Assembly3 preview

[m.cavallerin]

Thank you very much for the response, next time I'll pay more attention.

In any case, are you foreseeing to make a new APP image with the new upgrade?
Thanks

[realthunder]

In any case, are you foreseeing to make a new APP image with the new upgrade?

Yes, sure. I'll try to make a release this month.

[gflorent]

Please see:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 36#p269636

Any reason why renaming objects in the model view in the realthunder's branch of FreeCAD (Assembly3) gets dots replaced by underscores?

[m.cavallerin]

Hi,

is there a way to set a sort o "flexiblity" to the assembly items?

This comes from Solidworks on-line help:

By default, when you create a subassembly, it is rigid. Within the parent assembly, the subassembly acts as a single unit and its components do not move relative to each other. However, you can make subassemblies flexible. This allows movement of the individual components of a subassembly within the parent assembly.
An example of the benefit of this function is when you want to move the components of a piston subassembly in a motor assembly. You can move the individual components of the piston while still grouping the components as a subassembly.

Note the following regarding flexible subassemblies:
Mates The mates in a flexible subassembly are solved simultaneously with the mates of the parent assembly. Therefore, moving or rotating a subassembly component does not violate the mates in the subassembly or its parent. A component moves only within its degrees of freedom according to its mates.
Multiple Instances You can insert more than one instance of the subassembly in the same configuration of the parent assembly. You can make some instances rigid and others flexible, and the different instances can have different positions of the subassembly components.

Thanks.

Regards.

[ceremcem]

is there a way to set a sort o "flexiblity" to the assembly items?

Please see https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_ ... /issues/28

[triplus]

@realthunder

I was wondering if you would be interested in making Part_Shapebuilder command parametric? That would i guess bring a plethora of new use cases, being possible, to FreeCAD. In addition it would be interesting to see on how the proposed TopoNaming functionality would be able to deal with such geometry.

[triplus]

Another question regarding Link:

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 70#p276470

Is it expected for commands like Part Extrude, to be able to work with linked features such as Sketch?

Thanks.

[realthunder]

I was wondering if you would be interested in making Part_Shapebuilder command parametric? That would i guess bring a plethora of new use cases, being possible, to FreeCAD. In addition it would be interesting to see on how the proposed TopoNaming functionality would be able to deal with such geometry.

It should be easy to do, we've already have feature like Part::Face.

Is it expected for commands like Part Extrude, to be able to work with linked features such as Sketch?

Yes, this is already doable. It's just that the Part command for creating extrude hasn't been ported completely. The Part::Extrusion and most of other Part features can already accept linked objects. For now, you can use the "Replace with link" trick as I shown below. If you want to link across different document. Simply copy the original object, such as the sketch here to a new document, and then go back and change the link. Make sure you have at least saved once both the linking and linked documents.

phpBB [video]

[wsteffe]

It's just that the Part command for creating extrude hasn't been ported completely. The Part::Extrusion and most of other Part features can already accept linked objects.

I think you are going to port (to let them use the linkage facilities) also other tools and in particular the sketch tool.
This is probably what you meant when, in a post inside of developers corner, you wrote the following sentence:
"It happens that I am actually planning to work on sketch external geometry next, not specific to abdullah's PR, but should be inclusive."

Is it true ?

[realthunder]

I think you are going to port (to let them use the linkage facilities) also other tools and in particular the sketch tool.
This is probably what you meant when, in a post inside of developers corner, you wrote the following sentence:
"It happens that I am actually planning to work on sketch external geometry next, not specific to abdullah's PR, but should be inclusive."

Is it true ?

No, that's not what I meant. The linkage facilities is quite easy to use, but there are just so many places need to be changed.

The work 'external' in sketch external geometry does not mean it is from an object of another document. And I have no plan to change that, at least not now. What I meant by that sentence is about improving the sketch external geometry stability. Upstream sketch will silently delete all constraints against external geometry in case of any missing geometry reference due to model change. This is potentially a time-bomb, and it gets triggered often in my branch because of all the new functionality. And I have already fixed it. External geometry in sketch can now be frozen, detached, re-attached, and defining (i.e. for building shape). Any missing reference will be explicitly shown to user, who will have the choice of either manually re-attach, auto fix, or detach. It currently resides in my LinkDev branch, and will soon be merged to LinkStage3.