Request for a separate Assy file format

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!
User avatar
thomas-neemann
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
Location: Osnabrück DE

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby thomas-neemann » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:35 pm

user1234 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:31 pm No one i am allowed to show because of contracts. Maybe later i can search an old project that i made in private. But it should be clear that a assembly have different properties like a part.
yes that is clear, but i can create a unique designation of an assembly and a part and e.g. in an excel table any amount of information can be "announced"
falls ein video-link von mir schwarz und nicht anklickbar sein sollte, hier der kanal: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVcztV ... 03GgKekj_g
es ist auch möglich auf antworten zu klicken um den link zu sehen.
user1234
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby user1234 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:44 pm

thomas-neemann wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:35 pm excel table
Yuck! Also for me as an one man show. Reminds me on a time of the brain drained SAP. But that is too much off topic.
User avatar
thomas-neemann
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
Location: Osnabrück DE

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby thomas-neemann » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:47 pm

user1234 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:44 pm
thomas-neemann wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:35 pm excel table
Yuck! Also for me as an one man show. Reminds me on a time of the brain drained SAP. But that is too much off topic.
I'm out
falls ein video-link von mir schwarz und nicht anklickbar sein sollte, hier der kanal: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVcztV ... 03GgKekj_g
es ist auch möglich auf antworten zu klicken um den link zu sehen.
freedman
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby freedman » Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:03 am

thomas-neemann wrote
in my opinion, everything is already there that is necessary without assembly wbs
In my macro stuff I'm moving Parts and placing Parts in Parts. I have found that if there were locks on the properties of a Part it can be used as an assembly. Part would need to have a placement offset X,Y,Z added to it for positioning so it's rotation could be around it's own axis. Assembly doesn't seem all that difficult if you just think about the act of locking some axis or restricting movements inside a Part.

Assembly storage data and all the extra bits I know little about, I would give way to Zolko experience in this area for sure. I think we would all like to have some kind of Assembly without adding too much.
User avatar
Zolko
Posts: 1370
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:02 am

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby Zolko » Fri May 07, 2021 5:58 pm

thomas-neemann wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:42 am in my opinion, everything is already there that is necessary without assembly wbs
Yes, this is also my opinion.

BUT:

what I propose is to make this the official FreeCAD position: let's decide that the App::Part (Std_Part) container is *THE* assembly container, which can contain any other "stuff" , including other App::Part things, building nested assemblies. What I mean by that is that it is possible, today, thanks to realthunder's App::Link interface introduced in v0.19, to build assemblies - even complex, nested assemblies - with core FreeCAD.

What I also propose is to separate the data structure (of loading external parts) from the placement of these parts relative to each other. This is a separate problem that should be dealt with by geometry solvers. Any and all such solvers should calculate the "Placement" property of the included objects. The most basic of such solver being manual placement. Another placement is of course Assembly4's Placement calculation through datum objects and the ExpressionEngine, but this is clearly only one of such possible solvers.

What this means in practice is that A2+ and Asm3 should be "ported " to the App::Part container. Yes, I know, some people might think that I try to pull the cover to the Asm4 file format, but what I'm trying to say is the exact opposite : it's *BECAUSE* that file structure is good that Asm4, by sheer luck, got to win the trophy. But now, face-it, this is the good solution. Independently from what anyone might think about personal opinions: the App::Part container with the App::Link interface is WORLDCLASS !!!!
try the Assembly4 workbench for FreCAD v0.19
install with Tools > Addon Manager > Assembly4 — tutorials here and here
chrisb
Posts: 35099
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Request for a separate Assy file format

Postby chrisb » Fri May 07, 2021 6:48 pm

Zolko wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 5:58 pm what I propose
There are two major points in this: 1) It should be decided what the right format is. 2. It should be decided which one it is. And I fully agree here with Zolko. I would go even one step further: It has already been decided what the Assembly format is, and that's the Part container. Without any addon workbench I call it "poor man's assembly". And indeed Zolko is right: currently he is the only one using this given FreeCAD format.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.