Feature request: Layers on Sketcher

[jruiz]

In relation with Master Body - Master Sketches approach (MBMSA), wouldn't you think that implementing layers in sketcher could be very useful?

[openBrain]

With such a simple question, I would say "no". In rare cases I needed such a feature, the 2 virtual spaces was enough for me.

But maybe you could explain a bit the goal, how it will be used, what would be held in the different layers, ...

[Jee-Bee]

you can create multiple sketches... every sketch is it's own layer...

[jruiz]

With such a simple question, I would say "no". In rare cases I needed such a feature, the 2 virtual spaces was enough for me.

But maybe you could explain a bit the goal, how it will be used, what would be held in the different layers, ...

Just consider you want to group several elements having some common characteristics you want to hide/show at the same time. For example a project consisting on several bodies joined by bolts. The position of the center of the holes for those bolts depend on relative position of the bodies. If you complete a first body sketch part, then you could use it for a sketching the part of a second body. After that you could hide the part of the sketch you don't need at that moment and continue sketching.

[microelly2]

you can create multiple sketches... every sketch is it's own layer...

and you connect them by external geometry . this way the sketches remain simple and the solver can run fast and will not propose unexpected solutions

[C_h_o_p_i_n]

With such a simple question, I would say "no". In rare cases I needed such a feature, the 2 virtual spaces was enough for me.

But maybe you could explain a bit the goal, how it will be used, what would be held in the different layers, ...

In my humble Opinion - I found toggeling between layers ( virtual spaces ) like it is done in Freecad (Sketcher) rather annoying.
An availiability of several (named) Layers is rather normal to me and enabling/disabling and chosing the active one too.

[RatonLaveur]

Generally in the industrial CAD for product design (Part Design) the layers are your sketches. Series of simple sketches.

It is always recommended for robustness and computation considerations to have multiple simple sketches rather than one complex one.

With that in mind, I agree with the general consensus here that your layers are your sketches. Then you link them together by parameters/planes/external geometry calls (or shape binders if you sketch from another body).

[C_h_o_p_i_n]

Generally in the industrial CAD for product design (Part Design) the layers are your sketches. Series of simple sketches.

It is always recommended for robustness and computation considerations to have multiple simple sketches rather than one complex one.

With that in mind, I agree with the general consensus here that your layers are your sketches. Then you link them together by parameters/planes/external geometry calls (or shape binders if you sketch from another body).

Despite of this - I think it's a good idea to keep explanatory or constructive elements within the sketch where they belong too and seperate them from the sketch itself using different layers.

By the way it's - already possible by switching elements to a "contruction" layer and a "virtual space"-layer . So a kind of a "layer concept" exist.

Beeing consequent - this "layer concept" could be extended to offer generic layers.
I See no drawback of having generic layers available wihtin a sketch - I'ts up to you If you use them.

Regards, Stefan

[RatonLaveur]

Having suffered with layers working with AutoCAD trying to create parts. I generally leave multiple layers to drawings and architecture.

Complexity (sometimes a direct result of too much modularity) just doesn't jive well with my engineering approach.
That being said, your request is not unreasonable, I just cannot support it myself and that's fine too.

FreeCAD being is a "we" endeavor and not a "me" endeavor and my modest opinion is now voiced, I leave it to the rest of the community/coders to determine with you the value of this proposition.

[saso]

I am with RatonLaveur here. In fact I feel that there is a real problem in the FC community with users coming from cad environments like autocad, sketchup,... and suggesting "improvements" from their experiences in those workflows. I really don't mind and would actually find it great for FC to have support for different modeling workflows BUT NOT on the expense of degrading existing good functionality and I really don't think that this things (fully parametric modeling, direct modeling, sketches, drafting,...) can or should be mixed that easy.

From the three main pillars of the fully parametric design workflow (sketch, part and assembly), at the moment in FC, sketch is actually the only one that one could say is more or less finished and working the way it should, users are however continuously misunderstanding it and are trying to use it for things that it was never meant to be used for. I don't feel that such development would improve sketcher or FC in general, but would make it worse, possibly even kill it because it would try to be everything, but would most probably actually do nothing properly. There is an old joke for sketches (that is actually just a bit exaggerated version of the recommended best practices for sketches in a fully parametric design) that is "you should think twice if you really need more then just a simple rectangle inside your sketch"

As for having some more options / control over different elements of a sketch, there is already an implementation of sketcher exports done by realthunder that will give quite a bit more control for such needs but it is not in the master yet. And as for some of the other "improvements" IMO we should be more careful with this and rethink, research and discuss much more before making changes and implementing things, for example it is probably much better to make bigger improvements in the draft WB then extending the sketcher too far...