Axial Move Part Problem I'll add an "active assembly" concept in future release to make it easy working with deep nested assemblies. Meanwhile, you can do this with the two-selection trick. Select your part first as normal, then CTRL select the parent assembly (within which you want to mo...

I understand your branch tackled toponaming issue. Not exactly same problem - In current sketcher implementation, if one edit primarily delete some edges, the edge indexes are 're-ordered', so 'link to external geometry ' to this sketch (link by its edge index) would fails / point to 'wrong' edges....

FYI, my PR thread is https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 58#p321158

PR link: https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/2350 I have documented the changes through comments in each individual commits, with links to my wiki for more details. For an overview of the Link design, see here , and most of the core changes, here . PS: I just notice that github reorder my commit...

The reason why the sketch is not jumping at first is answered by the observation made with @realthunder's FreeCAD version: No planar Face in AttachEngine3D::calculateAttachedPlacement()! My topo naming feature does not work in this particular case because the name has to come from somewhere. Usuall...

I don't understand: as it is today, App::Link and App::Part are perfectly suited to do assemblies and assemblies of assemblies (*), without the need for LinkGroups. That's what Asm4 does and it just works as it should (and as it works in other CAD systems). Because App::Link uses global link scope ...

I understand your argument here and can agree with you, but is this the case for both the "Part geometry" toponaming as for the "sketcher" toponaming? As I remember this were developed separately, I would ask you to please consider to get in at least the sketcher toponaming and ...

Huh ? You thought about LinkGroup as a container for parts, as replacement for App::Part ? That's going to be an uphill battle IMHO. Well, I kind of added LinkGroup after the battle, actually. I proposed changes to App::Part, but ickby won't consider it, so I created a new one. App::Part has a rest...

And realthunder link and asm3 is also not solving this, he has some good things there but IMO there are also some that are questionable and can probably bring similar problems as the unfinished Part Design has bring with the wrongly implemented Bodies. He can be a great developer but he said it him...

that's why you should include it first: else, people will start to use App::Link, which will be a new way of using FreeCAD and therefore will break some of their habbits, and then you will introduce the new toponaming which will break again all their new models that they have been making with App::...