easyw-fc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:26 am If you don't gather attention there,
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26357
please don't move the subject here.
The longer the community will be ignoring this, the longer we will have no proper implementation of it...@ickby suggested to use Part container for STEP hierarchy, and then Jean Marie followed his suggestion.saso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:40 am Ickby has build the implementation on top of this https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/tree ... sembly/App you can see that both Part and Product (Assembly) containers are present there. This is how the proper full implementation of it in FreeCAD would look, note the Assembly (Product) container icon...
this is your point of viewsaso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:12 ameasyw-fc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:26 am If you don't gather attention there,
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26357
please don't move the subject here.
Yes, I will. But in this case, you seem to show me what DSM imported as an evidence suggesting the upstream is correct for not using the instance name, which I don't agree.
I explained the label thing several times already. And there is group of group in AS1 for my importer too. So, you don't bother asking why DSM uses the same icon in AS1 for l-bracket-assembly and its sub-assembly nut-bolt-assembly, but a different container for 'plate', or 'Size-4-joint'? What's the difference? Why FC using the same container for both is considered correct?In fact there are Part group in Part group in FC importer
the up Part container 'Universal_Robots___UR10' is the 'UR10' DSM main container, the FC 'Size_4_Joint' inside container is the DSM 'Size 4 Joint' container and then there are the internal shapes.
in A3 everything is flattened and the Labels are not related to what DSM is displaying.
I never denied the necessity of horizontal comparison. I just disagree with your interpretation of the comparison results in this particular case. Plus, we are talking importer here, faithfully presenting information in the STEP is one thing, finding the best way to present it in FC is another important factor. When exporting, then the criteria should be for max compatibility.No, I'm sorry if you think so, but at the same time you must consider that what is the meaning of a STEP file is interoperability... if you code your importer exporter without make any comparison with the commercial sw, then you will miss the real target of the job.
The testing as black box is exactly what is needed for the wanted result.
I can install the free ones, sure. But no, not the other, I definitely need helps there.Have you access to at least some commercial CAD?
Thanks for the warning. I probably talk too much. You know, if it won't for me out doing my own work today, I'd probably fixed those problems already.And just to close this long post, I had warned you that STEP importing/exporting would not have been a simple task, so I consider that it will delay A3 merging as I already pointed out above.
Sorry for bothering you (as it seems you consider this discussion as something is bugging you), but you must face the issue I found and you missed before this discussion.realthunder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:17 am I probably talk too much. You know, if it won't for me out doing my own work today, I'd probably fixed those problems already.
Yes, there is problem there, but you proposed a radical solution without any details to handle all the consequences.
I know, but it is possible to import a STEP on the "Assembly level" (this is generally what you have in your examples), in this case geometry (solids/brep) goes in to Part containers and different Part containers are put together hierarchically using Assembly containers. BUT it is also possible to import the STEP on the "Part level" (sort of one level lower then when importing it on the "Assembly level"), this generally works only for more simple Assemblies and in this case then the multi-body structure is used (because bodies go in to Parts). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpmgcpqu1i8easyw-fc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 am@ickby suggested to use Part container for STEP hierarchy, and then Jean Marie followed his suggestion.saso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:40 am Ickby has build the implementation on top of this https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/tree ... sembly/App you can see that both Part and Product (Assembly) containers are present there. This is how the proper full implementation of it in FreeCAD would look, note the Assembly (Product) container icon...
If you search at the forum you will get it.
I have explained it before that before december I had almost zero knowledge and experience about this, but the ongoing conflicting conversations in the forum on this topics had made me decide that I have spend 3 months, in the beginning of the year, researching on this topics and concepts and I can say today that I confidently stand behind my arguments (well, at least most of them
).No, it is perfectly ok to put Assembly containers inside other Assembly containers. When you have two Assembly containers, then you would normally also have at least two Part containers, one inside of each Assembly container and if you would not have this just as an empty assembly structure (what you normally do, to start with when you model in a "top down" approach), then you would also have some geometry inside of those two Part containers. So if you would now put one assembly inside the other (which is ok) and then change, as you suggest, the inside assembly container to a part container then you would again have a part inside of a part (which is not ok).easyw-fc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 am Moreover when you have two 'Assembly' containers in your doc, and you just drag one inside the other to make an assembly with sub-assemblies, would you suggest to auto-substitute the internal Assembly container with a Part container? And would it add any feature to the result?
IMO we already have more or less all of the peaces of the puzzle, we only have to put them properly together. When I gave you a bit of guidance for implementing the Sketcher exports you did IMO something great. Don't understand my critique on Asm3 wrong, as I said before I have confidence in you, mostly because you seem to be able to code as fast as I thinkrealthunder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:21 amYes, there is problem there, but you proposed a radical solution without any details to handle all the consequences.
But if we want to do this properly then I stand by my arguments and I am willing to work out the details. I do not however have the energy for such discussions when after pages of my arguments end examples from all the different parametric programs, I get such comments as "this is your point of view", because it is not, it is from what I have learned from for sure 1000+ youtube videos, reading a ton of product documentations from other parametric programs, reading technical papers, blogs and discussions on this topics and studying existing models created by different programs...Body are not present at STEP level at all.
Well, you can open a new topic, and I'll join the discussion. I may not agree with you, but I am willing and curious to see the details you have in mind.saso wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:15 am IMO we already have more or less all of the peaces of the puzzle, we only have to put them properly together. When I gave you a bit of guidance for implementing the Sketcher exports you did IMO something great. Don't understand my critique on Asm3 wrong, as I said before I have confidence in you, mostly because you seem to be able to code as fast as I think
It also does not have a specific Assembly or Part container. In general there is only an hierarchical structure, and it is why it is possible to import it in different ways... Anyway, I have already planed to write a few more things in the "Discussion on Parts and Bodies" topic to hopefully represented my views with a bit more details, so I will do that in the next week or two and we will see then if we can come a bit closer with our views.
