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: 3436
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 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.
fcaduser
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:53 pm
Location: Near Paris, France

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by fcaduser »

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.
User avatar
bambuko
Veteran
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: UK, England, North Devon

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by bambuko »

fcaduser wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:10 pm ...I only use A2+. Isn't that the closest way of doing things to how assembly is implemented in commercial CAD software?
You haven't tried Assembly 3 ....
I am using Link branch and Assembly3
you can also download ... and try it here
excellent Assembly3 tutorials here
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by GeneFC »

bambuko wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:23 pm
fcaduser wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 12:10 pm ...I only use A2+. Isn't that the closest way of doing things to how assembly is implemented in commercial CAD software?
You haven't tried Assembly 3 ....
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. :roll:

Gene
User avatar
NewJoker
Veteran
Posts: 3017
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:49 pm

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by NewJoker »

GeneFC wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:20 pm Ain't gonna be resolved. :roll:
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.
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 »

GeneFC wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:20 pm There are strong arguments for the usability of each of the three main candidates.
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.
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by GeneFC »

grd wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:17 pm What do you think are the strong points of A2P compared with A3? Is A2P more mature?
I am not the one making the arguments. I am just saying that one can find strong proponents for each of the three choices.

Gene
User avatar
bambuko
Veteran
Posts: 2161
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: UK, England, North Devon

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by bambuko »

GeneFC wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:28 pm ...I am not the one making the arguments...
no, you are just stirring the pot :lol: :mrgreen:
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.
I am using Link branch and Assembly3
you can also download ... and try it here
excellent Assembly3 tutorials here
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by GeneFC »

bambuko wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:42 pm no, you are just stirring the pot
?????

I am suggesting stopping the stirring. :lol:

Gene
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: The need for a default assembly workbench

Post by sliptonic »

NewJoker wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:54 pm
GeneFC wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 2:20 pm Ain't gonna be resolved. :roll:
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.
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.

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.
Post Reply