[Discussion] Defining core workbenches

[bejant]

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.

[yorik]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bejant]

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.

[bejant]

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.

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.

[NormandC]

For quite a few experienced users, the big problem with PartDesign is that the Body container doesn't support compounds (multi-bodies). They don't like the strict rules enforced by PartDesign. So they work with sketches and Part Extrude/Revolve/Loft/Sweep and Booleans. Part is not limited to primitives.