ickby wrote: pinged by pinger macro
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!
Ickby wasn't very active recently, nevertheless I would like to invite him as an expert to this discussion.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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.
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
- Pauvres_honteux
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:05 am
- Location: Far side of the moon
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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.
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.
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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?
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.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
That's good news!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,
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
cool.realthunder wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 5:38 amYes, 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.
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":
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:41 am
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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
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
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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.
-
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:40 pm
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
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.
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.
Re: Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!
Can you provide a reference to this "heard" discussion?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?
I agree, I get tired quickly of adding LCS's and my assemblies look like a red/blue/green porcupine.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.
Why? I think A2+ is the way to go...just to add another point of view.I think assembly 3 is the way to go.
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.
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."