In this simple case (two solids inside a part) it is doing ok, yes
It can seem to be useless to have additional bodies and groups (geometrical sets in catia) when we have such simple examples (just two solids inside one part), but they start to become very useful when you have hundreds of elements inside one part, because they help to group and manage them. But as I have argued before our implementation of bodies in FC is IMO wrong. They behave similar like Part containers but should actually behave more like Groups.easyw-fc wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:51 am And does it sound useful to add a Body container and place a solid inside a Body, considering that FC Body doesn't allow inside a simple Solid?
No, because we don't have a proper Assembly container. So the simple example works ok because it has just one part (no assemblies), the larger example is however all wrong. One does not put part containers in to part containers and one does not put geometry directly in to assembly containers (well we could debate about this in the future, but I would strongly prefer if we first implement the proper basic architecture of assemblies and parts).easyw-fc wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:51 am I think what at the moment is implemented is a good representation of the STEP structure (STEP doesn't have any history of the included shapes).
It can be sure improved, but I think the 'Part' container for the hierarchy is the right one to be used as it is implemented now.
This is how the second larger example should look in FC if we would have a proper implementation of the assembly container (note that I had to change all the parts to assemblies and add additional parts for all the solids and that there are no bodies, but it would also be ok if there would be or personally I would say that it would be even better ). And if you compare this now to the 3DAnalyzer or catia tree (or actually to any other parametric cad) you will see that things are as they should be.