[Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
User avatar
bejant
Posts: 5122
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby bejant » Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:59 am

vocx wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 pm
I always thought Part
...snip...
should probably be avoided, except for basic solids.

If there are users recommending Part, I'd immediately think they are long time CAD users who just got used to working that way for the past 40 years, but I'm not sure it reflects the more modern usage.
Remember that Part Design is only for making solid models. So (excluding Datums and ShapeBinders), unless you goofed, Part Design won't create a model of anything else. Sure you can make Datum geometry and ShapeBinders but those things usually help to create the solid model and are not usually the desired end results in themselves.
User avatar
yorik
Site Admin
Posts: 10191
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby yorik » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:45 pm

I think Part is still pretty relevant because it has all the basic CSG tools, primitives, unions, subtractions,... Without the restrictions that PD enforces
vocx
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby vocx » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:24 pm

triplus wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:40 am
yorik wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:59 pm
I think we are overcomplicating this. There will never be a consensus over what workbenches are more important than others...
I read again the rationale @vocx provided in this discussion, and for now concluded, that the proposal is more suited for this Wiki page:

https://www.freecadweb.org/wiki/Getting_started

This is where it's expected for new users to begin using FreeCAD documentation. And therefore mentioning there on what Workbench to try out first and on why. That makes the most sense to me. In addition we had this discussion in the past already. On how Start workbench could gear new users towards some workflow. Like Arch or PartDesign. That is more than it does now. Going beyond that is possible. I guess. But at the same time harder to find rationale for it.
The purpose is not to define which workbench is more "important", as yorik said in this comment. That is the wrong idea, the purpose is to better organize the set of workbenches that are currently available, so as to guide new and experienced users alike (experienced in the sense they have used other CAD systems, but are just starting with FreeCAD).

Now, ideally this should be done in the software itself, but if people oppose, and they would like to modify only the wiki, that's at least a step in the right direction, in my opinion. So, modifying the wiki would be possible, however, I also warn against presenting something in the wiki that doesn't truly match the software. I wouldn't like to have a "core" in the wiki, but no "core" in the software; that just might be confusing as well.
vocx
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby vocx » Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:26 pm

bejant wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:59 am
Remember that Part Design is only for making solid models. So (excluding Datums and ShapeBinders), unless you goofed, Part Design won't create a model of anything else. Sure you can make Datum geometry and ShapeBinders but those things usually help to create the solid model and are not usually the desired end results in themselves.
I don't understand your comment. What are you implying? Of course PartDesign is only for making solid models. So? What's the problem with that?
chrisb
Posts: 11401
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby chrisb » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:51 pm

vocx wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:26 pm
I don't understand your comment. What are you implying? Of course PartDesign is only for making solid models. So? What's the problem with that?
I understand it as a response to your post advocating Part as sort of old fashioned, sounding like PartDesign could replace Part. It cannot, because Part can create non solid models as well; which e.g. can serve as excellent helpers for constructing solids.
User avatar
bejant
Posts: 5122
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby bejant » Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:18 pm

vocx wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:26 pm
I don't understand your comment. What are you implying?
I tried to explain directly without implications. My apologies for the ambiguity, I'll try again starting with the thought that except for basic solids the Part WB should probably be avoided. Yorik and chrisb have offered good explanations after my last reply so I'll try to avoid simply duplicating what they wrote. However, I now just found out that I will be watching grandchildren so I will have to finish my reply later.
User avatar
bejant
Posts: 5122
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Postby bejant » Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:14 pm

vocx wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:26 pm
Of course PartDesign is only for making solid models. So? What's the problem with that?
People don't always work with only solid models.


vocx wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:16 pm
If there are users recommending Part, I'd immediately think they are long time CAD users who just got used to working that way for the past 40 years
When one of the regulars here recommends the Part WB, or something in it, I usually think the recommendation is because that is the best tool for the given task.