Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by freedman »

The Subject states my thought pattern. I've been in the computer industry forever and there is always some kind of work-around or at least a way to inch/mm forward. :) Thought I might start a thread and see what comes of it. Since no one is currently writing FreeCAD code I would base the progress on what could be done with a resident macro? Some of the folks here are so good with them.

I kind of understand how the links get broken like during an open file, during a change to a previous face. I also get it that once the error has occurred it's not one of those undo button things.

So, what is possible. I know that a macro could be written that logs the Physical Links and if they change it could prompt you. The macro could also log the Link list as it changes. It could prompt you to what occurred and ask you if you need to go to a backup file.

This might be enough to learn where the errors occur and when, with so many users a pattern might be easier to find.
Last edited by freedman on Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Could the Topographical naming issue be monitored?

Post by chrisb »

Please change the subject from "Topographical" to "topological".
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
triplus
Veteran
Posts: 9471
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by triplus »

freedman wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:01 pm Since no one is currently writing FreeCAD code I would base the progress on what could be done with a resident macro? Some of the folks here are so good with them.
Actually some are already writing TopoNaming related code. As standalone and as a part of A2plus/Assembly3 efforts:

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=27582
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=29207
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=25712
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by freedman »

I always liked A3, it looks great but I can't guarantee to get work done using a development tool. If it's settled down then maybe I could try it.
triplus
Veteran
Posts: 9471
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by triplus »

Actually it would be good if more end users would test Assembly 3 in relation to TopoNaming solution it provides.

P.S. Before trying to upstream a solution like that, some general sense of what it does and what it doesn't do will need to be established anyway.
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by freedman »

P.S. Before trying to upstream a solution like that, some general sense of what it does and what it doesn't do will need to be established anyway.
triplus, before I jump into A3 and try it again, is the direction to fully support Part Design (PD) Bodies and use all the PD structure. I always felt like A3 didn't really like PD because of PD issues, understandable if your trying to succeed and you see something holding you back. Last time I looked at A3 there was really cool arraying multiple assemblies, very good to see.

If realthunder can get a handle on the topological issue and I can work in A3 with my standard Part Design models, that would be fine. I think most users want some assurance they can recover in Part Design if things go bad in A3.

I think your right about broadcasting the current state of A3, I would like to see a status every month here in Open discussion. The feedback could also be helpful.
triplus
Veteran
Posts: 9471
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by triplus »

My suggestion went more in the direction, if you are experiencing TopoNaming issues in upstream FreeCAD, it would be great, if you would test the same use case with Assembly 3. And after to be vocal about the results. That would build some understanding, of just how capable current TopoNaming implementation in Assembly 3 is and what it can and can't do.

As for PartDesign future. PartDesign is a FreeCAD module used by most FreeCAD users in some way. Therefore PartDesign module needs to address different people needs and expectations. Be sure to mention your point of view, when developers ask for feedback, or when participating in a thread addressing some use case.
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by freedman »

triplus, you want me to be vocal.
Yeehaa !!!!!
I have a model (plastic mold) all made in Part Design (200 hours+) , I needed to change a revolve that has Datum planes hooked to it, I messed up by modifing the revolve with an open sketch. I just spent 3 hours trying to fix the model that broke and I could not get the Datum planes or Sketches to remap correctly. I remembered what you said and opened the file in an old version of A3, the remapping stuck in A3 and I brought it right back to FreeCAD standard and all is OK. Thank you so much, it looked like I was going to lose 3 hours worth of changes going to a viable backup.

I will be downloading the latest A3 to keep on hand, for sure.

Do you think using just Part Design in A3 is different, better or worse?
If I worked in Part Design using A3 will it keep me from returning to Standard FreeCAD?
I will also search this out in the forums.
triplus
Veteran
Posts: 9471
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by triplus »

AFAIK PartDesign workbench in Assembly 3 isn't getting any special attention. Potential changes are only introduce for other purposes. Such as Link or Assembly 3 purposes. As for file compatibility, no, highly likely that can't be guaranteed.
freedman wrote: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:13 am I have a model (plastic mold) all made in Part Design (200 hours+) , I needed to change a revolve that has Datum planes hooked to it, I messed up by modifing the revolve with an open sketch. I just spent 3 hours trying to fix the model that broke and I could not get the Datum planes or Sketches to remap correctly. I remembered what you said and opened the file in an old version of A3, the remapping stuck in A3 and I brought it right back to FreeCAD standard and all is OK. Thank you so much, it looked like I was going to lose 3 hours worth of changes going to a viable backup.
Good to hear that. Yes that is what we need. End users testing TopoNaming solution from Assembly 3, and providing the feedback. Ideally things like attached files and narrow down examples. For anybody being able to test the improvements. And for the discussion around it to be conducted. As we have too little of that. And until that happens, likely no TopoNaming solutions from Assembly 3 will be made available by default.
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Post by freedman »

The first thing I noticed and liked alot was A3 shows a highlight (with the error) when I hover over the (Red exclamation point item) broken feature in the tree. Unfortunately it can't fix it.

I noticed something (new to me), on my broken model when I view the tree the Origin shows a number but the sub-origin numbers (are all the same) are different. Something like this:

Origin019
X_Axis013
Y_Axis013
Z_Axis013
XY_Plane013
XZ_Plane013
YZ_Plane013

I don't even know if I can start to fix this.
Post Reply