yes that is clear, but i can create a unique designation of an assembly and a part and e.g. in an excel table any amount of information can be "announced"
Request for a separate Assy file format
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
- thomas-neemann
- Veteran
- Posts: 11940
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
- Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
Yuck! Also for me as an one man show. Reminds me on a time of the brain drained SAP. But that is too much off topic.
- thomas-neemann
- Veteran
- Posts: 11940
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
- Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
In my macro stuff I'm moving Parts and placing Parts in Parts. I have found that if there were locks on the properties of a Part it can be used as an assembly. Part would need to have a placement offset X,Y,Z added to it for positioning so it's rotation could be around it's own axis. Assembly doesn't seem all that difficult if you just think about the act of locking some axis or restricting movements inside a Part.thomas-neemann wrote
in my opinion, everything is already there that is necessary without assembly wbs
Assembly storage data and all the extra bits I know little about, I would give way to Zolko experience in this area for sure. I think we would all like to have some kind of Assembly without adding too much.
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
Yes, this is also my opinion.thomas-neemann wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:42 am in my opinion, everything is already there that is necessary without assembly wbs
BUT:
what I propose is to make this the official FreeCAD position: let's decide that the App::Part (Std_Part) container is *THE* assembly container, which can contain any other "stuff" , including other App::Part things, building nested assemblies. What I mean by that is that it is possible, today, thanks to realthunder's App::Link interface introduced in v0.19, to build assemblies - even complex, nested assemblies - with core FreeCAD.
What I also propose is to separate the data structure (of loading external parts) from the placement of these parts relative to each other. This is a separate problem that should be dealt with by geometry solvers. Any and all such solvers should calculate the "Placement" property of the included objects. The most basic of such solver being manual placement. Another placement is of course Assembly4's Placement calculation through datum objects and the ExpressionEngine, but this is clearly only one of such possible solvers.
What this means in practice is that A2+ and Asm3 should be "ported " to the App::Part container. Yes, I know, some people might think that I try to pull the cover to the Asm4 file format, but what I'm trying to say is the exact opposite : it's *BECAUSE* that file structure is good that Asm4, by sheer luck, got to win the trophy. But now, face-it, this is the good solution. Independently from what anyone might think about personal opinions: the App::Part container with the App::Link interface is WORLDCLASS !!!!
Re: Request for a separate Assy file format
There are two major points in this: 1) It should be decided what the right format is. 2. It should be decided which one it is. And I fully agree here with Zolko. I would go even one step further: It has already been decided what the Assembly format is, and that's the Part container. Without any addon workbench I call it "poor man's assembly". And indeed Zolko is right: currently he is the only one using this given FreeCAD format.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.