Part vs Part Design

[Shlomo]

Why there are 2 workbenches on this? What are the differences? I think it is confusing.
Why not merge them to one?

[chrisb]

Why there are 2 workbenches on this? What are the differences? I think it is confusing.
Why not merge them to one?

Because they follow very different design principles. Have you read the documentation?
While in Part objects are built from geometric primitives like boxes, cylinders, spheres, ... and boolean operations like union and cut Part design follows a feature based approach, where you use sketches, pads and pockets.

There is some overlap in the existing tools, because both workbenches have grown over time; especially with the new PartDesign Workbench, where some operations known from Part reappeared in PartDesign.

[triplus]

The strategy to duplicate commands (such as boolean operations) was used with PartDesign NEXT. And you can't just use the ones in Part workbench in PartDesign workflow. And the ones from PartDesign workbench don't work outside PartDesign workflow at all.

Therefore as for the short version. Both workbenches are provided because you will end up needing both.

[Shlomo]

The strategy to duplicate commands (such as boolean operations) was used with PartDesign NEXT. And you can't just use the ones in Part workbench in PartDesign workflow. And the ones from PartDesign workbench don't work outside PartDesign workflow at all.

Therefore as for the short version. Both workbenches are provided because you will end up needing both.

For me a CAD program is something to simulate a real object, especially something that I need to produce (or visualize). Therefore everything is a part. And many parts form an assembly. So I really don’t think that there should be 2 workbenches (at least in long run). I find this very confusing as a methodology to work with CAD. But that's my opinion...

[triplus]

For me a CAD program is something to simulate a real object, especially something that I need to produce (or visualize). Therefore everything is a part. And many parts form an assembly. So I really don’t think that there should be 2 workbenches (at least in long run). I find this very confusing as a methodology to work with CAD. But that's my opinion...

Well it gets better. What you are looking for is a Part feature (located on the structure toolbar). And the Part feature is available in both workbenches.

P.S. Give it some time. It will get better with experience. You will likely end up asking yourself a question like if only there would be one more workbench somewhere. With the command i am searching for in it. To do the job i am after. And usually there is.

[chrisb]

For me a CAD program is something to simulate a real object, especially something that I need to produce (or visualize). Therefore everything is a part. And many parts form an assembly. So I really don’t think that there should be 2 workbenches (at least in long run). I find this very confusing as a methodology to work with CAD. But that's my opinion...

You might be right as far as naming is concerned. As a tongue-twister I would say You design a part in Part and Part Design. And after all its all about designing parts.
But besides the naming both workbenches are widely used and I still think it is got to have them in two.

[NormandC]

Why not merge them to one?

Because they don't have the same purpose.

Part can create vertices, edges, faces, shells, solids, compounds and compsolids; in other words, all possible shapes available through the OCC kernel.

PartDesign can only create solids; furthermore, it can only create a single contiguous solid at a time.

Part is a general purpose workbench. PartDesign is specialized toward mechanical parts, just like Arch is specialized toward architecture design.

[triplus]

I just noticed something. It looks like a line to me.

Geometry.png (856 Bytes) Viewed 20982 times

Inside PartDesign Body feature. And things still seem to work just fine. Didn't know that was possible.

PartDesign Cube.png (7.46 KiB) Viewed 20980 times

I went ahead and indeed a (parametric) cube made from a bunch of lines in PartDesign Body can be made.

P.S. I guess a roof and a few openings for doors and windows are missing. And i could use it for Architecture design just fine.

[Shlomo]

As a mechanical designer, I find difficult to grasp this duality. I design parts. Thats all. Everything is a part or a combination/set of parts.
Normally I create a part using sketches or starting with a primitive (which I think is not a good technique). Then I build assemblies from many parts. Then I create drawings from those (parts or assemblies). So in FC the methodology of work is not very clear.
You can have various workbenches for specific areas or industries that are not relevant to others but in fact, at the end, everybody builds some item/part/body. So I really think that part and part design should be in the same workbench. But that is my opinion.

NOTE: By the way the same ambiguity exists in Draft and Drawing (why 2 things?)

[HarryGeier]

Well,

read about the History and the overall definition of FreeCAD..

It says it a "mash up" of different open Source CAD approaches. Eventually once in the future some my merge..some may not..
Who knows...maybe someone once adds another Workbench with different approach ..



Go into some other comparable Systems and look for second approach to a problem.. You will fail.. normally they all are only based on one strategy of 3D Design.. that makes it easier..yes.. but you may still miss something..
I confess in the beginning it all confused me too.. but now i love it...


If you looked for a straight ahead, easy to use , professional mature CAD Program.. well.. you are not at the right place..