First basic implementation

Discussion about the development of the Assembly workbench.
maidenone
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 6:31 am

Re: First basic implementation

Postby maidenone » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:15 am

I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to. The userinterface of NX feels a bit dated while ProE is beauteful but a little to smart and minimalistic for my taste.
Here is a Draft of the study, Will continue on it later with more pictures and better/longer explanations of functionality.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
Last edited by maidenone on Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
NormandC
Posts: 18534
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Québec, Canada

Re: First basic implementation

Postby NormandC » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:56 pm

maidenone wrote:I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to.
That is certainly the reason. I use Solid Edge and find SolidWorks' GUI a total mess.

Although I use at work an old version of Solid Edge prior to Synchronous Technology.
din743
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 8:28 pm

Re: First basic implementation

Postby din743 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:46 pm

maidenone wrote:I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to. The userinterface of NX feels a bit dated while ProE is beauteful but a little to smart and minimalistic for my taste.
Here is a Draft of the study, Will continue on it later with more pictures and better/longer explanations of functionality.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
You have one strange Pro-E version :)
I think you mixed up between Pro-E and Autodesk Inventor. Pro-E's GUI is very basic compared to Inventor.
maidenone
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 6:31 am

Re: First basic implementation

Postby maidenone » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:57 am

Its actually Autodesk inventor Fusion, but some times it calls itself ProE :S, its not a application i have used before.
User avatar
yorik
Site Admin
Posts: 11552
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Contact:

Re: First basic implementation

Postby yorik » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:28 pm

In any case that's a very interesting document you made... Thanks!
project4
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:53 pm

Re: First basic implementation

Postby project4 » Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:41 pm

Hi guys,

I've checked out the dev-assembly branch from git, but failed to compile with the following error:
FreeCad/free-cad-code/src/Mod/Assembly/App/opendcm/core/equations.hpp:33:41: fatal error: boost/fusion/include/copy.hpp: No such file or directory

I have boost/fusion/include in /usr/include directory, but there is no copy.hpp file...

Any ideas?
I have boost-dev installed.
Using Ubuntu 11.10

Thanks,
Alex
ickby
Posts: 2922
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:36 am

Re: First basic implementation

Postby ickby » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:29 pm

I checked that: copy was introduced with version 1.48, so you need at least that boost version. Don't know which one is shipped with ubuntu 11.10.
wmayer
Site Admin
Posts: 14885
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:32 am

Re: First basic implementation

Postby wmayer » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:35 pm

Ubuntu 11.10 is not longer maintained so you should consider upgrading to the LTS version. There boost 1.48 is used.
project4
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:53 pm

Re: First basic implementation

Postby project4 » Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:20 am

Thanks for fast reply.
Indeed, I have 1.46 here.
Another good reason to upgrade...
oldestfox
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:15 pm
Location: Southeast Texas, USA

Re: First basic implementation

Postby oldestfox » Sat Jul 13, 2013 1:11 pm

All of this about building "Assembly" is way beyond my understanding. So... a question.(again) :o
In FreeCAD, is *every* line, arc, circle, point or any other *basic* shape identified and stored in the document file such that "assembly" could refer to it to retrieve info and set constraints? The answer is probably obvious to you folks. I just don't go there.