Civil engineering feature implementation (Transportation Engineering)

[microelly2]

here some more prototypes for
clone, copy and reuse sketches from a sketch collection

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

my idea is to find methods which allow to replace low level detailed components by finer ones.

[Joel_graff]

@Joel_graff ping. Any proof of concepts yet ?

I haven't done anything lately. microelly2 was working on adapting the sketchobject parenting method to see it it could accommodate the hierarchy I described. Without that, there's not much to do at the moment. I also seem to have issues trying to get the sketchobjectpython scripts to work - it won't pick up on the 'pyob' module, for some reason.

[microelly2]

I also seem to have issues trying to get the sketchobjectpython scripts to work - it won't pick up on the 'pyob' module, for some reason.

at the moment I put all my work into the nurbs workbench, there the pyob module is integrated.
I work on the sketch driver for the ribs and it's for me a time of learning, how the sketches can interact.
I have to learn how to catch the exceptions of the sketcher solver to bring a system back to a state in the case
when a change is not possible.

[Joel_graff]

at the moment I put all my work into the nurbs workbench, there the pyob module is integrated.
I work on the sketch driver for the ribs and it's for me a time of learning, how the sketches can interact.
I have to learn how to catch the exceptions of the sketcher solver to bring a system back to a state in the case
when a change is not possible.

Ok, I'll see if I can get the nurbs workbench going.

The videos look really good!

[abdullah]

Regarding the "solver failure" a couple of pages of posts ago, I found it strange. In my experience, end-point-to-end-point tangency works quite nicely.

If there is still interest that I look into it, if you can save the sketch just in the moment before adding the offending arc, you could open a ticket with it. I will look into it in August-September.

Replying to your question. I am not aware of any way of forcing the solver to comply with ones undeclared wishes. The only way that generally works is declaring the wishes by providing a solution as close as possible before actually asking the solver to solve. The solver, as most people, is lazy enough to choose the easiest way out

[Kunda1]

If there is still interest that I look into it, if you can save the sketch just in the moment before adding the offending arc, you could open a ticket with it. I will look into it in August-September.

...

@joel_graff please open an issue in the tracker and link back to this thread

[Joel_graff]

I should mention there is no "offending arc" per se. It is, though, as abdullah states - the solver's taking the easiest way out, and if two items are not closely aligned, they're subject to being moved - I intuitively understood that's how the solver is meant to function. But, of course, it creates problems in our use case.

Thus, either we write code to generate geometry that matches the existing tangents closely (which I have an algorithm about half-written to do that), or add functionality to FreeCAD that allows us to "lock down" certain geometry for the solver - much like the lock constraint does.

I will open an issue for the latter option above.

[Joel_graff]

Posted as feature 003127. Starting to see that maybe I should have split it into two - a bug for the arc behavior and a feature for the alignment behavior.. ?

[Kunda1]

Posted as feature 003127. Starting to see that maybe I should have split it into two - a bug for the arc behavior and a feature for the alignment behavior.. ?

I assigned issue #3127 to Abdullah

[matt]

as a sidenote, alignment is implemented in ifc as ifcalignment

If I understood it correctly, parsing an "ifc-alignment-file" was implemented recently in ifcopenshell

maybe that helps?