wsteffe wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:10 am
Ok I may agree on that. But here the point is the mixing of history based modeling (which make use of sketches and related 2D constraints) with the 3D constrains of assembly module. In NX you may use 3D constraints to align a couple of faces. Then you may stretch the geometry containing the first face and by doing that you are stretching also an other geometry because the two faces must stay aligned.
But, before doing that, I you have to switch to the non ordered mode which deactivates the history tree.
Anyway I think that probably in FC the 3D constraints may coexist with the history tree because they can be used only the define relative positions of different bodies and not to deform the geometry as in NX.
Ok, this is going a bit back to the discussion about the constraints between the geometry in the Part and constraints between the Parts in the Assembly... I know what you mean, the thing is that this (constraining geometry in the Part) is indeed not the "normal" way of doing things, the "normal" workflow in the Part is to have everything mapped and fixed, for example you start from the origin, or set a point or an lcs and then you create an datum plan from it and a fully constrained sketch on that datum plane, and an extrude/pad from the sketch and a fillet on it,... so in the end everything is already fixed. So for example also in Catia, from what I know, this works only if you have some geometry that is not fully constrained, here is an example of this, and yes in Catia the sketcher constraints are used for this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbQg52jV6uY
Personally I am not so much interested in this, but it is how I see the asm2+ and asm3 are already working so if we already have this, we could keep it, if we manage to make it work additionally to the more "normal" way