This is one of those terrible decisions where an arbitrary artificial restriction is placed for some weird philosophy for no benefit.
I'm actually trying to highlight the fact that you are talking about optional so that others may stop talking as if this was going to be mandatory.You keep on talking mandatory, where I keep on talking optional.
This is completely unrelated to the subject, the functionality is not implemented in FreeCAD, adding restrictions to files does not change this. If you want this then what you need is to implement the functionality in FreeCAD. If you have trouble figuring out to what you should assign which materials you probably should review your modelling workflow. I don't get what you mean with labels.And also things such as assigning a material, to which body do you assign it? And what is the weight of that body? And things such as labels, it's the same thing. In Pro/E I could do assign a material and then I could measure the weight and even the COG (all within one program), I didn't need an external WB to do this.
single file won't ever break due to a renamed/moved/missing file, also at creation it is a lot more convenient and easy to make a single file rather than creating each separately then creating a new one for the only purpose of putting them all together (this absurd limitation frustrated me a lot when I used solidworks after a long time with FreeCAD). For small or simple projects having separate files and dedicated assembly file is overkill, for products designed in a corporate environment separating is the best choice, FreeCAD allows both.Tell me, what is the difference with opening an assy and a multi-object part?
agreedobelisk79 wrote:flexibility vs protecting a designer from themselves. I prefer flexibility.
Anyways, this discussion is going nowhere, you're never going to convince us that this is a must because it isn't for us and I see no point in convincing you don't need this. Like I said, it is clear there isn't a general interest in implementing this so it is up to the few that are interested, if you desire I recommend looking into how to implement this then create a topic dedicated exclusively to technical question about how to implement, not modelling philosophy. This might have been your intent, but the OP was too broad, without details of how you intend to implement such an option it is not possible to foresee the problems that will arise without doing research, and we're not going to do research on a subject we have no interest in, so initial research is once again up to the people interested. You can of course ask for help and/or guidance on technical stuff once you have started looking into it.
This is statement for example is very vague, what is going to be on the preference tab? An option to disallow saving as FCStd files? What if someone sends a FCStd file then? The two workflows have to coexist or we would have to go and change that setting very often. So the decision to use one or another workflow has to be made when creating or saving the file, at most you can make a setting for some default preferred behavior, but without details about how this works it's hard to think of what preferences would be meaningful.
Then you have a problem already, Zolko is the main dev for asm4 and has already expressed to be against this, I doubt you'll change his mind because your arguments are honestly not very strong and he's also kinda stubborn from what I've seen. Once again the change has to come from the people interested in it, if you implement an optional filetype in FreeCAD and make a PR to support this as an option in the WB it'll probably get accepted.No. Do you wanna know why? I think that I can do the part thing (as long as it is Python), but assemblies are a lot harder because of external WB and drafting is also a region that I don't know exactly.
If there's nobody with the desire of implementing this then further discussion is pointless IMO.