Icons for Part and Group

[easyw-fc]

Source files of the new designs

STEP new hierarchy from the @vejmarie improvements is an assembly and it is using App::Part container ...
So one of this icons would perfectly fit Part for STEP user case, similar to assy in SW screenshots
EDIT
Part_v03 is my choice

[triplus]

When it comes to proposed Part feature icon i feel that we shouldn't complicate too much for now. As the whole situation around the Part feature itself isn't yet 100% clear. In the following year or two when things will become more clear the icon can be adapted more precisely to represent the feature if that will be needed.

[NormandC]

pablogil already gave two choices that are suited for a Part container. Why not pick one already rather than an obviously irrelevant one (the very first)?

Part_v03 is my choice

+1 But as I said, maybe it should be blue rather than yellow? Or mostly blue apart from a single yellow cube (Part_v04 with switched colours). I don't know anymore

[triplus]

Because of the ambiguity involved.

We are basically discussing suitableness of an icon to best represent a Part feature. But we don't yet fully understand Part feature itself.

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 59#p167803

Therefore all proposed icons could be subtitle. But i guess all of them only up to a point. And who knows maybe the feature name itself doesn't yet best reflect what the feature actually is. Maybe it is more or less a coordinate system related feature. And therefore most suitable name and icon wasn't proposed yet? What is up with all the container related terminology and where does/should it start/end. In addition we are looking at it through PartDesign prism. But it was said this is a general feature to be used in all workbenches. For what purpose exactly? It will take much more time to pinpoint this more accurately. Second and third example try to go into assembly waters. And again we are not there yet. And such icon won't change that. And how should future assembly feature icon look like then? If we are already there with Part feature icon?

[NormandC]

Exactly what confusion is there.

One icon represents a single contiguous solid. The other two represent multiple components. Which is what the Part container is all about.

Your link is irrelevant.

Let me remind you once again of what ickby wrote about the Part container.

Part. A part is not related to PartDesign but is a new general FreeCAD element. It provides a local coordinate system and can be used to group any kind of FreeCAD stuff and move it as one unit. This will be the future basis for assemblies.

A Part container has more in common with a Part compound (or even a Group) than with a Boolean union, because all its components are still separate rather than fused together.

So where again is the confusion?

[triplus]

Your link is irrelevant.

After i opened that thread suddenly a common understanding of what Part feature is emerged here on the forum. And the conclusions made in that thread are what is currently accepted and repeated here on the forum as the truth. I just wanted to remind everybody we are not there yet. Conclusions are still leaving room for ambiguity and therefore there is still some work to do. As for relevance/irrelevance i feel that i don't have to justify that as the discussion results from that thread speak for themself.

Let me remind you once again ...

Yes he wrote it is a local coordinate system related feature and can be used in all workbenches and it is not an assembly feature. Exactly what i pointed out in this discussion. That is current terminology and icon (proposals) can therefore leave some room for ambiguity. And might not be the best representation of the situation in the first place.

And in my opinion we are just not there yet to remove the ambiguity. After using PartDesign NEXT for lets say a year and after using Part feature in other workbenches and after we will get a feeling on how Assembly feature will work. And i guess after some adjustments to PartDesign NEXT will be made based on the general consensus. Then i guess we will be able to say with high level of certainty what Part feature is and what is the suitable icon for it. If you are claiming you already know all that now and have a solution for everything now i most certainty vote for your proposal. As it will likely save me and others a lot of confusion (and the work needed to remove the confusion).

P.S. Or are you claiming things are perfect as they are and there is no (substantial level of) ambiguity involved? If that is the case then we will just have to agree we disagree and that is that for now.

[NormandC]

P.S. Or are you claiming things are perfect as they are and there is no (substantial level of) ambiguity involved?

I am claiming that you are an expert in fostering ambiguity. You thrive on it.

I am claiming that reading your ramblings is a waste of time. The only reason I continue to is to put light on your bullshit when necessary.

[triplus]

Nah. You are just incapable of crediting (me) and feel you need to diminish my achievements as that will somehow make yours look better. And that is all there is to it. It's such a basic obvious human/rivalry thing/urge isn't it? As for the smear campaigns. I more or less always had a stance that shows more about the ones doing them compared to the addressee.

For example i (among others) was vocal (for months/years) on how PartDesign NEXT should be made in a way that it would allow commands from different workbenches to be used in PDN workflow. It is hard task to first establish this and to make some progress especially if main developer doesn't want to go down this road.

One of the first real tasks/tutorials you did with PDN you quickly realized:

About the offset sketches, I tried using the new Part Offset 2D tool. Unfortunately it cannot be included in a PD Body, which is a pity.

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 10#p185616

But i am 100% sure if we would have such debate a year or two back you would rather claim BS as seen above then reach consesus. I have settled with that fact over the years and just wanted to point that fact out as i don't remeber pointing it out already.

P.S. As for the in my opinion valid input about the Part feature ambiguity involved. Lets wait and see what happens in the future. As in the end it was decided we need more regular user feedback before changing anything anyway.

[peterl94]

I guess it would be more consistent if it was blue (e.g. icon for Body), but I think it would be harder to see the details. I like the yellow... But now I'm probably just "bike-shedding"

[Jee-Bee]

Here you have other options following the same "simple" idea:
Part_v02.png
Part_v03.png
Part_v04.png

You have showed some examples but i would ask make an forth icon for assembly. Yes we don't have one workbench for that but for me specially Part_04 is just an assembly icon...