Topo Naming Solution in OCC 7.4.0 very important

[freecad-heini-1]

Yeah, it's there:
https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6
Please, please, please integrate it into Master.
Best regards
Wilfried

[vocx]

Yeah, it's there:...

Do you know what you are looking at?

Please see this link, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6

This is the same "Overview" documentation for OCCT 7.3, the version that is in current use by most people. It has the same "Topological naming" section as in 7.4. Do you see a difference?

This is the same for OCCT 7.2, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6

This is the same for OCCT 7.0, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6

Do you see any difference?

"Topological naming" just explains how the sub-elements are named; this explanation is the same that has existed since 7.0. But this section does not mean that the topological naming problem is solved in 7.4.

[freecad-heini-1]

O.k. thank's for your explanation, I'm sorry.

[jeno]

Yeah, it's there:...

Do you know what you are looking at?
Please see this link, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6
This is the same "Overview" documentation for OCCT 7.3, the version that is in current use by most people. It has the same "Topological naming" section as in 7.4. Do you see a difference?
This is the same for OCCT 7.2, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6
This is the same for OCCT 7.0, https://www.opencascade.com/doc/occt-7. ... t_ocaf_5_6
Do you see any difference?
"Topological naming" just explains how the sub-elements are named; this explanation is the same that has existed since 7.0. But this section does not mean that the topological naming problem is solved in 7.4.

Hi
I intially posted that link in the german sub, so it was my bad.
If you don't mind could you please answer me following
- From my plain user point of view this would be a set of tools to adress topo naming problems?
- In case it is, as it is since 7.0 in OCCT, nothing of this is in Freecad implemented?
- Are there any good reasons not to use it and instead develop a different soultion from scratch?

cheers

[Chris_G]

Here is a topic about OCC's OCAF framework :
FreeCAD OCAF and reinventing the wheel

From the beginning on FreeCAD was not designed as a pure CAD system but as a flexible system providing frameworks for different purposes. If it was a pure CAD system then the OCAF framework might have been sufficient but since it's not and we already know that we hit a dead end with OCAF why should we do the same mistake twice?

Reinventing something is not per se a bad thing. At the beginning of a project you can evolve very fast if you use an existing framework but the problems will appear in long-term. If a framework is not designed flexible enough (and I have my doubts with OCAF) then at some point you hit a dead end and either you live with its limitations or you put huge effort into implementing something new -- this effort is a multiple times higher than the effort you had if you implemented your own solution from the beginning on.

[jeno]

Here is a topic about OCC's OCAF framework :
FreeCAD OCAF and reinventing the wheel

From the beginning on FreeCAD was not designed as a pure CAD system but as a flexible system providing frameworks for different purposes. If it was a pure CAD system then the OCAF framework might have been sufficient but since it's not and we already know that we hit a dead end with OCAF why should we do the same mistake twice?

Reinventing something is not per se a bad thing. At the beginning of a project you can evolve very fast if you use an existing framework but the problems will appear in long-term. If a framework is not designed flexible enough (and I have my doubts with OCAF) then at some point you hit a dead end and either you live with its limitations or you put huge effort into implementing something new -- this effort is a multiple times higher than the effort you had if you implemented your own solution from the beginning on.

Thanks for pointing me to the discussion about OCAF. So the decision for not using it was already done.
Again sorry for the noise

[-alex-]

Again sorry for the noise

Ah, I guess your OP was due to a huge hope to see a fix of the toponaming issue, and every FreeCAD user share this hope I assume
BTW a fix already exists as you know maybe, Realthunder already merged a toponaming algorithm in his branch Asm3. I tested this branch by modelising some Partdesign parts. His algorithme works very well, allows very reliable and versatile models.
Realthunder plans to submit his algorithm to be merged for Freecad 0.20.
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 24#p345164
So, toponaming could be fixed during release 0.20.... wait and hope

[vocx]

...
So, toponaming could be fixed during release 0.20.... wait and hope

Exactly. This is what everybody wishes.

See Topological Naming, My Take.

[vocx]

I just wanted to re-iterate this by Werner.

Coin3D - FreeCAD Delegation to help move Coin3D forward

I find odd that in all those topics about the scene graph issue, the possibility of going with OCCT visualization is never considered. ...

In the early days of FreeCAD we were using the OCCT viewer and even its document framework OCAF. But at that time the viewer was extremely slow for larger objects and lacked of many features that we got with Coin3d for free. The only big advantage of the OCCT viewer over Coin3d was the available highlighting/selection mechanism but by writing our own nodes we could achieve something similar.

And the whole OCAF was a pain in the ass. We got it working for built-in object types but for all custom object types you had to register them with a very weird plugin mechanism which we never got working reliably. And documentation was either non-existent or very poor.

After spending 2-3 years on this we gave up and started to implement something that we have control over and that we understand.

[triplus]

Why are you bottom quoting? That is horrible!