Wow man....only this morning I had some more time to play with the new modelling features. The possibilities that this opens. Could this workflow be called hybrid ConstructiveSolidGeometry/FeatureBaseModelling? Someone should come up with a cool name for branding purposes. Really.
While exploring the options I found a strange behavior that I still have to understand if it is a small bug or me that I don't get how things work. Notice in the screen recording below:
-create a new body based on a feature
-try to select anything(face/edge/vertex) from the "BaseFeature" of the newly created body -> the whole geometry gets selected !!!
-point the cursor at a face and click -> create sketch ...the sketch gets created on the correct face although the whole geometry was highlighted
-similarly try with an edge -> chamfer .... it will fail because I think that now it takes in to account the whole selection
Not really obvious in the video but I think more important. After I create "Pad002" I select it then Canc (for deleting that feature). After that "Body001" will report: "Linked object is not a PartDesignFeature" . The only way I found to get it out of that state is to Ctrl-Z operations until I roll it back to the state of creation of "Body001" . This happens only with the first feature after "BaseFeature" . If I go ahead and model then delete features, everything will work correctly until i get to "Pad002" then the error is back.
I'm not asking to implement it, I promised not to for a while lol. I'm just thinking out loud
While modelling the vase showcased in this thread, I realized, and was pointed also in the comments under the video that there is no clearance between the 2 components alignment tabs. That would make them impossible to fit.
The 2 components were created by heavy use of the green SubShapeBinder and the split functionality. If one would want to give clearance to components to allow fit it would be enough to have a option of "thickness" of the SubShapeBinder. This way the shape binder eats material from the 2 matching components before the split. Similarly, if the user wants to create clearence on some faces of the model at the end of the model it could select those faces -> create the ShapeBinder and set the desired thickness -> Boolean cut between the ShapeBinder and the last feature of the component. I really hope that made sense.
Is it technically challenging to give a thickness option to a SubShapeBinder? Do you see any troubles or hidden consequences to a option like that?
This feature would be really useful for the 3d printing community or the mold makers. If there are better ways of obtaining the same result I'm not ware of them but this workflow seems intuitive and fast at least for me. Anyway, man, PartDesign is becoming a power house.
P.S. SOME of the things I love about your latest release:
1- the new colorfull icons and tree tags really stand up visually with a dark css
2- the way now CTRL-D on a body with base feature works is intuitive and after wrapping my head around the way mapping face colors works I see the power and flexibility of your implementation
3- This applies to a small, laptop screen form factor. If one should distill the goals for a 3d CAD interface would be maximize the 3d view and minimize clicks/scrolls necessary to complete a given task. With your latest interface tweaks we can get a full screen 3d view with a automatically raising and hiding task view. And I simply love it. I noticed that things change a bit when switching to a bigger screen or a 21:9 aspect ratio but there is so much flexibility now in the interface that it is difficult that anyone could complain.
4-of course the new tools