freedman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 3:20 pm
Do you feel that your current modeling approach is the best for modeling existing parts and making a large number of changes to what we call the master sketch or early created parts?
I do think that using a master sketch and carbon copies for each body is a good approach to control design intent and critical interfaces. It also dramatically improves sketch productivity. Now, whether or not you expand master sketches to include a sub-assembly or the top-assembly probably depends on what and how you model.
A master sketch can serve as an assembly solver for moving parts, for example. Also, if your assembly interfaces are fixed due to an interchangeability requirement in form, fit, and function for legacy components (spares, for example) then it could be quite useful to use an assembly master sketch to control those interfaces.
It also depends on how you set up the master sketches (simple, but not too simple) and what kind of changes you expect. Master sketches and carbon copies cannot tolerate major changes that affect the number of sketch vertices or edges without breaking the model or assembly that depends on it.
In any event, Assembly4 is quite simple with no unnecessary frills and it nicely facilitates several different approaches to assembly design. Remember that if you use Assembly4 you do not have to use a master sketch for the assembly especially if you assemble as you design. That way you can still work in-context either in the top-assembly or sub-assembly files.
I am moving away from using master sketches for the top assembly, preferring them only for the bodies. Please note that some of my use of master sketches for assemblies is a hold over from in-context assembly design before there were any assembly workbenches that accommodated a top-down approach. As with any thing else in FreeCAD there is always more than one way to skin the cat so who's to say what's best.
FreeCAD