I would see some value in that if the results would be substantially easier and faster to communicate and achieve (it could serve as a good intermediate step).ickby wrote:There is no value of using python to implement what would mimic the standard implementation 1 to 1.
And how does @hamish do it? It does look like to me he figured out how to make an instance object to be used in the assembly. Selection i guess works. Having multiple instances of the same part/feature is possible (duplicate feature).DeepSOIC wrote:I have a strong feeling that I will have to mess with C++ to some extent to make a Py assembly workbench. In particular, I want instance objects, and I'm afraid I will have to create one in C++. Then I would want to extend selection system, to make it possible to figure out the whole path to selected element (like Assembly->Instance003->Part005->Body002.Edge1). And I still struggle to understand, how to deal with multiple instances of a single object.
And thinking about this leads me to another question. Due to all the changes made and effort invested it is possible to move and rotate the part. But do we actually want to do that in assembly directly or we will end up using only the resulting "instance feature" (multiple times) in assembly? This "instance feature" would have its own placement anyway?
It depends. If it will be communicated and after perceived as the correct way to go you could still go after assembly1.DeepSOIC wrote:And, as noted by triplus, I indeed want to try to roll out such a system as a python addon (codename assembly3 ).