The need for a default assembly workbench
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
I have no problem with an Assembly workbench but I would expect something different for PartDesign, maybe it's the same attachment engine but the UI would be optimized specific to the PartDesign tree. An Assembler addition without adding lines to the tree structure, place Assembly info in the Body someway. Maybe a default Assembly toolbar.
I guess I don't see the same need for PartDesign. The Bodies are already containers and can be used by the Assembler.
This is mostly a wishlist.
I guess I don't see the same need for PartDesign. The Bodies are already containers and can be used by the Assembler.
This is mostly a wishlist.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
The lack of a default choice is detrimental to FC, as it is an essential WB.
I only use A2+. Isn't that the closest way of doing things to how assembly is implemented in commercial CAD software? I haven't used them for very long. What I mean is that we shouldn't blindly follow what others do, but I think the process used by A2+ is very natural and straightforward.
I only use A2+. Isn't that the closest way of doing things to how assembly is implemented in commercial CAD software? I haven't used them for very long. What I mean is that we shouldn't blindly follow what others do, but I think the process used by A2+ is very natural and straightforward.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
You haven't tried Assembly 3 ....
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
This is exactly why I say that the "do-ers" should just pick one that has the best fit for FreeCAD code and get on with it.
There are strong arguments for the usability of each of the three main candidates.
Ain't gonna be resolved.
Gene
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
Let’s hope that the decision will be made eventually. That blog post series from Onsdel seems to be a good sign. For me, it’s quite likely that Assembly3 will be selected since the App Link functionality was added to 0.19. Realthunder is very active and he would probably help a lot with that integration once the TNP branch merge is done.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
What do you think are the strong points of A2P compared with A3? Is A2P more mature?
About Nim. Latest Release 2.0.2. Here is Nim in 100 seconds and a Nim package. There are Qt and OCCT packages.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
no, you are just stirring the pot
it's interweb forum
that means everybody has an opinion and all are free to voice it.
it's not a place "to resolve" anything
It's a place "to discuss" everything
there will be plenty of clever stuff and a lot of people talking out of their rear orifices...
If you want to resolve the issue (and I agree it would be very good to have clarity on the direction of FreeCAD assembly)
create "by invitation only" group (you can call it "doers" if you want) and the rest of us, mere mortals will be grateful for the decision.
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
I don't think we should talk about 'selecting' a workbench. First, there really isn't anyone with the authority to make such a selection. Second, that wasn't Ondsel's point with the series.NewJoker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:54 pmLet’s hope that the decision will be made eventually. That blog post series from Onsdel seems to be a good sign. For me, it’s quite likely that Assembly3 will be selected since the App Link functionality was added to 0.19. Realthunder is very active and he would probably help a lot with that integration once the TNP branch merge is done.
It's certainly possible that one of the add-on workbenches could serve as the basis of an integrated default. It's also possible that the best features from several of them could be combined. At this stage we shouldn't be trying to pick a winner or advocate for our favorite. That isn't helpful. I'd much rather learn how each of these add-ons shines, what it is lacking, and why it has found an enthusiastic following.
When this survey is done, it will be time to build a plan. I hope we do that taking into account lessons learned from all these options. We shouldn't settle for picking the best of what's available. We should strive to plan for the best possible.