. I think I finally see your point. :) It dawned on me that you're defining the arc using an existing shape (instead of points - which works perfectly). I agree, it does look wrong. Pinging Yorik on this. pi...

You have a point there. There is not much sense in enforcing a unit to the user, however indeed it would be a good thing to be informed of the unit the model is intended to be used with. It could also have impact on precision, etc. It seems to me the best path for that would be to add a field in Fi...

To test concepts proposed by @fdomateu, I can try to implement parts of ose-piping-workbench. I've taken a little time to look at OSE-Piping. I'm developing strictly for Qt5 / Py3, so it's naturally broken everywhere for me. :) One of the issues is the imports aren't fully-specified and aliased - f...

fjullien wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:03 am

And this is a better showcase:

Updated the image in the release notes.

Bumping the version to 0.9x instead of 0.20 would certainly be appropriate, at very least, especially if we really think 1.0 could happen in the next couple years.