I fully agree with you on this point. What I was attempting to suggest, although admittedly stated poorly, was that, by choosing to make a name a bit "more unique", some of the confusion with similarly named objects and operations might be reduced. It is one of the key principles behind the choice of terminology in science and engineering. Then again, I am new to FreeCAD, and could easily be missing the bigger picture. I was merely attempting to provide and "outsiders" point of view while trying to learn. No offense was intended.
Parts vs. Bodies
Forum rules
and Helpful information
and Helpful information
IMPORTANT: Please click here and read this first, before asking for help
Also, be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Also, be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Sincerely,
Michael S. Olsen
Electrical Engineer & Joiner
Michael S. Olsen
Electrical Engineer & Joiner
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
You asked:
P.S. What you could do next, this one is totally optional and up to you, is to add more Body features in a Part feature. And you could for example move such Part feature around, together with all Body features in it. What you could do next, this one is totally optional and up to you, you could use one of the Assembly oriented FreeCAD modules and assemble such Part features into an assembly.
And as i explained above the answer to this question is a rather simple one. Body is a Part Design workflow oriented feature, introduced by the Part Design NEXT effort. Hence when you use Part Design workbench, you must put something in a Body, currently this really isn't an arbitrary decision.
P.S. What you could do next, this one is totally optional and up to you, is to add more Body features in a Part feature. And you could for example move such Part feature around, together with all Body features in it. What you could do next, this one is totally optional and up to you, you could use one of the Assembly oriented FreeCAD modules and assemble such Part features into an assembly.
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
No, I understand your point. However, which name would you use? And then, why? If you can convince all FreeCAD developers that your unique name is better than "Part" then we will change it. The reason this hasn't happened already is because there was no strong consensus at the beginning, so the name "Part" stuck, and that's it... for now. As I said, it is still a work in progress.
Std_Part was developed to be used with assemblies, but at that time there was no official assembly workbench where it could be used. Now we have three assembly workbenches, but none of them "official", and Std_Part is getting used more. It is also subject to change to adapt the App Link object which was just introduced last year. See PR #2723: Plain/Geo group behavior change and related 3D visualization/selection enhancement.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Personally I would rename Part WB to Shape Design WB...
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Which has no sense as it removes confusion around 'Part' at the price of a new one around 'Shape'...
If we have an approach through the induced workflow, then rename 'Part' to 'CSG', and 'PartDesign' to 'Parametric'.
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Really? Open it and read a bit the names of the tools and their tool tips, most of them already have the term "shape" and a lot of the type of geometry that is possible to create with it and the type of the workflow possible with it does fit to it also.
Unfortunately your understanding of this terms is extremely limited.
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Let's not get (too) personal on this difficult topic. Part is parametric as well, it is not feature driven. PartDesign may be called "Feature workbench"., but meanwhile at least as names of workbenches the name Part and PartDesign, seem to have gotten a meaning on their own. Even in the german forum they don't have to be translated. The problems are all the other places where the word "part" is used.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Chrisb you seem to understand me best. I am not asking for any single specific changes. I am simply noting one issue which, at least for myself, has caused a great deal of confusion as a new user. It has been a significant stumbling point which to me appears to be arbitrarily raising the initial learning curve.chrisb wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:40 pm Let's not get (too) personal on this difficult topic. ... at least as names of workbenches the name Part and PartDesign, seem to have gotten a meaning on their own. Even in the german forum they don't have to be translated. The problems are all the other places where the word "part" is used.
There are no doubt a great many approaches which might reduce the confusion, and several may be equally valid. As a new user, I simply suggest it is a topic that merits consideration. I would find it dubious that I was the only 'newbee' to get so confused.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Olsen
Electrical Engineer & Joiner
Michael S. Olsen
Electrical Engineer & Joiner
Re: Parts vs. Bodies
Because it is not a new issue, it is something we have been arguing about now for years, ever since bodies were first implemented. Others have given your their opinion about it and they know mine. For me it is no wonder that bodies and parts are confusing to anyone, because the way they are implemented in FreeCAD is IMO wrong. Some feel that they can fix this with better documentation, IMO it is broken in the concept and needs to be fixed. Regardless of the naming, even if we name things chickens and cows, it cannot fix a broken concept.