Assembly3, A2plus, Assembly4? Get united!

[chrisb]

I think that what really matters is not so much the functions of an assembly workbench, but the data structure representing the assembly.

You are very right. Talking about functions was an unappropriate generalization.

[Kunda1]

@chrisb, thanks for starting this discussion. This is on a lot of peoples minds

[chrisb]

I'm glad I did - and it seems already fruitful. Thanks to all contributors.

[realthunder]

Other WB's have also problems with TopoNaming.
I think this should be the first point of all of the todolists

Zolko's LCS idea? Realthunder's named mating interfaces idea ("elements")?

These are workarounds around toponaming

I have directly tackled this problem. See here and here.

[realthunder]

Interesting ... Assembly4 uses the ExpressionEngine of the Placement property of an App::Link, not the Link Placement property. realthunder, what do you think ? I know that you had already told something about it, but I must admit I didn't understand, with the toggling of the Link Transform between True and False. Should an assembly rather use the Link Placement or the Placement property of an App::Link ? (at least in the case of the ExpressionEngine)

LinkPlacement and Placement in a App::Link are exactly the same, with the same value and everything. It is used here to trick the property editor to either display the linked object's Placement or link's Placement.

[freecad-heini-1]

Hello,
I would like to take part in the discussion. I've worked my way into Assembly 2 plus and Assembly 3.
A2+ can't handle datum plans, axis and other datum features yet. However, to be able to create robust assemblies, such a way of working is highly recommended.

Walter (roerich_64) summed it up. The main challenge is to get Topo-Logical Naming under control. Only then will it be possible to construct robust models and assemblies.

Some time ago I had subjected Realthunders App Image to a topo-naming stress test and can say that it is going in the right direction. Not quite as good as PTC-Creo yet, but an experienced Freecad user who knows his model and works according to a certain methodology is much less likely to fall into the Topo Naming trap.

I think Chris' initiative to bring the developers of the different assembly workbenches together and take the best from all projects is very good.

It also needs users to test it.

Many greetings
Wilfried

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

[easyw-fc]

Just an inside from my user case...
A2+ has unfortunately issues with STEP exporting, because an assembly can easily loose the solid property and became a shell.

This is not good when you need to check volume collisions with an assembly and an other imported model (i.e. a box container).
In my user case, even if I really like A2+, A3 and A4 are the best options.

[BassMati]

What i also would like to see, if a WB like Fasteners or Bolts would be part of the Assembly WB... A Fastener you need only if you puts different parts togehther, what an asm WB is made for.

I consider fasteners as an ordinary Body, Part, or Assembly, so I suggest to move fasteners into the library domain. In general, as being still quite an FC Newbie, I prefer to learn few, but powerful concepts. That quickly gets me started. Many or very specialized tools tend to slow me down in the learning process.

This is why I hope that Assembly becomes the new Part - a container for Bodies, Solids and whatever objects, and nested Parts (Assemblies). The storage location, same or different file, should be transparent. In conjunction with the Link, we also have the basis for flexible library concepts.

But it should be possible to layer a "fasteners" tool on top of this concept, so that we both can live with, or without it.

what would be a very great thing, if the at a ASM WB given constraints will work for the (an) Animation WB to. Turning a part around it's bearing to check for collision... a dream...

Currently I design my sub-assemblies with the axis around the coordinate system (but without mating constraints), which makes it easy to rotate or translate it (carefully) around the degree(s) of freedom, and check for collisions. With the mating constraints in Assembly3 (and 4?), your dream should already be reality…

[BassMati]

I don't mind where these parts live, but I find it rather appealing to have direct access to standard parts during assembly.

This is why I fell instantly in love with Links!

[BassMati]

I think that what really matters is not so much the functions of an assembly workbench, but the data structure representing the assembly.

Good point. I am thinking about three simple, basic data structures:

- Design Element, implemented by Bodies, Solids, and other objects
- Container for design elements and Containers (currently Body or Assembly)
- Link to Container or Design Element.

Once published, the definitions are immutable (but extensible), so the SW in 20 years should be able to handle even old designs. (An idea of (D)COM)

Just a thought that came to my mind.

In companies I have worked, they archived the development tools, not only designs.