Parts vs. Bodies

Post here for help on using FreeCAD's graphical user interface (GUI).
Forum rules
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!
User avatar
MSOlsen65
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:30 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by MSOlsen65 »

vocx wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:27 am ... Taking a single term is not so important but rather the behavior of those objects; how are they supposed to be used, what properties should they have, how should they interact with others, etc.
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.
Sincerely,


Michael S. Olsen
Electrical Engineer & Joiner
triplus
Veteran
Posts: 9471
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by triplus »

You asked:
MSOlsen65 wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:53 pm When must something be a part and when must it be a body?
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.
vocx
Veteran
Posts: 5197
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by vocx »

MSOlsen65 wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:37 pm ...What I was attempting to suggest, ... by choosing to make a name a bit "more unique", some of the confusion with similarly named objects and operations might be reduced. ...
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.
User avatar
saso
Veteran
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by saso »

Personally I would rename Part WB to Shape Design WB... :roll:
openBrain
Veteran
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by openBrain »

saso wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:43 pm Personally I would rename Part WB to Shape Design WB... :roll:
Which has no sense as it removes confusion around 'Part' at the price of a new one around 'Shape'... :roll:
If we have an approach through the induced workflow, then rename 'Part' to 'CSG', and 'PartDesign' to 'Parametric'.
User avatar
saso
Veteran
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by saso »

openBrain wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:47 pm Which has no sense as it removes confusion around 'Part' at the price of a new one around 'Shape'... :roll:
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.
openBrain wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:47 pm If we have an approach through the induced workflow, then rename 'Part' to 'CSG', and 'PartDesign' to 'Parametric'.
Unfortunately your understanding of this terms is extremely limited.
openBrain
Veteran
Posts: 9034
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by openBrain »

saso wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:55 pm Unfortunately your understanding of this terms is extremely limited.
Oops, sorry I didn't notice you sire was the author of the post I quoted.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by chrisb »

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.
User avatar
MSOlsen65
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:30 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB Canada
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by MSOlsen65 »

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.
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.

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
User avatar
saso
Veteran
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts vs. Bodies

Post by saso »

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.
Post Reply