[bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
[bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
In the lack of stable and reliable assembly functionality in FreeCAD, I'm trying to use a combination of Spreadsheets (to define and calculate parameters), Part containers, and Part Design workBench cloning to do my designs (e.g., example). However, the issue is that the placement of the clone is not reasonable. For example, it would be ok if the placement of a clone would be at the center of the container coordinate system. It would be also ok if it would follow the placement of the cloned part. However at the moment if you clone a body and then you modify the placement of the cloned part, the clone does not follow. It stays in the old position!
So basically with my workflow, it is not possible to have a parametric placement for an assembly including some clones.
Is there any way to have clones with any of the two above "reasonable" behaviors? Or maybe if there are settings to adjust the current behavior of the clone tool? Thanks for your support in advance.
P.S. IT would be great if we could choose what we want to clone. For example, include or exclude the placement. Also, select if the clone also replicates future edits or only the current state of the body.
So basically with my workflow, it is not possible to have a parametric placement for an assembly including some clones.
Is there any way to have clones with any of the two above "reasonable" behaviors? Or maybe if there are settings to adjust the current behavior of the clone tool? Thanks for your support in advance.
P.S. IT would be great if we could choose what we want to clone. For example, include or exclude the placement. Also, select if the clone also replicates future edits or only the current state of the body.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
One workaround, of course, could be to adjust the position of the mother body (cloned object) to the origin and then clone and then adjust the position back.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
another approach would be to use datum planes and sketches to place your object in the right place within the container, instead of initiating everything on the default Cartesian planes at the origin and then later adjust placement.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
I just realized that the Draft workbench clone is actually showing the right/reasonable behavior. basically, in Part Design, the clone tool creates a new "clone" but sets the placement of the cloned part to all zero. As if the part was sketched on a different datum plane. But the Draft workbench clone copies the body and sets the placement of the cloned part as the current placement of the mother part. It would be great if it could also clone the expressions instead of their plain numerical value, but still way better than Part Design Workbench. Plus the Draft clone can also clone Part containers (reference)!
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
That's what cloning is mostly all about: Follow most attributes of the master but have an own Placement. You may try the new Link objects.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
I think I did not explain my problem properly. Let's compare the Part Design and Draft cloning tools. Both create a dependant clone (which is what I need). This dependant clone will follow all the further edits applied to the cloned body or adjustments to any of its parameters. I would not achieve this feature by Part workbench's simple copy, or manual copy and paste, or duplicating for that matter. Now the difference between Part Design clone and Draft's clone is that the former sets the placement of the clone at all zeroes. As if the body was created at that place. But the Draft clone copies the current value of the placement from the cloned body. It does not copy the expressions, but their current numerical value. So if you set the placement of the clone to zero its coordinate system would be placed at the Cartesian coordinate system of its container (e.g., Part). I hope I have explained the issue this time and it is more clear.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
As an update to this issue, Although the Draft Workbench's clone doesn't suffer the placement issue of the Part Design Workbench, one caveat should be that the clones are not editable in Part WorkBench anymore.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
You cannot change the object itself, but isn't that what cloning is all about? You can use such a clone in further Part operations such as cut or union like any other Part object as well.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
Well not always. There are cases where you want a base model and some small variants.
So the Draft clones are "editable" in Part Workbench, but not the Part Design WorkBench?
Re: [bug/feature request] reasonable behavior for placement of Part Design clones
They are not editable; neither in Part, nor in PartDesign. In both workbenches you can use a clone and continue working with it.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.