Trailer Deck

[paullee]

I understand one can customise to add tools from other WB - though I do not know how and not done yet

[vocx]

...
To use the current assembly tools one must have modelled each piece standing alone and then come and assemble it all at one place, but this kind of workflow requires to already know what the pieces will look like and how the will fit together. Which is not often stuffs you know when you are starting a design.

Negative.

This is called in the forum "in context assembly" or "top to bottom assembly", because you are creating parts at the same time that you assemble them.

It's possible with Assembly4, see some examples in the big thread of Assembly4. Basically, you need to define a master sketch which gives you the general position of your assembled product, and as you create things, you adjust the position until everything fits together.

ppemawm favors this process of working, Challenge: Constant Velocity Joint (M. Gesik)

[regis]

...
To use the current assembly tools one must have modelled each piece standing alone and then come and assemble it all at one place, but this kind of workflow requires to already know what the pieces will look like and how the will fit together. Which is not often stuffs you know when you are starting a design.

Negative.

This is called in the forum "in context assembly" or "top to bottom assembly", because you are creating parts at the same time that you assemble them.

It's possible with Assembly4, see some examples in the big thread of Assembly4. Basically, you need to define a master sketch which gives you the general position of your assembled product, and as you create things, you adjust the position until everything fits together.

ppemawm favors this process of working, Challenge: Constant Velocity Joint (M. Gesik)

Perhaps you have a point, well as this is all knew and foreign to me at this point, it would have been very helpful to see a video tutorial demonstration, there are up to 4 assembly mindsets in Freecad, how to know, how to choose which one to move forward ahead with? it's not yet clear when you don't know, which one and model process will be suitable. I can already imagine an architectural assembly 5 since that's also a different mindset and approach to designing? as mechanical design is not so similar to architectural process?... only the future will tell us which shore the waves will land us at.

[vocx]

... as mechanical design is not so similar to architectural process?...

I agree that the assembly workbenches are still quite experimental, so users need to test this well to know what is possible.

But on the topic of Architecture and assembly, I think you already saw carlopav's thread about designing buildings more like in machine design. It seems that Yorik has a different opinion, so those are two different approaches. So, even in architecture there are different opinions on the right workflow.

[Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)

[regis]

... as mechanical design is not so similar to architectural process?...

I agree that the assembly workbenches are still quite experimental, so users need to test this well to know what is possible.

But on the topic of Architecture and assembly, I think you already saw carlopav's thread about designing buildings more like in machine design. It seems that Yorik has a different opinion, so those are two different approaches. So, even in architecture there are different opinions on the right workflow.

[Discussion] A different approach to Arch modelling (Arch Assembly?)

Yes it is true that carpolev thoughts are very different from Yoriks, Architects are generally creative artists (in their background nature) trained to create technical documentation for a living so that they don't hang too much in the dream world but make something realist aswell. So in general if you want to understand an architect, think first from a loose point of view, contraints are not really how architects think and figure out things. They like a big clean blank sheet and sketch all kinds of random stuffss that comes to mind in a guestault fashion (with the hand) think of 'blender grease pencil + Krita' approach if you want to get a sense of what i mean in a computerised sense. Once we have those loose lines, now we cant start to straingthen things, make bold what we agree with and want to move forward with. So in that kind of approach that's why Yorik is not so much in favor of carpolev as you seem to mention here aswell.
However my general sense, after looking at everything that is being said, that is being done, and playing with currently available tools, i think freecad has lost that ability to be a good base for such workflow a long time a go, let me explain what i mean as an example
Initially the idea was that, you model what ever you want, a box, a square, etc and then you tell it to be a wall, or a structure etc etc. but that kind of mindset is lost in many aspects of the software, as far as the architectural side of things is concerned, that is, look at the Axis or the section tool for example, you have to click the grid tool and then go inside and manually enter digits, like wise the section tool, you have to place it and start adjusting it how you want it. hmmm that is not so architectural in my opinion as in too constrained and looses it's design flexibility. The ideal way would have been to just draw a buch of lines how you wanted it, then select them and then click the 'Axis tool' and bam voila, or with the section plane, just draw any flat shape, square, polygonal shape, circle, and then press the section tool, and bam voila, that simple face now inherits the behavioural characteristics of the section, so now what ever the round section cuts it will cut that object by creating a rounded cut in that area where the normal of that face will be pointing. So that is initially what i was thinking the direction of Freecad was going to become over time, but it has become sooo technical, that it doesn't encourage any creative architect to feel like they can appropriately design on there.
Now as for Carpolevs idea, I also believe it has it's place, perhaps along side Yorik ideas because I see both methods and mindsets as having their place. It's just now how do we put them as side by side tools that complement each other rather than conflict each other?