A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Locked
User avatar
FBXL5
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:45 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by FBXL5 »

wsteffe wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:32 pm What's the problem in a body with more than one solid ?
It is forbidden by the single solid rule now...
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by wsteffe »

FBXL5 wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:00 pm t is forbidden by the single solid rule now...
Yes. And it is a pointless rule.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by chrisb »

I have split the post as it went totally off topic.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by wsteffe »

chrisb wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:36 pm I have split the post as it went totally off topic.
Good idea. But then let also change the thread title into something like "Allowing more solids in a Body container".
User avatar
Vincent B
Veteran
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:02 am
Location: La Rochelle, France

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by Vincent B »

I can't understand too why a body must have only one part...
if the name "body" not matches very well, just let's change it...
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by user1234 »

@FBXL5 or @chrisb : is it possible to rename the first post topic title, that it give a meaningful name? Thanks in advance!

Greetings
user1234
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by chrisb »

FBXL5 should do it, it's his post.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
FBXL5
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:45 pm

Re: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule

Post by FBXL5 »

I totally forgot that a half sentence of mine started all this. @chrisb split the thread and until his last post I didn't know that I have started this thread. :?
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53919
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule

Post by chrisb »

FBXL5 wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:27 am I totally forgot that a half sentence of mine started all this. @chrisb split the thread and until his last post I didn't know that I have started this thread. :?
Although Adrian started being off topic, you were the first one being completely off.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by drmacro »

wsteffe wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:20 pm
FBXL5 wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:00 pm t is forbidden by the single solid rule now...
Yes. And it is a pointless rule.
Pointless? Someone had a reason, at some point.

And, why is it a problem? It is simple enough to make multiple solids in Part workbench if that it is needed.

A bit of forethought is all it takes to design with the rule.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
Locked