FreeCad .21.2 22dev Anyone happy?

I am sufficiently frustrated at the moment with the development version of FreeCad 22dev.
I've been trying to learn since ver .18.0 (glutton for punishment?)

Rumor was that soon 22dev would lead to the long rumored 1.0. (I no longer believe the rumors.)

I've BEEN TRYING to make any sense of the (Assembly) documentation so I can use the Assembly workbench. No luck!

So my CNC machine is idle. A friend's 3D resin printer is waiting... I have a few projects I'd love to finish before I'm senile.

Anyone using Freecad with ANY success?

Misery loves company.

g

Used it long time ago for simple parts. That was not too frustrating, but the parts were simple enough. That must have been 15 years ago. And I used the models for 3d printing.
At work Freecad is my GoTo software to open and look at 3d files from customers. This worked very stable so far and was good enough.
I cannot make much sense of the CAM postprocessor and this holds me back from even trying, because as long as I am transfering things to the other program I can as well do everything in the other program. (but you push me to re-visit it)

I have not watched this videos, I just remembered the channel for beeing helpful with freecad question in the past.

I've been using it for a few years now. Works well enough for my needs, but the learning curve is steep and I'm still on the uphill side of it.

gwfami said:

I've been using it for a few years now. Works well enough for my needs, but the learning curve is steep and I'm still on the uphill side of it.

Click to expand...

I have try freecad
I think something missing.

I have used Autocad since 1995 still using today . Install Autocad 2000 on my laptop with Windows 11 64 bit.

I have the free version of TruboCad . It works great too.

There probably something I just do not know about FreeCad. It runs on Windows 11 64 bit.

Dave

Just to be clear, the Assembly Workbench is not necessarily needed to produce CNC-ready parts. For something like a CNC mill or router, one will want separate parts that will be individually cut on the CNC. Assembly in the CAD software may be helpful for checking the model, but it does not help to produce the CNC gcode.

On the other hand, for 3d printing, one does generally want an "assembled" model ... but since it will be a single unit when printed, I tend to model it that way - as a single unit - no further assembly needed. Obviously, different strokes, mileage may vary, and so on - this is just what works for me.

gwfami said:

I've been using it for a few years now. Works well enough for my needs, but the learning curve is steep and I'm still on the uphill side of it.

Click to expand...

I drove through Kansas twice.
Once to hike climb in the Wind River Range
Once to see a few 14ers in Colorado.
Now THEY were an "uphill" but nothing like the slog of FreeCad!
At least when I hiked I had good, accurate and understabable TOP maps.
I'm "trying" (well maybe past tense) to create design parts that can be used on an N scale RR (1:160)
Around 2004 using Autodesk Inventor I designed a model of a 1921 wood box car, even details thsat were so small the 3D printer couldn't replicate.
Now with FC I can't "assemble" two parts (very simple) .

Gazelder said:

I drove through Kansas twice.
Once to hike climb in the Wind River Range
Once to see a few 14ers in Colorado.
Now THEY were an "uphill" but nothing like the slog of FreeCad!
At least when I hiked I had good, accurate and understabable TOP maps.
I'm "trying" (well maybe past tense) to create design parts that can be used on an N scale RR (1:160)
Around 2004 using Autodesk Inventor I designed a model of a 1921 wood box car, even details thsat were so small the 3D printer couldn't replicate.
Now with FC I can't "assemble" two parts (very simple) .

Click to expand...

It's been said before, maybe too many times for some, but Alibre Atom will do most things we need to do, and it's easy to learn, at least it was for me. Yes, FreeCAD, if you can get past the learning curve is more capable, but Alibre Atom is only $199 and you own it forever.

I don't mean to be a smart ass, but I would say that if you've been using Freecad for over four years and still haven't gotten it down then it ain't ever gonna happen. Time to throw in the towel and try something else! It's not for everyone. There's plenty of other options available, you'll just have to spend a little money or put up with keeping your project files online or other indignities.

L98fiero said:

It's been said before, maybe too many times for some, but Alibre Atom will do most things we need to do, and it's easy to learn, at least it was for me. Yes, FreeCAD, if you can get past the learning curve is more capable, but Alibre Atom is only $199 and you own it forever.

Click to expand...

Apparently "forever" lasts about 30 days. Just like ET, it needs to call home or it will shut down. The thrust of almost all modern software is the subscription system. Even if you have a "lifetime" subscription to that specific release, it still keeps checking with the mothership.



Above is a screenshot of the latest Freecad 0.22.0dev branch using the integrated assembly workbench. The problem I have with it is the lack of flexible linked subassemblies, so the above model cannot work properly with motion: it's locked-up. I would have thought since this bench is heavily based off of assembly 3 that subassemblies with motion would be a given, but guess not. There's talk about adding this feature at some point, but it's almost certainly coming after the 1.0 release.

The main thrust of the 1.0 release is long overdue addition of the TNP mitigation code from RealThunder's Freecad branch.

krypto said:

I don't mean to be a smart ass, but I would say that if you've been using Freecad for over four years and still haven't gotten it down then it ain't ever gonna happen. Time to throw in the towel and try something else! It's not for everyone. There's plenty of other options available, you'll just have to spend a little money or put up with keeping your project files online or other indignities.



Apparently "forever" lasts about 30 days. Just like ET, it needs to call home or it will shut down. The thrust of almost all modern software is the subscription system. Even if you have a "lifetime" subscription to that specific release, it still keeps checking with the mothership.

View attachment 159115

Above is a screenshot of the latest Freecad 0.22.0dev branch using the integrated assembly workbench. The problem I have with it is the lack of flexible linked subassemblies, so the above model cannot work properly with motion: it's locked-up. I would have thought since this bench is heavily based off of assembly 3 that subassemblies with motion would be a given, but guess not. There's talk about adding this feature at some point, but it's almost certainly coming after the 1.0 release.

The main thrust of the 1.0 release is long overdue addition of the TNP mitigation code from RealThunder's Freecad branch.

Click to expand...

Have you looked in Mango Jelly you tube web site just search the workbench? I am still using 21. you can go back to 19 with the models. Assembly 4 has animation not assembly 3 example:

TSutrina said:

Assembly 4 has animation not assembly 3

Click to expand...

Please read his post a little harder. His issue is with the new, Integrated Assembly WB that will be part of the next FC release. It was developed because the assembly process in FC was a little haphazard, with A2+, A3 and A4 all co-existing.

If someone complains about a problem with a Ford, suggesting they switch to (or read the user manual of) a Toyota might not be the best advice.

Yeah, I'm testing Freecad's new integrated assembly workbench and providing (hopefully) constructive feedback. That's how things work in open source projects. I could assemble the project differently (delete the subassemblies) or use a different workbench like assembly 3 but that's not the point as it should work as shown to be most useful.

https://ondsel.com/blog/default-assembly-workbench-1/

The above article is a good run-down on how things were in Freecad assembly last year. Since then Ondsel has provided a license compatible 3D solver back to the project and while very green the integrated assembly workbench has been usable for simple projects for a few months. That's why it's important to test these new additions early and often and provide feedback with real-world issues back to the developers so they can change and alter as needed. It's certainly more effective than whining and crying.

The whole point of this is probably the integrated assembly workbench will be the future: A2Plus is old and not very well featured. Assembly 3 really needs to run in Freecad LinkBranch and who know's how long RealThunder will maintain that after mainline hits 1.0. Assembly 4 relies on the user to be the 3D solver (more work) and the primary developer is pinhead who can't play well with the other kids.

The good news is that it seems like flexible subassemblies for integrated assembly are going to make it in for the major release.

https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/15629

awake said:

Just to be clear, the Assembly Workbench is not necessarily needed to produce CNC-ready parts. For something like a CNC mill or router, one will want separate parts that will be individually cut on the CNC. Assembly in the CAD software may be helpful for checking the model, but it does not help to produce the CNC gcode.

On the other hand, for 3d printing, one does generally want an "assembled" model ... but since it will be a single unit when printed, I tend to model it that way - as a single unit - no further assembly needed. Obviously, different strokes, mileage may vary, and so on - this is just what works for me.

Click to expand...

I've used Inventor for both 3D and CNC. I started Inventor circa 2004. with retirement the license was no longer accessible.
Some of the projects I'd like to do will be 3d Prints... some parts will be so small my "fingers and eyes" will not suffice. <G>

G

krypto said:

Yeah, I'm testing Freecad's new integrated assembly workbench and providing (hopefully) constructive feedback. That's how things work in open source projects. I could assemble the project differently (delete the subassemblies) or use a different workbench like assembly 3 but that's not the point as it should work as shown to be most useful.

https://ondsel.com/blog/default-assembly-workbench-1/

The above article is a good run-down on how things were in Freecad assembly last year. Since then Ondsel has provided a license compatible 3D solver back to the project and while very green the integrated assembly workbench has been usable for simple projects for a few months. That's why it's important to test these new additions early and often and provide feedback with real-world issues back to the developers so they can change and alter as needed. It's certainly more effective than whining and crying.

The whole point of this is probably the integrated assembly workbench will be the future: A2Plus is old and not very well featured. Assembly 3 really needs to run in Freecad LinkBranch and who know's how long RealThunder will maintain that after mainline hits 1.0. Assembly 4 relies on the user to be the 3D solver (more work) and the primary developer is pinhead who can't play well with the other kids.

The good news is that it seems like flexible subassemblies for integrated assembly are going to make it in for the major release.

https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/15629

Click to expand...

I had considered Onsel but with the FC 1.0 getting close.. (creeping) I decided to wait. I had 'brain fog" with earlier "FC attempts at Assembly!

One of my issues (at least related to FC) is I've learned the more complex an object is... attempting it as one "project" is a promise to run headlong into a brickwall after HOURS of design... or a sudden file trashed.
Recently I designed two separate (SIMPLE) parts that should easily fit together inside and assembly. The documentation I found was terrible (maybe written by the same pinhead) and the more I tried the more confused I got. IF TWO SIMPLE PARTS are an issue... a complex problem will be the death of me.
I don't recall having such angst with Inventor back in 2004.
I'm now considering Alibre... not a lot of faith in FC after the last few weeks.
Thanksa for reply.

djc said:

Please read his post a little harder. His issue is with the new, Integrated Assembly WB that will be part of the next FC release. It was developed because the assembly process in FC was a little haphazard, with A2+, A3 and A4 all co-existing.

If someone complains about a problem with a Ford, suggesting they switch to (or read the user manual of) a Toyota might not be the best advice.

Click to expand...

I was using 21.0. Updated to 21.2 just now. Read the text for A3 "attempt" stood out to me, and you still have to choose it from the tools menu for additional work benches, Only explode assembly is built in. The assemblies never were comparable. A3 if I remember was only in existence for a short time and remove on like 19. Had to have problems which is why "attempt" is in the description is my best guess. Doing an assembly animation A2 and A4 work. I chose the more complex but more capable one in my estimate A4. I only use A4 and do not have A2 available. The only reason for having A2 would be that I import a model of an assembly in A2.

TSutrina said:

I was using 21.0. Updated to 21.2 just now. Read the text for A3 "attempt" stood out to me, and you still have to choose it from the tools menu for additional work benches, Only explode assembly is built in. The assemblies never were comparable. A3 if I remember was only in existence for a short time and remove on like 19. Had to have problems which is why "attempt" is in the description is my best guess. Doing an assembly animation A2 and A4 work. I chose the more complex but more capable one in my estimate A4. I only use A4 and do not have A2 available. The only reason for having A2 would be that I import a model of an assembly in A2.

Click to expand...

I believe that Assembly 3 never had a problem with the nomenclature issue that has be biting at the heal of the devs for many years now.

My problem w Freecad is that I can't wrap my head around how constraints work. There seems to be only one (magic) solution where in real life (ie not paper) there are at least 3 or 4 and the method really doesn't care what order things are done in yet Freecad cares hugely - - - to the point of only accepting 1 (!!!)
solution.

ajoeiam said:

I believe that Assembly 3 never had a problem with the nomenclature issue that has be biting at the heal of the devs for many years now.

My problem w Freecad is that I can't wrap my head around how constraints work. There seems to be only one (magic) solution where in real life (ie not paper) there are at least 3 or 4 and the method really doesn't care what order things are done in yet Freecad cares hugely - - - to the point of only accepting 1 (!!!)
solution.

Click to expand...

Can you give a specific example where you have run into this problem? I have to say that in many years of using FreeCAD, I have only occasionally hit a situation where the order of constraints made a difference, but that may simply mean that 1) my projects haven't led to the problem, or 2) I have accidentally used the "right" order and thus didn't encounter any problems.

awake said:

Can you give a specific example where you have run into this problem? I have to say that in many years of using FreeCAD, I have only occasionally hit a situation where the order of constraints made a difference, but that may simply mean that 1) my projects haven't led to the problem, or 2) I have accidentally used the "right" order and thus didn't encounter any problems.

Click to expand...

Well - - - I never ran into it but there were many (many many many) suggestions that this was a common perhaps even a prevalent issue.
AIUI my biggest issue is that 3D cad works from loosey goosey to (at least) sorta accurate.
(to constrain a rectangle - - - 1. draw a rectangle of any size, 2. now start to constrain it (make it accurate) - - - - as a machinist (not a paper pushing engineer) I don't start with inaccuracy - - - I must cut the parts to at least close to size (following with taking them to an accurate size and then (and only then) do I place them.)
What I have liked about 2D cad is that I can mathematically plot out my points - - - freecad - - - in fact does NOT allow such.

I haven't tried using Assembly3 workbench lately - - - I'm in my busy season and was waiting for cool to cold season to try again to get at least a small amount of mastery at FreeCAD. So I will continue to wait until I can try again.

Based on the videos I have watched (e.g., MangoJelly), in the .22dev version, one of the new features is that you can see the size of the object as you sketch it - e.g., you will see the dimensions of the rectangle - and can even immediately enter the desired values without having to do a separate step of constraining.

awake said:

Based on the videos I have watched (e.g., MangoJelly), in the .22dev version, one of the new features is that you can see the size of the object as you sketch it - e.g., you will see the dimensions of the rectangle - and can even immediately enter the desired values without having to do a separate step of constraining.

Click to expand...

I have found the 'help' videos to be largely singularly unhelpful to date.

My latest version is 21.2 so it looks like another update is in order - - - only have some 13 other upgrades/updates already.

Later mate - - -

ajoeiam said:

Well - - - I never ran into it but there were many (many many many) suggestions that this was a common perhaps even a prevalent issue.
AIUI my biggest issue is that 3D cad works from loosey goosey to (at least) sorta accurate.
(to constrain a rectangle - - - 1. draw a rectangle of any size, 2. now start to constrain it (make it accurate) - - - - as a machinist (not a paper pushing engineer) I don't start with inaccuracy - - - I must cut the parts to at least close to size (following with taking them to an accurate size and then (and only then) do I place them.)
What I have liked about 2D cad is that I can mathematically plot out my points - - - freecad - - - in fact does NOT allow such.

I haven't tried using Assembly3 workbench lately - - - I'm in my busy season and was waiting for cool to cold season to try again to get at least a small amount of mastery at FreeCAD. So I will continue to wait until I can try again.

Click to expand...

RE: Recent
I am now trying to take "Copious" asMagojelly explain Assemby4 (threevbyears ago)
At this point unknowns include how well the notes translate into the dev version of Assembly. Maybe this weekend.
In his video he recommends unique naming of "Bodies parts etc. Luckily <G> I have two screens so... I'm setting up one with a spreadsheet to keep track 0f names etc. Yes, added work but when and if I start a more complex "project" this might help.
Several versions ago I ran into an issue with "scaling" -- the math was incorrect.. I figured out what it should be... reported it and my solution ijn a "bug report" my issue was found to be sojmething needing fixing (in a later version). Not sure whether is has been.
I too care about accuracy. My models are N scale (1:160) although when starting the current project... using old drawings, calipers and a spread sheet to convert "something was wrong! It turns out the "N scale car" I'm making modifications to match an actual car was "apparently" designed years ago in Germany?/Austria/Italy? and they were scale 1:148! luckily caught this beforr bgoing too far! So now I have a revised spreadsheet to deal with this... And of course going this small can also go so small my CNC cannot go THAT accurate and 3D printers also have to be judiciously picked.

I'm just hoping <ROFLOL> the Assembly WB for 1.0 is not another swarming nest of problems.

IF my notes are "usable" I would really like to create a "how to get started and USE Assembly WB.

g