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
The underlying problem is different, many will prefer ASM3 some ASM4, but they are work of a single developers, that may be could have some copyright rights over them.
What happens if Zolko or RT will loss theirs motivation to develop their assemblies WB?
If a WB will be integrated in FC that is a team work, probably things would go faster an further as there are many people that will be contributing to development.
Probably if a common assembly format is established if a developer will have the need to make some customization on say a specific workflow it will be more easy to have different flavours as "core assembly functions" will be already integrated in FC and only some aspect will be modified.
Hoping that this "common assembly format" will see the light as this will mean that you could distribute a FCStd file with an assembly on it without telling the user to load ASMx WB
Leave apart every other consideration.
Blindly adopting one of the existing WB is against the scope of this post, if I interpreter sliptonic intent.
Regards
Carlo D.
What happens if Zolko or RT will loss theirs motivation to develop their assemblies WB?
If a WB will be integrated in FC that is a team work, probably things would go faster an further as there are many people that will be contributing to development.
Probably if a common assembly format is established if a developer will have the need to make some customization on say a specific workflow it will be more easy to have different flavours as "core assembly functions" will be already integrated in FC and only some aspect will be modified.
Hoping that this "common assembly format" will see the light as this will mean that you could distribute a FCStd file with an assembly on it without telling the user to load ASMx WB
Leave apart every other consideration.
Blindly adopting one of the existing WB is against the scope of this post, if I interpreter sliptonic intent.
Regards
Carlo D.
Last edited by onekk on Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GitHub page: https://github.com/onekk/freecad-doc.
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
- adrianinsaval
- Veteran
- Posts: 5551
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
No, chrisb is completely right, the language is something whoever may develop this has to decide and it's pointless to talk about until someone is actually going to start coding. Here we are talking of the requirements for the workbench.
Btw chrisb Nim is a compiled language, is not for scripting AFAIK, the argument here is that is easy to write like python.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
You are right, sorry for the careless wording. I didn't want to make things even more complicated.adrianinsaval wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:38 am Btw chrisb Nim is a compiled language, is not for scripting AFAIK, the argument here is that is easy to write like python.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
- thomas-neemann
- Veteran
- Posts: 11919
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
- Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
I agree with freecad as it is.
if someone wants an assembly wb out of the box, they can use realthunder, or publish their own freecad distribution or configuration
-
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:56 pm
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
Assembly 3 is GPL, FreeCAD is LGPL. No can do.thomas-neemann wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:47 am if someone wants an assembly wb out of the box, they can use realthunder
- thomas-neemann
- Veteran
- Posts: 11919
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
- Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
does the realthunder version have a license problem?
edit
if I understood it correctly, the publication of configuration files should be possible
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
a topic in which the license have been already approached (and 'solved'):thomas-neemann wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:40 pm does the realthunder version have a license problem?
viewtopic.php?style=3&t=28208&start=10
- thomas-neemann
- Veteran
- Posts: 11919
- Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:03 pm
- Location: Osnabrück DE 🇩🇪
- Contact:
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
In addition to using a standardized data structure, a standardized nomenclature would help a lot. Currently all existing assembly workbenches feel like completely separate foreign languages. Learning one of them hardly translates to understanding the others. They not only use different technological approaches to solving the same problem, they (apparently) call things by different names too.
This is compounded by FreeCAD often using technical terms spawned by the implementation instead of functional names as thought of by the user. The local coordinate systems used by Assembly4 are a good example. As someone using FreeCAD, I want to take some geometry of part A and align it with some geometry on part B. Nowhere in my thought process do I care about coordinate systems.
It would be great if a common ground for naming certain things could be found. Constraints, degrees of freedom, points of contacts etc. are well defined terms in classical mechanics. If different workbenches would use the same naming scheme, it would be a lot easier to compare them.
This is compounded by FreeCAD often using technical terms spawned by the implementation instead of functional names as thought of by the user. The local coordinate systems used by Assembly4 are a good example. As someone using FreeCAD, I want to take some geometry of part A and align it with some geometry on part B. Nowhere in my thought process do I care about coordinate systems.
It would be great if a common ground for naming certain things could be found. Constraints, degrees of freedom, points of contacts etc. are well defined terms in classical mechanics. If different workbenches would use the same naming scheme, it would be a lot easier to compare them.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
Excellent summary. I am a recent follower of FreeCAD because I am interested in creating a workbench for Motion Simulation.
http://ar-cad.com
After reading this thread in entity, am I correct to say the bottleneck for Assembly constraints in FreeCAD is the lack of a full 3D Constraint Solver? With such a solver the different workflows of A2+, A3, A4 can all be solved by the same solver. Switching between workflows can be accommodated easily. Thanks for your feedback.