Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
I know this issue is many years old.
I do not have a great wish to start running the bleeding edge of forks, and then wonder why my files are incompatible with FreeCAD.
On the other side... what Realthunder does is very tempting, long overdue, and .. more and more instructional videos on youtube uses he's builds.
Temptation.
is there hope that some of the essential goodies will come to FreeCAD this year?
I do not have a great wish to start running the bleeding edge of forks, and then wonder why my files are incompatible with FreeCAD.
On the other side... what Realthunder does is very tempting, long overdue, and .. more and more instructional videos on youtube uses he's builds.
Temptation.
is there hope that some of the essential goodies will come to FreeCAD this year?
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
It is possible to use the master branch and, at least, minimize the issues.
In fact, even without tnp, the techniques that mitigate its effects, will remain good ways to create robust models.
It is rumored that work is underway to merge the rt branch mitigation code...
In the meantime, if it is burdensome to handle the remapping of sketches yourself, you can add sketches/datums to generated geometry, then use the Python here to remap to base planes:
https://github.com/sebasg84/planeFromFace
In fact, even without tnp, the techniques that mitigate its effects, will remain good ways to create robust models.
It is rumored that work is underway to merge the rt branch mitigation code...
In the meantime, if it is burdensome to handle the remapping of sketches yourself, you can add sketches/datums to generated geometry, then use the Python here to remap to base planes:
https://github.com/sebasg84/planeFromFace
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
@drmarco are you saying that FreeCAD master(and weekly builds), containing some of the THP fixes already?
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
No.
I'm saying just that. It is rumoured there is work going on, somewhere on the merging of the TNP mitigation code.
And, for the record, it is not a fix. It simply mitigates the issue.
Yes, many will say that the mitigation is fix enough, etc., but it is a mitigation; it can and does still happen.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
The merge of TNP pull request would be great, but as @drmacro says good practices are still better than quick n dirty modeling.
Here is a topic with more informations about how to get stronger parametric models in FC:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... le#p553407
Here is a topic with more informations about how to get stronger parametric models in FC:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... le#p553407
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
It's crazy to see how much it takes to stabilize the codebase after integrating new features etc...Work is still happening to stabilize Expression/Spreadsheet patches from RT in to master.
Toponaming is so core that it takes a crapload of time. I'm not speaking for the team but it looks like TNP might get bumped to v0.21 release because so much has been updated in v0.20 already. To tackle TNP along with it will take another year to release v0.20 which is a headache for all of us who support users on the forum.
I know this is disappointing, but I can't blame the team for postponing it. It's so very tedious and is not fun to do as a volunteer. Just to re-iterate, just because realthunder has implemented a solution on his branch doesn't mean it can be cut and pasted in to upstream.
Toponaming is so core that it takes a crapload of time. I'm not speaking for the team but it looks like TNP might get bumped to v0.21 release because so much has been updated in v0.20 already. To tackle TNP along with it will take another year to release v0.20 which is a headache for all of us who support users on the forum.
I know this is disappointing, but I can't blame the team for postponing it. It's so very tedious and is not fun to do as a volunteer. Just to re-iterate, just because realthunder has implemented a solution on his branch doesn't mean it can be cut and pasted in to upstream.
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
I do feel like it is somewhat folly that the TNP PR(s) haven't taken priority #1.
The code has been fairly rigorously tested through actual use and user feedback for quite some time now in RT's fork. While I certainly commend Werner for his outstanding record on code quality and stability, I don't see why we couldn't create an experimental branch with builds and torture test the algorithm for bugs and faults while a coordinated effort on code review takes place.
No doubt a daunting task, but I think a critical step in making FreeCAD a better piece of software from a functionality standpoint. While obviously quick and dirty models are less than ideal, they certainly have their place for one-off use/designs.
We all have our own opinions on the matter of course and I'm sure not everyone agrees with me. Best to all and thanks FC team for everything you do, my critique isn't meant to be an insult and I hope it isn't received as such.
The code has been fairly rigorously tested through actual use and user feedback for quite some time now in RT's fork. While I certainly commend Werner for his outstanding record on code quality and stability, I don't see why we couldn't create an experimental branch with builds and torture test the algorithm for bugs and faults while a coordinated effort on code review takes place.
No doubt a daunting task, but I think a critical step in making FreeCAD a better piece of software from a functionality standpoint. While obviously quick and dirty models are less than ideal, they certainly have their place for one-off use/designs.
We all have our own opinions on the matter of course and I'm sure not everyone agrees with me. Best to all and thanks FC team for everything you do, my critique isn't meant to be an insult and I hope it isn't received as such.
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
This is what I was voting for. And this could still happen. Especially now that we have more devs and packagers that could be available to make this happen.
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
The number 1 priority is to fix the (IMHO most annoying) regression caused by the last big merge in August 2019 which is the AutoComplete in Expressions, @realthunder even submitted a PR to fix it back in February 2020 https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3062
So as far as I'm concerned unless the trivial bells and whistles (not bug fixes) are all put on hold so the devs can concentrate on the things that the community believe really matter then I really can't see anything changing.
Re: Topological naming mess vs Realtunder : when can we hope for a solution?
This was for quite some time said to be a show stopper for 0.19 - which I think wouldn't have been wrong, because AFAICS most work in a model is indeed done in sketches.Syres wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:21 am The number 1 priority is to fix the (IMHO most annoying) regression caused by the last big merge in August 2019 which is the AutoComplete in Expressions, @realthunder even submitted a PR to fix it back in February 2020 https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3062
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.