I'm having some trouble with Part. I want to create a huge group of Parts (containers) and there will be many layers of Part. Once I get them in place I don't want them to accidentally get moved, lets say more than one person is working on the model, two questions:
1) is there a mechanism to lock Part in place?
2) is there a way to lock position but allow it to rotate, lock rotation and allow movement?
I guess what I'm really after is some kind of security so that after designing 30 parts that are Parts in Parts in Parts I know that nothing has moved.
I do understand that a Part can only be locked in it's local frame, that's what I want.
Thanks
Is there a way to lock a Part in place
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: Is there a way to lock a Part in place
This sounds like the description of top level assembly and sub assemblies. And that, for example, A2+ workbench would be a better option than trying to shoe horn the concept into single document.freedman wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:55 pm I'm having some trouble with Part. I want to create a huge group of Parts (containers) and there will be many layers of Part. Once I get them in place I don't want them to accidentally get moved, lets say more than one person is working on the model, two questions:
1) is there a mechanism to lock Part in place?
2) is there a way to lock position but allow it to rotate, lock rotation and allow movement?
...
For example, when you add a sub-assembly to an A2+ document, its constituent objects are locked with reference to each other in the higher assembly.
And the sub assembly in the A2+ document will move based on a constraint to another object (for example, if it is constrained to the axis of a hole, then it will rotate around that axis or move along it, but not off the constrained axis).
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: Is there a way to lock a Part in place
or even better
try Assembly 3
try Assembly 3
Re: Is there a way to lock a Part in place
drmacro, thanks for the info. That makes perfect sense for Assembly. I'm trying to do something kind of new so I suppose I need the shoe horn. I will try this in Assembly without using constraints and see what happens.
I'm working on a SIM macro that allows you to grab Parts or the parent Part by selecting a sub-Part (button selectable) and drag it with the mouse, this is all very grab it and place it, it's all visual. I also want to be able to rotate (keyboard button) the sub-parts as a whole on a preset axis while dragging. Imagine something like a landscaper wanting to try different placements of a group of plants and chairs.
If Assembly won't work then I will create a special Part that I identify as an axis holder. I will code the macro to verify the axis-holder-Part abides by the rules i.e. if I try to move a locked Part the macro will move it back.
Any input is welcome on how to accomplish this task.
I'm working on a SIM macro that allows you to grab Parts or the parent Part by selecting a sub-Part (button selectable) and drag it with the mouse, this is all very grab it and place it, it's all visual. I also want to be able to rotate (keyboard button) the sub-parts as a whole on a preset axis while dragging. Imagine something like a landscaper wanting to try different placements of a group of plants and chairs.
If Assembly won't work then I will create a special Part that I identify as an axis holder. I will code the macro to verify the axis-holder-Part abides by the rules i.e. if I try to move a locked Part the macro will move it back.
Any input is welcome on how to accomplish this task.
Re: Is there a way to lock a Part in place
Why is that any better or worse?
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: Is there a way to lock a Part in place
2+, 3, 4
whichever one suits you and your purposes better.
I wasn't implying that one was better than another - sorry if I gave this impression.
It wasn't my intention.