name FreeCAD 0.91 instead of 0.20, means version after 0.19 could be 0.91

[uwestoehr]

a native assembly wb is a must, and that requires the Link development .

Just to understand, what do you miss in e.g. A2plus? I can use it now as e.g. the assembler in SolidWorks. Therefore I think this WB can be incorporated to FC and we are done. Sure, there are here and there issues that can be improved and some features are missing (e.g. animations of explode views) but this applies for all WBs in FC.

[uwestoehr]

So FC 0.20 could be confused with 0.2?

This is indeed an issue. Year version numbers are great, however to attract more users a 1.0 release helps a lot in my experience.

[NormandC]

Just to understand, what do you miss in e.g. A2plus? I can use it now as e.g. the assembler in SolidWorks. Therefore I think this WB can be incorporated to FC and we are done.

What's sorely missing is in-context editing of parts, or I think it is sometimes called "top down" assembly. A2plus is only "bottom up", you need to model all your parts separately, then assemble them. Quite often you need to create or edit a part while in the assembly, and reference topology from other parts (think PartDesign ShapeBinder). Such work flow is impossible with A2plus.

Very important also is multi-document model (multiple file types). Better instancing of parts, patterns... Other stuff is mentioned in the Assembly project development page on the wiki, which has not been updated in years. As far as I understand it, the LinkStage3 branch has the potential to make a good part of this possible.

[uwestoehr]

What's sorely missing is in-context editing of parts, or I think it is sometimes called "top down" assembly. A2plus is only "bottom up", you need to model all your parts separately, then assemble them. Quite often you need to create or edit a part while in the assembly, and reference topology from other parts (think PartDesign ShapeBinder). Such work flow is impossible with A2plus.

Hmm, but I can edit the parts from within the assembly, I just select a part and click to edit it. This is exactly the same as with SolidWorks.

Very important also is multi-document model (multiple file types).

I don't like this butI like how it is already implemented: The *.FCStd file format is a ZIP file, and thus a useful container. A2plus uses it as container for the parts in the assembly. This is very nice because I only need to copy or send one file and everybody opening the file gets all parts of the assembly. In contrary in Solidworks one need for example use for this the option "pack and go" which caused for me lots of troubles in the past.) So with A2plus I get "pack and go" for free without the need to take care.
Thus I don't understand why visibly multiple-file assemblies this would be an advantage over the existing multipls files within ZIP solution.

(I agree that the A2plus WB lacks still some features but it is already useful for real-life projects. I also tried out assembly 3 but this is too complex for my needs. I just want to assemble. When I want to edit a part, I want to use the corresponding WB. I mean one of the strengths is to have a WB for different tasks. The A2plus WB goes this way while assembly 3 mixed for my taste assembling with part editing.)

My point is not to advertise or critisize a WB. I only wonder why it is often stated in the forum that there is good assembler and I think there are already at least 2 WBs available (Assembly 3 and A2plus) and after a month of daily work using assemblies at least A2plus is as usable as the assemblers in other CAD programs. Features like Shapebinders from other parts could be implemented to both FC assembling WBs.

[Joel_graff]

Maybe for arch work FreeCAD is very near a 1.0 stage, but on the mechanical design side, a native assembly wb is a must, and that requires the Link development .

after a month of daily work using assemblies at least A2plus is as usable as the assemblers in other CAD programs.

Differences in opinion aside, is the Assembly workbench the only thing that really stands in the way of releasing FreeCAD 1.0?

Perhaps a better question to ask is, do we have good reason to believe we'll be ready for 1.0 within the next ten years? Given our release cycle, releasing 0.91 certainly gives us that long to figure out the Assembly issues.

[NormandC]

Hmm, but I can edit the parts from within the assembly, I just select a part and click to edit it. This is exactly the same as with SolidWorks.

You do not understand. I specifically wrote in-context. Meaning inside the assembly file. A2plus opens the original part document in a separate window. This is not "in-context". Let's say I have an assembly file that contains 2 parts, a disc and a base block. I want to drill holes in the disc, and I want the holes to match with those on the base block, and I want them to be linked to the block, so that if I change the location of the holes in the base block, the holes on the disc will automatically update. How do I do that in A2plus? Surely SolidWorks can do this.

Very important also is multi-document model (multiple file types).

I don't like this butI like how it is already implemented: The *.FCStd file format is a ZIP file, and thus a useful container. A2plus uses it as container for the parts in the assembly. This is very nice because I only need to copy or send one file and everybody opening the file gets all parts of the assembly. In contrary in Solidworks one need for example use for this the option "pack and go" which caused for me lots of troubles in the past.) So with A2plus I get "pack and go" for free without the need to take care.
Thus I don't understand why visibly multiple-file assemblies this would be an advantage over the existing multipls files within ZIP solution.

Scalability. To deal with large assemblies you need that. Also think about drawing pages. Currently the drawing pages need to reside inside the same document as the part or the assembly. When you have multiple pages it quickly bogs down the document. Right now, even a simple page can slow the whole document down if the part is complex (like screw threads). If you have a dedicated file type for drawings, you can separate them from the part/assembly document, thus reducing its size and the time required to open it/update it, because the drawing can be dealt with separately. And BTW, all those file types would be ZIP containers too, with a similar structure to the current FCStd.

is the Assembly workbench the only thing that really stands in the way of releasing FreeCAD 1.0?

No. The PartDesign wb needs a lot of further work, things were left unfinished like the Part container. Mirrored bodies, helical protrusion/cutout (helix managed internally by the command)... It needs to be "self-sufficient". Right now for some things you have to go back to the Part or Draft module and that messes up the tree (some of us really hate deep nested trees, and Bodies gobbled up by objects from other workbenches!). More measurement/inspection tools. Mass calculation, so materials with mass have to be defined. Interference calculation. Motion simulation in assemblies. TechDraw, even with wandererfan's amazing work needs a lot more development (it's still young after all). Currently its performance is lacking as I wrote above. Many dimensioning tools are missing, GD&T mostly missing as well as welding symbols. And on the modelling side, I haven't even mentioned surface tools, they need to integrate with PartDesign. Etc., etc.

[bernd]

I do not want to jumo to 1.0 ! The idea is to jump from 0.19 to 0.91, which would still give us more than ten years time (at the current release speed) to 1.0

[abdullah]

This is one of the periodic forum discussions.

Personally, I prefer the 0.18, 0.19, 0.20, 0.21 versioning type. In the past I said it were great to get in sync with the year. I am not sure any more. I am happy with you get 0.18 released early 2019 and if you want to get on the edge, switch to the development branch. So the number matches the development year rather than the date of release.

Until 2100 when most of us will long be nurturing underground insects or incinerated, we (or our next of kind) can decide whether FreeCAD 1.0 for 2100 is a good idea, or we should switch to FreeCAD 2.1 then.

Maybe I am just getting too old.

[saso]

Personally I would prefer if we just continue with the numbering that we have now (it sort of matches also with the year) and when we feel that we are ready for the "big" release I would just add a one, for example ... 0.20 -> 0.21 -> 1.22 -> 1.23 ...

Edit: was writing this at the same time as abdullah

[saso]

it sort of matches also with the year

was just thinking about this, it actually also matches the years of FC development, doesn't it, sort of the FC age ?