Doing it the "correct" is way, is just correct because of how FreeCAD struggles with surface naming when topology changes. And before you say "well, do it the 'Correct' way, and this isn't a problem". Just the inability to correctly identify the named surface. Here is a video I made that shows you the difference. He is as prolific as any of the main devs of FreeCAD. But don't disparage the work that RealThunder has put in. Just use what you think solves your problems. Many of the improvements of the LinkStage3 branch is planned to be integrated into 0.21. The Assembl圓 workbench is a demonstration of that effort. And I strongly dislike the business practices of Autodesk. My current focus is to implement FreeCAD core functionalities for better assembly support. But, if it wasn't for the LinkStage3 branch, I would tell any friends who wanted to get into CAD, to learn Fusion 360 instead, because before this branch, you were bound for frustration. If it doesn't solve a problem that you encounter, you just don't use it.
#Realthunder freecad software#
It's a branch of the software that significantly improves the fundamental data model. This isn't a childish "my team is good, yours is bad", as your latest remark might suggest. And I'm not sure if you know what this is, but it is arguably the main source of frustration, and why FreeCAD is not remotely as powerful for non-destructive modeling as any of the commercial counterparts. One of the key features is that significantly reduces the topological naming problem. It's a branch off of 0.19, which will probably get rebased to 0.20 at some point.
It's not a RealThunder vs FreeCAD developers.
You have obviously not used LinkStage3 or know what it adds to the table.
0 kommentar(er)
