@normandc #FreeCAD question I thought you might be able to answer? I'm designing some parts which need left and right handed versions. They have a lot of common base features, with a few different features on top of them.

What's the best way to do that? Ideally I'd be able to edit the base features and have them update in both, while still being able to add the left/right features in Part Design.

@gbrnt @normandc Build the base part, and then use the "clone" tool to make a left and right version with those additional features on it. I do it all the time.


@M4x @fortifieduniverse It works fine when I'm just dealing with bodies, but if I want each in a Part container it brings the common part in with the second body? Then I get "links go out of the allowed scope" errors for the BaseLeft body.

The dependency graph looks ok to me though? Is this technique just not compatible with the Part feature, or am I just missing something?

Why do you want each body in a separate Part container? If you don't plan to add other objects to your Part containers, this just adds cruft. There is no consensus on the matter among FreeCAD users, but despite its name, I consider the Part container a dumb assembly container rather than a part.

The out of scope errors bring a lot of confusion... It's to enforce a preferred method, but going against it sometimes seems unavoidable.
@M4x @fortifieduniverse

@normandc @M4x @fortifieduniverse I wanted to use them in an assembly. If there's no reason not to use Body objects in an assembly, then I'll stick with that since it works without errors!

You can use Bodies directly in an assembly. By putting them each in a Part container, you're making the tree more complex for no gain. Of course I can understand that having the base body laying around on its own isn't ideal.

How do you create your assemblies, do use an assembly add-on? Do you use external links? If you're familiar with Xrefs in AutoCAD, this is a process that can be done in FreeCAD.
@M4x @fortifieduniverse

@normandc @gbrnt @M4x I don't use Part containers at all. I put links to my bodies right in Assembly 3 assemblies with no issues.

@fortifieduniverse @normandc @M4x Oh that's good to hear, I'll stop using them then until I have a reason to.

The developer who originally implemented the Part container in FC 0.17 aimed for it to be the basis for an eventual assembly container. AFAIK, it might very well be what the Assembly3 and Assembly4 devs base their work on.

Plus, eventually the PartDesign Body container will allow multiple bodies (I believe it is already the case in realthunder's fork). So in a pure PartDesign workflow, the Part container may even have less relevance in the future.
@fortifieduniverse @M4x

@normandc I'm currently not using an assembly add-on, just using external links to bring in the Parts (but could do the same with Bodies). Using Part objects was mostly because I thought it might be useful in future. I guess I can always add them if I need them!

Sign in to participate in the conversation

chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community