You are very right. Talking about functions was an unappropriate generalization.
Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
@chrisb, thanks for starting this discussion. This is on a lot of peoples minds
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
I'm glad I did - and it seems already fruitful. Thanks to all contributors.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
I have directly tackled this problem. See here and here.roerich_64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:03 pmThese are workarounds around toponamingBassMati wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:06 pmZolko's LCS idea? Realthunder's named mating interfaces idea ("elements")?roerich_64 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:45 am Other WB's have also problems with TopoNaming.
I think this should be the first point of all of the todolists
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
LinkPlacement and Placement in a App::Link are exactly the same, with the same value and everything. It is used here to trick the property editor to either display the linked object's Placement or link's Placement.Zolko wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:55 pm Interesting ... Assembly4 uses the ExpressionEngine of the Placement property of an App::Link, not the Link Placement property. realthunder, what do you think ? I know that you had already told something about it, but I must admit I didn't understand, with the toggling of the Link Transform between True and False. Should an assembly rather use the Link Placement or the Placement property of an App::Link ? (at least in the case of the ExpressionEngine)
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 7791
- Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:10 am
- Contact:
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
Hello,
I would like to take part in the discussion. I've worked my way into Assembly 2 plus and Assembly 3.
A2+ can't handle datum plans, axis and other datum features yet. However, to be able to create robust assemblies, such a way of working is highly recommended.
Walter (roerich_64) summed it up. The main challenge is to get Topo-Logical Naming under control. Only then will it be possible to construct robust models and assemblies.
Some time ago I had subjected Realthunders App Image to a topo-naming stress test and can say that it is going in the right direction. Not quite as good as PTC-Creo yet, but an experienced Freecad user who knows his model and works according to a certain methodology is much less likely to fall into the Topo Naming trap.
I think Chris' initiative to bring the developers of the different assembly workbenches together and take the best from all projects is very good.
It also needs users to test it.
Many greetings
Wilfried
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
I would like to take part in the discussion. I've worked my way into Assembly 2 plus and Assembly 3.
A2+ can't handle datum plans, axis and other datum features yet. However, to be able to create robust assemblies, such a way of working is highly recommended.
Walter (roerich_64) summed it up. The main challenge is to get Topo-Logical Naming under control. Only then will it be possible to construct robust models and assemblies.
Some time ago I had subjected Realthunders App Image to a topo-naming stress test and can say that it is going in the right direction. Not quite as good as PTC-Creo yet, but an experienced Freecad user who knows his model and works according to a certain methodology is much less likely to fall into the Topo Naming trap.
I think Chris' initiative to bring the developers of the different assembly workbenches together and take the best from all projects is very good.
It also needs users to test it.
Many greetings
Wilfried
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
Just an inside from my user case...
A2+ has unfortunately issues with STEP exporting, because an assembly can easily loose the solid property and became a shell.
This is not good when you need to check volume collisions with an assembly and an other imported model (i.e. a box container).
In my user case, even if I really like A2+, A3 and A4 are the best options.
A2+ has unfortunately issues with STEP exporting, because an assembly can easily loose the solid property and became a shell.
This is not good when you need to check volume collisions with an assembly and an other imported model (i.e. a box container).
In my user case, even if I really like A2+, A3 and A4 are the best options.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
I consider fasteners as an ordinary Body, Part, or Assembly, so I suggest to move fasteners into the library domain. In general, as being still quite an FC Newbie, I prefer to learn few, but powerful concepts. That quickly gets me started. Many or very specialized tools tend to slow me down in the learning process.
This is why I hope that Assembly becomes the new Part - a container for Bodies, Solids and whatever objects, and nested Parts (Assemblies). The storage location, same or different file, should be transparent. In conjunction with the Link, we also have the basis for flexible library concepts.
But it should be possible to layer a "fasteners" tool on top of this concept, so that we both can live with, or without it.
Currently I design my sub-assemblies with the axis around the coordinate system (but without mating constraints), which makes it easy to rotate or translate it (carefully) around the degree(s) of freedom, and check for collisions. With the mating constraints in Assembly3 (and 4?), your dream should already be reality…what would be a very great thing, if the at a ASM WB given constraints will work for the (an) Animation WB to. Turning a part around it's bearing to check for collision... a dream...
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
Good point. I am thinking about three simple, basic data structures:
- Design Element, implemented by Bodies, Solids, and other objects
- Container for design elements and Containers (currently Body or Assembly)
- Link to Container or Design Element.
Once published, the definitions are immutable (but extensible), so the SW in 20 years should be able to handle even old designs. (An idea of (D)COM)
Just a thought that came to my mind.
In companies I have worked, they archived the development tools, not only designs.