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!
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3460
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
The need for a default assembly workbench
Building assemblies is a core operation in CAD. FreeCAD doesn't have a default assembly workbench but has numerous add-ons. The need for a single default assembly workbench has come up many times over the years. Often it gets shut down with arguments that having lots of options is a good thing.
I agree that having multiple solutions offers advantage. It lets us address niche use-cases. That doesn't remove the need for a default that serves most users, most of the time. Forcing users, especially new uses, to evaluate all the options and make a choice isn't helpful. This issue keeps coming up because it's a valid issue.
So let's talk about it again.
Ondsel is starting a blog post series about the issue. Part one lays out the need and talks about some criteria we can use to evaluate the current crop of assembly solutions. The next few articles will dive deep into the various benches. I invite constructive discussion here or in the ondsel issue linked in the article.
Can we start by agreeing that a default assembly workbench is in the best interest of our users and should be a strategic goal for the project?
Part two: Covers the Assembly 2 Workbench
Part three: Covers A2plus
Part four: Covers Assembly 3
Part five: Covers Assembly 4
Part six: Bonus: BodyBuilder, Manipulator, Part-O-Magic
Part Seven: Conclusion: What we learned and what we recommend.
I agree that having multiple solutions offers advantage. It lets us address niche use-cases. That doesn't remove the need for a default that serves most users, most of the time. Forcing users, especially new uses, to evaluate all the options and make a choice isn't helpful. This issue keeps coming up because it's a valid issue.
So let's talk about it again.
Ondsel is starting a blog post series about the issue. Part one lays out the need and talks about some criteria we can use to evaluate the current crop of assembly solutions. The next few articles will dive deep into the various benches. I invite constructive discussion here or in the ondsel issue linked in the article.
Can we start by agreeing that a default assembly workbench is in the best interest of our users and should be a strategic goal for the project?
Part two: Covers the Assembly 2 Workbench
Part three: Covers A2plus
Part four: Covers Assembly 3
Part five: Covers Assembly 4
Part six: Bonus: BodyBuilder, Manipulator, Part-O-Magic
Part Seven: Conclusion: What we learned and what we recommend.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
In my opinion, the default assembly workbench (of course, with other workbenches still available as add-ons) would be a great improvement. It would reduce confusion and make the software look much more complete. After all, assembly workbench is something essential for CAD software, it’s the second most important module. Programs like this can consist of just two workbenches (one for part modeling and one for assemblies) and they are still considered complete CAD solutions in the industry. All the rest (maybe apart from technical drawings which are usually essential too) could be absent if we are talking about pure CAD. Of course, it can’t be the case with FreeCAD because its functionalities are spread into multiple workbenches but still, assembly workbench is crucial.
Also, it shouldn’t be difficult to make this change. It’s likely just a matter of selecting one of those 3 well-developed assembly workbenches (maybe in a poll) and adding it to FreeCAD. I will be ok with whatever selection you make here but A2plus might be a good candidate since it’s definitely the most intuitive one. But if you decide that a more advanced solution is needed and make Assembly3 or 4 the default assembly workbench, it will be great too.
Also, it shouldn’t be difficult to make this change. It’s likely just a matter of selecting one of those 3 well-developed assembly workbenches (maybe in a poll) and adding it to FreeCAD. I will be ok with whatever selection you make here but A2plus might be a good candidate since it’s definitely the most intuitive one. But if you decide that a more advanced solution is needed and make Assembly3 or 4 the default assembly workbench, it will be great too.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
At first, there is a need of a (precise) solver, were the license is allowed to use it. This is the problem atm of the solvespace solver (GPL3).
Greetings
user1234
Greetings
user1234
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
I agree that a default assembly is really missing. I am not an expert of all the assembly add-ons so I'm not sure which it should be. But maybe it will probably be a mix of them, taking the best from each.
Maybe the contributors of each addon can work together on a default assembly WB?
Maybe the contributors of each addon can work together on a default assembly WB?
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/FreeCadDevDiary
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
FreeCad Dev Diary channel:[/b] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGMTmJ ... NiPSSEhBHA
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
How can you evaluate available workbenches without being 100% proficient in each/all of them...
I have made my choice, I am happy and do not regret it, but it says nothing about the options I have not chosen.
And why do we need one default?
I have made my choice, I am happy and do not regret it, but it says nothing about the options I have not chosen.
And why do we need one default?
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
This is for me the main problem with FreeCAD, and for my personal needs, it has even more priority than TNP.
It is my belief that a rudimentary default Assembly may cut it, nothing fancy but one that gets the job done.
Just show the file name in the tree like A2P does and allow to attach their individual coordinate systems to each other as A4 does.
Bonus points if the developers enable a visible global default coordinate system inside every .FCStd file.
No assembly solver needed and the KISS principle is kept.
It is my belief that a rudimentary default Assembly may cut it, nothing fancy but one that gets the job done.
Just show the file name in the tree like A2P does and allow to attach their individual coordinate systems to each other as A4 does.
Bonus points if the developers enable a visible global default coordinate system inside every .FCStd file.
No assembly solver needed and the KISS principle is kept.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
I fully agree on this.
You may remember that I started the "Get united" topic on this, but that may have been the wrong approach, because I had hoped that simply the best of each workbench could be taken to create The Assembly.
I understand your aproach tackling this from the other end: what use cases do we have, what are the problems to be solved. And then we can start to think about a - common - solution.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
Then how you want to assemble and move a linking system? There you need a solver. Also implement a solver afterwards will be a major pita. All other things what do you describe can done right now without any addon, just just the part container and links.
Greetings
user1234
Last edited by user1234 on Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
We need one, because
1) the majority of users comes here without any knowledge about CAD. And it is extremely difficult to decide which way to go, without investing lots of time, far more than average users are willing to invest. So, if they are lucky, they ask here and start with one of the workbenches until they hit a wall, and then they may start with the next.
2) All Assembly workbenches are basically one man shows. There is no guarantee that the workbench will be maintained. We have seen this with the old Assembly workbench and with Assembly2 as well. Thy were rather popular and nobody could imagine, that they would become all of a sudden unusable. Integrating an Assembly into FreeAD would assure (much more) continuity.
3) (Wishful thinking) A more or less unique FreeCAD assembly could motivate more developers to invest time into it.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: The need for a default assembly workbench
as a fairly new freeCAD user I have spent an innumerable amount of time attempting to choose which assembly workbench to use and more importantly learn how to use. this would definitely help if it done right.
intelligence is power