The need for a default assembly workbench

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!
User avatar
Krypto
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:45 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by Krypto »

sliptonic wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:59 pm It's time to take a look at Assembly 4
I've only used AS3, so these articles about the other assembly workbenches are very informative. Thanks!
User avatar
rmn_hr
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2022 7:54 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by rmn_hr »

sliptonic wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:59 pm It's time to take a look at Assembly 4
An example for ASM4-usage as an alternative of a multi-body-approach by rebeltaz:
paint_shaker_asm.JPG
paint_shaker_asm.JPG (51.79 KiB) Viewed 1439 times
There are four components (mounting_plate, motor, gear_main, gear_secondary) assembled in paint_shaker_asm.
For gear_secondary there is an alternative version called gear_secondary_sep.
Making one visible, the other invisible toggles the configuration of paint_shaker

Each component is designed as PartDesign-Body with necessary LCS placed within Body and stored as single file e.g. motor.FCStd
paint_shaker_asm is a ASM4-model container (the yellow cube with a blue corner) where this components are linked to a final assembly.

The discussion with rebeltaz and resulting files are available in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=73249

Saving them to a common directory on a local drive and opening paint_shaker_asm.FCStd will show the assembly.
File handling of FreeCAD makes it pretty easy to move a structure like this - just keep all files (of a project) in a common directory.

Remark:
- gears are designed with Gear-WB, but for opening the assembly Gear-WB is not necessary!!
- ASM4-rework in Nov 2022 with FreeCAD ver 30922, Assembly4 ver 0.12.4 on Windows 10
- a download today and open the assembly in FreeCAD ver 32637, Assembly4 ver 0.12.6 on Windows 10 without complains

I'm very happy with ASM4 and it works very well even with complex structures (my maximum is six levels of subassemblies).
My workflow: create single components in PartDesign and arrange them with Zolko's Assembly4
(https://github.com/Zolko-123/FreeCAD_Assembly4 )

FreeCAD works pretty well and stable for me !! :)
Hymn of Praise valid again since FreeCAD 0.22.35449
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by sliptonic »

You asked us to include some of the other Assembly-like tools and we heard you.
Here's part six of our series. A Bonus article looking at BodyBuilder macro, the Manipulator workbench, and Part-O-Magic.

https://ondsel.com/blog/default-assembly-workbench-6
User avatar
Zolko
Veteran
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:02 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by Zolko »

sliptonic wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:29 am Here's part six of our series.
Nice, thank-you

But before we do that, let’s quickly discuss the topic of exploded assemblies — a representation of the assembly design where parts are roughly in the right position, but at a certain distance from each other.
Assembly4 has a function doing exactly that (and more actually: you can also show and hide objects, not only move them) : Configurations. They work more-or-less like the Configurations in NX
try the Assembly4 workbench for FreCAD — tutorials here and here
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3415
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by freedman »

I have notice a long time the right-mouse-button (RMB) is used for a few things but mostly redundant commands, personally I don't use it at all and seem to get along just fine. It's just a guess but I would bet users would give up the current RMB structure entirely if it could instead be the assembler hook-up. The RMB has a good visual interface, multiple words can be used for complex actions and tool activations.

One of my biggest issues with the current assembly structure (all) is tree usage. Constraints and LCS's need to be hidden/collapsed and integrated on 1 or 2 tree lines maximum. Once you get to the large model, you spend half the time expanding and collapsing, it's exhausting trying to keep up visually with the tree. This is what I tried to do in BodyBuilder, click on one object and see all it's attachment aspects.
IMO
Lonfor
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:32 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by Lonfor »

Just a wish.
I used to use a lot of cotter pins and rubber gaskets in mechanical assemblies and the ability to create custom deformable parts would be highly desirable. More desirable yet if the ability to create a custom GUI (WYSIWYG style) for deforming the parts is available to the user.
Attachments
Screenshot_20230403_033158-a.png
Screenshot_20230403_033158-a.png (208.42 KiB) Viewed 1169 times
grd
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2022 5:13 am
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by grd »

Lonfor wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:55 am Just a wish....
Yes, me too. I also want to deform a part inside an assembly.
About Nim. Latest Release 2.0.2. Here is Nim in 100 seconds and a Nim package. There are Qt and OCCT packages.
Lonfor
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:32 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by Lonfor »

Additional information on the custom GUI for deformable and configurable parts in case some developer would want to code something similar.
Attachments
Screenshot_20230403_060415.png
Screenshot_20230403_060415.png (179.27 KiB) Viewed 1099 times
Screenshot_20230403_060516.png
Screenshot_20230403_060516.png (125.84 KiB) Viewed 1099 times
Screenshot_20230403_060534.png
Screenshot_20230403_060534.png (122.74 KiB) Viewed 1099 times
Screenshot_20230403_060549.png
Screenshot_20230403_060549.png (124.57 KiB) Viewed 1099 times
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53786
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by chrisb »

@Lonfor, @grd, can you please elaborate how that should work? On one side we like to have it parametric - example according to Lonfor: some bend radius has to be changed -, where changes should be propagated to all assemblies using such a part, and on the other side we want to allow individual changes.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
easyw-fc
Veteran
Posts: 3623
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:34 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by easyw-fc »

Lonfor wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:12 am Additional information on the custom GUI for deformable and configurable parts in case some developer would want to code something similar.
it seems a feature to be developed as a WB, like i.e. sheetmetal or fastener
Post Reply