![]() You introduce LCS, you have an idea for Assembly4, you make it. You have an idea for Asm3, you need a link object, you make that happen. It should fit a need -use cases, peoples understanding of what is actually possible and how it is achieved. It would be nice to have a working and polished assembly workbench but it should not exist just to have it. And we are stuck with them unless a complete redesign from the ground up happens (as Blender 2.8). OCC, BREP, Coin, Python were slected as most suitable at the time. Which must be robust, suitable for a lot of different tasks but not unneccessary complex. I think that the general public forgets that FreeCAD is not a monolith application to perform a single task but more of a collection of tools to operate on a solid geometric data. ![]() Just my two cents of semicmprehencible thoughts and probably a little rant Then we can choose the technology that best fits the project. I would be happy to see _a couple_ of assembly workbenches, each with its own viable approach, but all compatible, and based a shared code base. then evaluate their strengths and weaknesses (ease of operation, functionality, performance with large designs, stability (with respect to design changes (topo naming…)), let the different assembly workbench projects stabilize, If asked for my two cents, I'd suggest to ![]() Can't tell much about Assembly 1 and 2(+), only played a little bit with it, but got frustrated, mostly because lack of experience with freecad. Then again with Zolko's Assembly 4 approach, which I regard similar to what I'm currently doing. When done, I'll try to recreate the design with Assembly Constraints, just to see if and how the solver engine kills performance. Works surprisingly well, even on my slow machine (Core m3, 4 GB RAM, SD memory card, onboard grafics, Win10). I am currently working on a larger design, but concentrate on a small fraction of the technology, Realthunder's Link, and expressions to define the relationships between objects in the design. At least I would, as I am quickly overwhelmed by a large, complex example. Newbies will most likely prefer very small projects, with emphasis on small aspects of a design. I guess, nobody is keen to check a really large assembly for correctness by visual inspection. Such a large project is fine for benchmarking, and perhaps as test case - provided that the test results can be verified automatically. An if something is missing, we just add a something new, like flexible cabling ![]() Looking at the length of dicussion threads in assembly I am sure it would provide a base for all use cases found in there. To see if it is really complete to get a standard set of drawings for all parts conform to the standard in a manageable way. It should also be as valuable for TechDraw. It would be a great help for newcomers to see how to structure such a full project. It would be an superb example to verify if FreeCAD is already capable of keeping such a thing together. You have lots of interlocking mechanisms wating to see if we could sufficiently scale Realthunders realtime solver to move everything interactively of if we need to mix in Zolkos great apporach using LCS based asembly. You could put it in a fancy room using Arch, of course. stickers), Gear, SheetMetal, Path, KiCadStepUp, Flamingo, Rendering, Exploded Assembly maybe more). Contains parts for many work benches (Part, PartDesign, TechDraw, Fasteners, Draft/Image (e.g. One thing could use an existing open source design of a 3D printer. I am talking about a device with a few hundred parts using all kind of mechanical items. This will bring the use cases all by itself. Maybe it could help to set up a bit more realistic test case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |