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!
Post Reply
freedman
Veteran
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by freedman »

It's obvious the best Assembler is the one we know best. It makes since that users and developers would pick one over the other.

Ultimately, performance is the most important factor IMO. It won't matter which Assembler is picked-out if the performance is poor, if I later see a new Assembler come out and it can run simulations 5 times faster, then I'm done using the default. Knowing most advanced users are like this it would seem some kind of performance testing is necessary.

It would be sad if a default is picked because it has a nice paint job.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53922
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by chrisb »

freedman wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:12 am Ultimately, performance is the most important factor IMO.
I think that function is even more important than performance. At this very early stage of planning, performance doesn't really play a role. In the end of course, but that is rather an implementation detail.

What counts now: the data structures and the functions that work on them, i.e. what kind of constraints will be needed to assemble things.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
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: Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:10 pm Second, that wasn't Ondsel's point with the series.
...
When this survey is done
may I suggest you also add the Manipulator WB to your test series ? It's sort-of an assembly workbench, even if it doesn't use that name. And while you're at it, you may also include BodyBuilder to make the list exhaustive (yes I know it's easy for me to say since I won't do the testing)
try the Assembly4 workbench for FreCAD — tutorials here and here
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by drmacro »

Zolko wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 8:07 am ...
may I suggest you also add the Manipulator WB to your test series ? It's sort-of an assembly workbench, even if it doesn't use that name. And while you're at it, you may also include BodyBuilder to make the list exhaustive (yes I know it's easy for me to say since I won't do the testing)
Agreed.

It is essential to not only evaluate the high end requirements and offerings, but, also the offerings that provide quick and dirty positioning (Manipulator) and simpler but still somewhat constrained. (BodyBuilder).

In addition, (and I think this might be very high effort) having a look at how other CAD tools handle assemblies would be good, so there is no tunnel vision.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
prokoudine
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by prokoudine »

drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:15 am It is essential to not only evaluate the high end requirements and offerings, but, also the offerings that provide quick and dirty positioning (Manipulator) and simpler but still somewhat constrained. (BodyBuilder).
When creating a default assembly WB on top of one of the existing WBs, what useful information do you think you would gain from a survey of Part-o-Magic, or Manipulator, or BodyBuilder? Interaction model?
drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:15 am In addition, (and I think this might be very high effort) having a look at how other CAD tools handle assemblies would be good, so there is no tunnel vision.
Already looked at Inventor and SolidWorks and will probably look at Onshape. But I'm not sure it should be part of the series. Tentative design is most useful when you are actually about to start building a solution and you need a functional specification.
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by drmacro »

prokoudine wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 10:58 am ...
Are you looking at these for personal use or are you the author of the Ondsel blog series?
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
prokoudine
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by prokoudine »

drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:07 am Are you looking at these for personal use or are you the author of the Ondsel blog series?
I'm the contributing writer, yes :)

So what kind of useful information would you expect from a survey of non-solver workbenches like Manipulator?
drmacro
Veteran
Posts: 8865
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by drmacro »

prokoudine wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:23 am
drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:07 am Are you looking at these for personal use or are you the author of the Ondsel blog series?
I'm the contributing writer, yes :)
Thanks, thought so.
So what kind of useful information would you expect from a survey of non-solver workbenches like Manipulator?
For Manipulator specifically, it offers very simple location tools. I'd be thinking about the different levels of assembly functionality. Obviously Manipulator does not provide constraints, but, sometimes they aren't necessary. Should the default assembly tool offer an "uber-KISS mode" might be explored in the survey? And if such functionality is to be addressed, what tools or workflows of Manipulator might be appropriate.

Same for BodyBuilder, it's approach is a bit less traditional. What about it is different and why might some of it be good/bad for a default workbench. It is a bit more of a direct modeling paradigm. Is that desirable in the default assembly tool?
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Spock: "...His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
User avatar
ppemawm
Veteran
Posts: 1240
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 3:54 pm
Location: New York NY USA

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by ppemawm »

drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:11 pm It is a bit more of a direct modeling paradigm. Is that desirable in the default assembly tool?
Good point. Any basic assembly workbench critically needs the capability IMHO to model "in-place" or "top-down" for assembly design purposes other than just assemblies of models created from drawings (bottom up). In original design work, you need the ability to design bodies, create parametric models, and assemble them as the design process progresses much like what we have with Assembly4. I have not used the other assembly workbenches so do not know if that is a basic or common feature.
"It is a poor workman who blames his tools..." ;)
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 »

drmacro wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:11 pm For Manipulator specifically, it offers very simple location tools. I'd be thinking about the different levels of assembly functionality. Obviously Manipulator does not provide constraints, but, sometimes they aren't necessary. Should the default assembly tool offer an "uber-KISS mode" might be explored in the survey? And if such functionality is to be addressed, what tools or workflows of Manipulator might be appropriate.
I am reading "roles" here. Maybe an A4 role, or an A3 role? Just think about it. This can be good!
About Nim. Latest Release 2.0.2. Here is Nim in 100 seconds and a Nim package. There are Qt and OCCT packages.
Post Reply