wsteffe wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:50 am
In the first sketch the circle is created with circle feature of sketch.
In the second sketch the circle is created as a link to external geometry (the hole created by padding the first sketch).
Both sketches are paded but the result is different:
-The first sketch produces a brick with a hole (as expected)
-The second sketch produces only a brick without the hole.
In sketch001 the circle is an outer geometry element used to get references related to other elements, but it is not an entity of the sketch: you have to create a new circle with the usual tool and make it coincident with the outer geometry circle.
Mark Szlazak wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:12 am
Can you please consider implementing a defeature tool something like the following:
Part WB already has the defeature tool built in. Anything specific you want regarding the assembly?
I guess it's confusing because of wrong wording. In the Video for me it's a simplifying from complex shapes into placeholder to increase performance and reduce filesize. In Creo such a assembly tool is called "schrumpfverpackung" - German version. Defeaturing is a part workbench tool for to delete (defeature) fillets, chamfers, pocket and pad from imported files.
Last edited by freecad-heini-1 on Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
freecad-heini-1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:01 am
I guess it's confusiong because of wrong wording. In the Video it's a simplifying from complex shapes into placeholder to increase performance and filesize. Defeaturing is a part workbench tool for to delete (defeature) fillets, chamfers, pocket and pad from imported files.
I thought they are the same thing, no? Except that SW can automate quite a lot, but OCCT seems to heavily rely on user action since they just start supporting this.
Try Assembly3 with my custom build of FreeCAD at here.
And if you'd like to show your support, you can donate through patreon, liberapay, or paypal
freecad-heini-1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:01 am
I guess it's confusiong because of wrong wording. In the Video it's a simplifying from complex shapes into placeholder to increase performance and filesize. Defeaturing is a part workbench tool for to delete (defeature) fillets, chamfers, pocket and pad from imported files.
I thought they are the same thing, no? Except that SW can automate quite a lot, but OCCT seems to heavily rely on user action since they just start supporting this.
In the Solidworks video it is a tool to create a copy from complex assembly, but reduce the compexity. It's a placeholder to increase performance and reduce filesize. It shows only the outer dimensions, no ribs, and complex features.
Our existing defeaturing tool is sort of a modelling tool. What is shown above are different strategies that can be used to simplify an assembly / part before sending it out, to reduce the size, complexity or protecting IP, explained here https://www.opencascade.com/content/dig ... lification
One can do different levels of simplification, the most extreme is to reduce an complex part or assembly with just a simple box (replace with a box the size of the bounding box) Our existing defeaturing tool can also be used, as one way, for doing such simplifications.
Last edited by saso on Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:59 am, edited 6 times in total.
freecad-heini-1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:22 am
In the Solidworks video it is a tool to create a copy from complex assembly, but reduce the compexity. It's a placeholder to increase performance and reduce filesize. It shows only the outer dimensions, no ribs, and complex features.
I took a closer look at that SW video. The cylinder simplification seems the easiest to implement by the look of it. For each solid, search for the biggest circular edge, and extrude as a cylinder. The polygon simplification is similar, for each solid, find the wire with the largest area and extrude. The outline simplification seems much harder though. Probably can borrow those mesh decomposition method they use for collision detection, such as this, and replace each decomposed convex hull with a simple box.
It is certainly a useful feature. I'll keep that in mind.
Try Assembly3 with my custom build of FreeCAD at here.
And if you'd like to show your support, you can donate through patreon, liberapay, or paypal
freecad-heini-1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:22 am
In the Solidworks video it is a tool to create a copy from complex assembly, but reduce the compexity. It's a placeholder to increase performance and reduce filesize. It shows only the outer dimensions, no ribs, and complex features.
I took a closer look at that SW video. The cylinder simplification seems the easiest to implement by the look of it. For each solid, search for the biggest circular edge, and extrude as a cylinder. The polygon simplification is similar, for each solid, find the wire with the largest area and extrude. The outline simplification seems much harder though. Probably can borrow those mesh decomposition method they use for collision detection, such as this, and replace each decomposed convex hull with a simple box.
It is certainly a useful feature. I'll keep that in mind.
realthunder wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:47 pm
BTW, I have looked at bullet's code these few days, and decided to integrate it to FC.
Any progress on this? As i said before, i will have some sparetime now until feb, is there anything i can help with? Or should i put my efforts into extending/forking asm3 with bullet python bindings?
Maybe its easiest to create a python physics/sim workbench that works with asm3 assemblies and also normal part structure, then later on when/if bullet becomes available in FC I can switch backend.
Our existing defeaturing tool can also be used, as one way, for doing such simplifications.