New Assembly 4?

[Zolko]

no, you use MapMode of LCS_2 to attach it to LCS_1 (which is in the assembly)

Let me try again.

• Open asm_Bielle.fcstrd
• Add a new LCS, name it LCS_Test
• Now I want the LCS_Test to sit on the inside surface of the pocket in the blue part. How can you to that in the "asm_Bielle.fcstrd" file?

yes, well no, that won't work like that (it should though). I propose the following (don't have the time to do it right now, but did so for other assemblies) :

• open asm_Bielle.fcstd
• go to the Bielle part window tab
• insert an LCS, name it LCS_X
• MapMode that LCS_X in the part Bielle, attach it to where you want
• go to the asm_Bielle tab
• insert an LCS_1
• place it using the Asm4 command "place LCS", and attach it to LCS_X in part Bielle (the Placement property line will be blue, because the ExpressionEngine is used)
• insert LCS_2
• MapMode LCS_2 and attach it to LCS_1, and offset it using the dialog GUI
• This LCS_2 — and also LCS_1 — are now in asm_Bielle, therefore you can insert asm_Bielle into another (higher level) assembly using these LCS as attachment points

it's not very elegant, there is a lot of extra manipulation involved, but it works and is parametric

[catman]

yes, well no, that won't work like that (it should though). I propose the following (don't have the time to do it right now, but did so for other assemblies) :

• open asm_Bielle.fcstd
• go to the Bielle part window tab
• insert an LCS, name it LCS_X
• MapMode that LCS_X in the part Bielle, attach it to where you want
• go to the asm_Bielle tab
• insert an LCS_1
• place it using the Asm4 command "place LCS", and attach it to LCS_X in part Bielle (the Placement property line will be blue, because the ExpressionEngine is used)
• insert LCS_2
• MapMode LCS_2 and attach it to LCS_1, and offset it using the dialog GUI
• This LCS_2 — and also LCS_1 — are now in asm_Bielle, therefore you can insert asm_Bielle into another (higher level) assembly using these LCS as attachment points

OK. Thanks and sorry for the unclear descriptions. The way what you describe for a work-around was what I had been referring to as "cluttering the source file". That is fine for now and for testing.

I was looking on how this would scale up. The key info there is "no, that won't work like that (it should though)".
In the bigger picture it does not make sense to build up a large library of re-usable modules (think not only of DIN parts but also of things like a pre-manufacutured motor/worm gear assembly). When I have no way to select any geometry on that part when its linked in (i.e. vs. copied in) the use is very limited. My use case of creating a LCS on some geometrical feature is use one of those use cases. Another use cases would be to (all assuming a finished unified FreeCAD assembly workbench)

• use an 'align constraint' to attach some sheet metal part
• drill a hole somewhere
• glue on some part, sticker, or foam in some damping material
• .. you name it

Its not I that am asking anyone to implement all this now. I am just interested to know where the limitation is from, because it seems a bit fundamental to it. If its just "was not done yet" I am happy. It its "not supported in the design of how parts are linked" I would start looking for discussions in posts to better understand those limitations.


PS:
Actually, the point "drill a hole somewhere" is an interesting topic by itself. Because in an assembly situation is very convenient for a designer to define holes to a whole set of parametrically aligned parts. That is the position of the hole is in referene to an LCS that is defined across several parts. Its very cumbersone to defined those holes in the base parts referencing to external geometry. However, I think this is a not fully resolved issue in commercial packages, because these holes do not end up in the projections of a drawing or must be included there in a not trivial way. Since both Assemly and TechDraw modules are fresh and being actively developed there are a lot better chances to design in support for that than re-implementing into code of commercial packages that has grown over many years and many people and became a bit 'spaghetti-nised'. I am sure that when one is role-playing doing a large scale CAD design one quickly encounters use-cases like that.

[Zolko]

If its just "was not done yet" I am happy.

actually, this question is more related to App::Link itself as Asm4, and we don't know yet how the final implementation will be. Which also means that if some particular feature is needed, that info should be part of the App::Link implementation process inside FreeCAD.

Now, please don't ask the question that you're burning to ask

[dan-miel]

I downloaded the Bielle assm. example, opened all the support files first, and the only thing in the assm. is a sketch. I have created files, used Create New Model. saved, closed, opened but the App link doesn't work.

Zolko, I edited the first post of this Assembly4 branch to include the information above. I also added some step by step instructions that I eventually found. If my edits are not accurate or if you want other changes let me know.
The assembly 4 concept sounds interesting.
Dan

[Zolko]

If my edits are not accurate or if you want other changes let me know.

thank-you for these info, I hope it will allow people to test Asm4.

You can add a link to realthunder's repository where the latest Asm3 builds are downloadable:
https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_ ... 3/releases

if you insert ...

Code: Select all

[list]
[*]item
[*]item
[/list]

... before and after the stars, they form a pretty item based list.

[catman]

Now, please don't ask the question that you're burning to ask

[triplus]

Likely this will end up being a long(er) term thread and therefore @Zolko likely needs to become an OP? By for example opening a new thread and merging this thread in it. Or something like that.

[dan-miel]

Likely this will end up being a long(er) term thread and therefore @Zolko likely needs to become an OP? By for example opening a new thread and merging this thread in it. Or something like that.

You are correct. I noticed that Zolko has the second post in this string. I contacted him this morning with a private message offering to put it under his name wondering if I deleted my post would the thread then be his since his post is second. Merging this thread and the "assembly without solver" under his name I think would be even better.
Dan

[Zolko]

Merging this thread and the "assembly without solver" under his name I think would be even better.

I wouldn't know how to do that, sorry.

[triplus]

Some observations:

As for the original thread. I feel that it was more of a brainstorming alike discussion. Now that there actually is a FreeCAD module named Assembly 4. I feel that best if a new thread by @Zolko is opened and Assembly 4 related discussions to be conducted there. This thread would work fine but @Zolko isn't an OP and therefore can't edit the first post at beginning of the thread. And as likely Assembly 4 thread will get huge over time, therefore i guess best if we don't merge anything else in it for now.