PR #5357 - add feature to create tapered Pads / Pockets

Post here if you have re-based and finalised code to integrate into master, which was discussed, agreed to and tested in other forums. You can also submit your PR directly on github.
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: PR #5357 - add feature to create tapered Pads / Pockets

Post by adrianinsaval »

drmacro wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:37 pm I'm not convinced, about the priority of the TNP mitigation over other things. The rt branch has a working model that has been used extensively by many people worldwide. And that model has been merged master>rt a few times since the initial PR last April. So, why does it take 10 months and counting to go the other way?

And, "ooh it's being worked on in secret back room", really? Umm...secret open source...oxymoron maybe? For 10 months.
As I said, the planned prioritization of the TN merge never happened, it has been siting there forgotten, but it seems the plan was not adjusted accordingly. And I too have my doubts about the whole private conversation argument about it. If it really is the case that stuff is being discussed privately, then this is the wrong approach in FOSS.
Anyway, this is off-topic and we should discuss it elsewhere if we're going to.
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am

Re: PR #5357 - add feature to create tapered Pads / Pockets

Post by realthunder »

uwestoehr wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:44 am That is clear. I asked why you don't use the Part::FaceMakerCheese::makeFace() method to handle the inner wires. This method is used by PD loft. Therefore we can treat this method as being stable and I thought we should use existing methods preferably than to create new ones.
So the question is what drawback of Part::FaceMakerCheese::makeFace() do you see that you haven't used it for your rewrite?
Because 2D operation isn't really OCC's strength, especially when offset is involved. Offseting single wire on the other hand is much more robust, and so does cutting which is a 3D operation. For example, you can offset the inner wire beyond the outer wire boundary without any problem.

Another, more general question: Your work is absolutely amazing, but I don't see discussions about this nor PRs. Therefore I cannot follow a discussion, join the development or learn things. For example for the tapered padding, this was often requested by users but I never saw a PR. What was the reason?
It is actually part of the TopoNaming PR. The first batch which is already submitted contains all the TopoShape code like _splitWire(), linearize(), etc. If you follow that topo naming thread, you'll know that I mentioned in the OP that for user who is eager to try, I have already made the following up batches as branch TopoNamingPart, TopoNamingSketch and TopoNamingSketchPart. The taper angle feature is already included in TopoNamingPart. There are more enhancement of PartDesign in my branch, but has much more close dependency on the topo naming functionality and some others like rendering and tree view enhancement.

Can you in future please make directly a PR and start discussions? We have now more mergers and manpower to handle them. I know that debates need time and take energy but in the end we benefit from the different user application input and thus can setup solutions that suit the most.
Yes indeed. I'll try to make smaller PRs in the future.
Try Assembly3 (latest version 2021.10.15) along with my custom build of FreeCAD at here.
And if you'd like to show your support, you can donate through patreon, liberapay, or paypal
Post Reply