Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Discussion about the development of the Assembly workbench.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by chrisb »

Ickby wasn't very active recently, nevertheless I would like to invite him as an expert to this discussion.
ickby wrote: pinged by pinger macro
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by user1234 »

Zolko wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:22 pmdo these other CAD systems allow more than 1 assembly per file ?
PTC Creo Direct Modeling and Siemens NX. Years ago some told me, that is an other, but i do not the name now.

Just an input: i worked years with assembly files formats only (CATIA) and with assembly objects with (Creo Direct Modeling). The 2nd works the assembly behavior like the part container. As i really, really hate Creo Direct Modeling, an assembly object like the part container is sometimes really handy, especially for assemblies with 1000+ parts.
For example you have an assembly (or subassembly) with patterns. Logical, structural and assemblical (not CAD) you have one assembly, but for CAD it is much easier that to handle subassemblies for constraints or kinematic. But often you do not want an extra file for that, because it only clutters your file structure or database.

Here a minimum example: a subassembly: i linked all parts in the subassembly i need. But i need a pattern for managing, but do not want an extra file for that. So i created a subsubassembly without a file.
0.gif
0.gif (617.23 KiB) Viewed 3630 times

At first i was also for an extra file format, but the longer i think about that, the more only a assembly container itself is also good solution.

Thank for working on it, i really appreciate that!

Greetings
user1234
User avatar
Pauvres_honteux
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:05 am
Location: Far side of the moon

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by Pauvres_honteux »

Have anyone thought of PDM-systems vs Assy-handling?
Specifically what to allow a PDM-system to do inside a *.FCStd-file?
To me it does not sound so appealing to have an arbitrary program having its way inside my hard-worked-for part.
realthunder
Veteran
Posts: 2190
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by realthunder »

adrianinsaval wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:40 am Do you think is worth adding a special generic assembly container in main FreeCAD and the external assembly workbenches would adapt to it?
Zolko wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:55 am great news. So we can try to make the App::Part as assembly containers converge.
Yes, I think it is inevitable. I've planned to adopt App::Part as the generic assembly container, just haven't got time to do it yet.
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
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by chrisb »

realthunder wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 5:38 am Yes, I think it is inevitable. I've planned to adopt App::Part as the generic assembly container,
That's good news!
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
Zolko
Veteran
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:02 am

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by Zolko »

realthunder wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 5:38 am
Zolko wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:55 am great news. So we can try to make the App::Part as assembly containers converge.
Yes, I think it is inevitable. I've planned to adopt App::Part as the generic assembly container, just haven't got time to do it yet.
cool.

I've toyed with the standard App::Part objects, and they all have a property called "Type", which is empty by default. I've made a modification to ViewProviderPart to allow it to return 2 icons for an App::Part depending on that Type set (it's an App::PropertyString). If that Type is set to "Assembly", it returns a different icon.

So I'd propose that a FreeCAD Assembly container is a standard App::Part with "Type" set to "Assembly":

Geoassembly.png
Geoassembly.png (152.67 KiB) Viewed 3337 times
try the Assembly4 workbench for FreCAD — tutorials here and here
HelloWorldXD
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:41 am

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by HelloWorldXD »

Hello,

maybe my input is a little bit off topic but is there a way that the BOM Feature of AS2+ could be implemendet in AS3 or and AS4?
In special for prototyping or Top Down workflow i like the AS3 and AS4 much more than AS2+.
The BOM Feature of AS2+ is very near to comerical cad systems like Catia or Solid Edge and the BOM Feature of AS4 is nice but not perfekt.
AS3 has no BOM or get i that wrong?

Thanks
Cyclonit
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by Cyclonit »

I strongly believe parametrization to be an integral part of an assembly system. For example, you might want to use different kinds of screws in your assembly. Lets say you use multiple kinds of ISO 7045 screws. Instead of having to create all different sizes and lengths individually, it should be possible to promote certain variables of the "master ISO 7045" part to be parameters of that part. Whenever you add a parametrized part to an assembly, you should be able to adjust its parameters. Parameterized parts would also allow for properly parameterized assemblies. E.g. the thickness of a sheet of metal could be used to derive the length of bolts. This carries over to architecture/BIM too. Pipes could expose their diameter or material, such that other parts of the model can utilize them/adapt to them.
godblessfq
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:40 pm

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by godblessfq »

I've heard Assembly 4 doesn't have topological naming issue. But these LCSs actually needs something to attach to, what if one of these attachment is changed or deleted?

So we need something that doesn't change to overcome the topological naming isssue. Something that can assist the constraint anchoring.
Which is the only use case for assembly 4. Otherwise, I don't think we need all those extra LCSs, because all thoses LCSs are just duplicate of the information contained in the shape.

I think assembly 3 is the way to go. :D
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8870
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

Post by drmacro »

godblessfq wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:35 pm I've heard Assembly 4 doesn't have topological naming issue. But these LCSs actually needs something to attach to, what if one of these attachment is changed or deleted?
Can you provide a reference to this "heard" discussion?
So we need something that doesn't change to overcome the topological naming isssue. Something that can assist the constraint anchoring.
Which is the only use case for assembly 4. Otherwise, I don't think we need all those extra LCSs, because all thoses LCSs are just duplicate of the information contained in the shape.
I agree, I get tired quickly of adding LCS's and my assemblies look like a red/blue/green porcupine. 8-)
I think assembly 3 is the way to go. :D
Why? I think A2+ is the way to go...just to add another point of view. ;)

TBH, the assembly concept with FreeCAD is reminiscent of the scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian": someone: "follow the gourd", someone else: "follow the shoe", someone else: "follow A3", someone else: "follow A2+", etc. :mrgreen:

The unfortunate truth is: They all overlap, they all have strong points and weaknesses. :(
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Post Reply