First basic implementation
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: First basic implementation
I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to. The userinterface of NX feels a bit dated while ProE is beauteful but a little to smart and minimalistic for my taste.
Here is a Draft of the study, Will continue on it later with more pictures and better/longer explanations of functionality.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
Here is a Draft of the study, Will continue on it later with more pictures and better/longer explanations of functionality.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
Last edited by maidenone on Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: First basic implementation
That is certainly the reason. I use Solid Edge and find SolidWorks' GUI a total mess.maidenone wrote:I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to.
Although I use at work an old version of Solid Edge prior to Synchronous Technology.
Re: First basic implementation
You have one strange Pro-E versionmaidenone wrote:I found that SolidWorks is best, probably because that what i am used to. The userinterface of NX feels a bit dated while ProE is beauteful but a little to smart and minimalistic for my taste.
Here is a Draft of the study, Will continue on it later with more pictures and better/longer explanations of functionality.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qB0Lk ... sp=sharing
I think you mixed up between Pro-E and Autodesk Inventor. Pro-E's GUI is very basic compared to Inventor.
Re: First basic implementation
Its actually Autodesk inventor Fusion, but some times it calls itself ProE :S, its not a application i have used before.
Re: First basic implementation
In any case that's a very interesting document you made... Thanks!
Re: First basic implementation
Hi guys,
I've checked out the dev-assembly branch from git, but failed to compile with the following error:
FreeCad/free-cad-code/src/Mod/Assembly/App/opendcm/core/equations.hpp:33:41: fatal error: boost/fusion/include/copy.hpp: No such file or directory
I have boost/fusion/include in /usr/include directory, but there is no copy.hpp file...
Any ideas?
I have boost-dev installed.
Using Ubuntu 11.10
Thanks,
Alex
I've checked out the dev-assembly branch from git, but failed to compile with the following error:
FreeCad/free-cad-code/src/Mod/Assembly/App/opendcm/core/equations.hpp:33:41: fatal error: boost/fusion/include/copy.hpp: No such file or directory
I have boost/fusion/include in /usr/include directory, but there is no copy.hpp file...
Any ideas?
I have boost-dev installed.
Using Ubuntu 11.10
Thanks,
Alex
Re: First basic implementation
I checked that: copy was introduced with version 1.48, so you need at least that boost version. Don't know which one is shipped with ubuntu 11.10.
Re: First basic implementation
Ubuntu 11.10 is not longer maintained so you should consider upgrading to the LTS version. There boost 1.48 is used.
Re: First basic implementation
Thanks for fast reply.
Indeed, I have 1.46 here.
Another good reason to upgrade...
Indeed, I have 1.46 here.
Another good reason to upgrade...
Re: First basic implementation
All of this about building "Assembly" is way beyond my understanding. So... a question.(again)
In FreeCAD, is *every* line, arc, circle, point or any other *basic* shape identified and stored in the document file such that "assembly" could refer to it to retrieve info and set constraints? The answer is probably obvious to you folks. I just don't go there.
In FreeCAD, is *every* line, arc, circle, point or any other *basic* shape identified and stored in the document file such that "assembly" could refer to it to retrieve info and set constraints? The answer is probably obvious to you folks. I just don't go there.