Can you do a video on making something threaded to thread on an existing object? Simple example would be like taking this knob and making it thread onto a pop bottle.

When I tried this new tool in Freecad 1.0 on three lines, it worked ok. When I tried to make two circles concentric, I received an error 11304. No error on doing the same in Freecad 0.21.

The title is misleading, but it is true. FreeCAD had MITIGATED the issue to make it AS GOOD as other car platforms (most of the time)

I used to break FreeCAD every single time. Now it's substantially more robust and well-behaved, in fact ever since that Realthunder fork. I do wonder which of these is better to use, still the fork or the new FreeCAD 1. I still feel it has a long way to go becoming easier to use. I did sometimes have to just quickly design a replacement part when say repairing a piece of electronics a complex one and doing an effectively non-parametric somewhat broken model was the way to go, i did it back then in that commercial software popular with hobbyists in just a couple hours and having the device repair completed same day was worth it. So i think you want both things, you want the CAD to try to retain parametric quality, and try to just survive through quick and dirty work and allow you to continue while outputting valid geometry, both can be useful. I do like that FreeCAD has some model repair capability where you can just re-parent a sketch and reassemble the operations. Though in the past i have had problems with that as well when operations would not re-assemble cleanly even though they worked before. More disappointingly, i was barred from reporting a bug on the issue tracker, and when reporting on the forum, i wasn't actually necessarily seeking a solution, which yeah good to know, but primarily a permission to report the bug, a yes or no question essentially, and got nowhere with that, was looking for either "it's by design it's not supposed to work" or "please report a bug", not even with me restating the question several times over several pages of discussion did i get a direct statement.

This problem is not really the same as the TNP. And yes any cad program would error out when the elements you are referencing are substantially changed or eliminated! When you saw the leg off a ladder, surprise, it falls over.

- Nice example. Well explained :) - On a side note: though you were joking (haha), it is not the world's worst hammer - "The world's best toothpick makes the world's worst hammer." (Or something like that; and here, too, just joking :D ) - Carry on...

one way to improve this would be to add a popup option menu when performing an action which breaks geometry like this, for example "this action breaks the existing sketch <name>, would you like to 1: copy original surface to attach sketch (default), 2: attach sketch to the nearest surface, 3: manually select a new surface to attach sketch, 4: manually fix sketch(do nothing)".

Very good explanation that the TNP is not really a problem of FreeCAD only, but basically affects every CAD programme. Without mentioning other programmes by name. I like it.

Topological naming problem can not be fully solved. Only mitigated to a certain degree.

There was an effort by some to make the point TNP is endemic and can never be "solved", only mitigated to a tolerable level. Any time the term "solved" or "fixed" was used in print, one or more people would make a point of saying: "no, it is mitigated, not solved". I wish there had been better expectation control.

FreeCAD has been improving every year.

Thanks for this video. I was so confused the last days when I kept reading that FreeCAD had “solved” the TNP.

This is a big deal, might have to look at freecad again, I am dying to get off of Fusion360, and I am willing to pay upwards of $75 a month USD to do so. Also better CAM software would be massive.

Nice explanation and solution.

great video, but the fact that problem can't be solved fully doesn't mean that we can't make it easier to work with. The improvement I am thinking of is to give user choice. I mean, when you do some change that break geometry, there would be selection menu on the side of the program to show user options to choose from. So default behavior could remain intact but application would predict most likely solutions to choose from.

CATIA V5 operates in a very similar manner. If I were building a model intended to handle a lot of parameteic and/or topological change I would be avoiding topological references as much as possible. Most stable - Reference geometry (explicit points,lines,planes), faces, edges, vertexes - least stable.

Very well done, so I subscribed. Thanks.

Great video! I've been using FreeCAD for at least 8 years, although just for periodic hobby projects of varying complexities. I learned a couple new techniques from your video. I wasn't familiar with ruled surfaces. I've probably used the split edge tool, but it's not something that I use often since I usually just know the geometry that I'm planning to draw and construct it line-by-line if it isn't a simple primitive like a square or circle. I've also never come across "inertia mode" for attaching a sketch to a face. I've always attached to the plane and then constrained relative to the x/y/z origin, but I can see how attaching with inertia mode would be a lot easier and more convenient in many cases -- especially when attaching to faces that aren't parallel with the XY, XZ or YZ planes. Otherwise, I fully agree with your commentary on the TNP, and I think the behavior exhibited by FreeCAD in this video is entirely appropriate. In the past, my greatest frustration with TNP issues in FreeCAD was when I had to rework a broken geometry but for some reason FreeCAD could not recompute my model when I tried to reattach sketches to different faces or otherwise rework the order and construction of my part designs without deleting some of the work and doing it from scratch in a different order. Hopefully FreeCAD's ability to reattach sketches to different faces without breaking has improved in 1.0.

2:00 worlds worst hammer 😂

IMO the Topological Naming problem is still a problem. Ok, we all have our means to avoid it, but it costs time (is much faster to select external geometries, reference sketches to faces than having everything parametrized to tables and variables). As you said, it is impossible to the CAD figure out for itself our intentions, but it could have tools to help us. Something like a list of the referenced primitives that were renamed so we can check/fix, a option to replace external geometries in sketches rather than deleting and constraining everything again... things like that.

Good content, clickbait title.

thanks for explaining that better.

Excellent explanation!!!

wow fantastic😂

This is the behaviour I expect. In NX it is solved the same.

Thank you! 😎👍

Excellent demonstration, unfortunately most people's attitude with modern complex software is not about: "How can I solve this problem with the free tools at hand?" but most like: "This is an inconvenience!, I refuse to put any effort to understand how to solve any problem or limitation in this free software because some other solution exists in a commercial package".

Ooh my cat can totally beat up your cad! Just watch! (I'm kind afraid of that psychotic flailing ball of fur and nails. It makes the most god awful sounds :( ). All kidding aside, thanks for explaining it :) .

I've never had TNP in Freecad with my workflow

Great breakdown! Very easy to follow. As a software engineer, this almost feels like when you change a software API interface and expect the consuming code to know where things moved - some changes just don't work that way. You can't automagically know how to update references.

This is one of the very few times I've seen someone actually understand this topic. Most people talk about it as if it were a bug, rather than the simple fact that computers aren't able to read your mind.

When I noticed this "unification" on the 1.0 RC I just went into the toolbar and added the old coincidental constraints into my toolbar, I prefer that they are separated if for any other reason than "being used to the old way" stubbornness.

Thanks for sharing. Seeing the some of the common errors, why they occur, and how to fix them is incredibly valuable.

Beautiful! Learning lots! Excited for 1.0

Bravo! Bravo! Exactly what I was looking for. You RoCk. Cheers from So.Ca.USA 3rd house on the left (please call before stopping by)

Seem like a cumbersome way to produce a physical part. Why not just start with a cylinder, reshape it to a truncated cone, copy it, resize the copy and use it to remove the inner part of the cup, giving the desired shape, no sweat. Add a rim in a similar way. And so on. And, yes, you split parts using planes and shapes as suggested.

me too i'm just unzip program files feecad mod and app data roaming free cad mod also and than make a toolbar still not working. some one help for install in window?

how to install it from github?? plz help

Tried it with version 0.21.2, but had to change AttachmentSuppport to Support to work. I had no idea what I was doing, but those names looked similar enough :)

This is a fantastic video that is showing so many great operations. Thank you very much for all your high quality educational videos!!!

Thank you so much, great video as always I learned something new, using two circles to anchor the splines was great.

You can use the periodic b-spline tool to get tangency where the endpoint meets itself. Can help avoid shapes that don't offset.

Thanks for that. Although I see it is possible I also see you need to know where to look at for the feature you are looking for... As a nooby in CAD I am also struggling to use a feature as it is intended to be used and do not know how to find a description (as I do not know the name of the feature I need)....going in circles like that....

I feel I need to go around to every single video you create to mention that you’re a legend and I appreciate you so much. I now work at a startup (solar lights) but have worked for major companies mostly in plastics, and mostly with solidworks but my current company cannot afford to buy. So here I am in the KZbin jungle wishing for my FOSS dreams to come true. Thanks so much for teaching us all!

AMAZING AMAZING AMAZING. Thank you so much, from a 7 year SolidWorks user looking to migrate but encountering major issues.

I think this reply video is a little beside the point. There was no doubt at all from the very beginning that FreeCAD is able to model this piece of test geometry, and in fact also much more useful and extremely complex parts. There was also no doubt that if you know the software, then you can proceed faster than TeachingTech did. Yet all you did was show exactly these two points that were already clear. The critique about FreeCAD is however something different. All other professional CAD software have more or less the same core concepts. Basic modeling is the same, they use a similar workflow, they use the same terms, their tools require similar intuition and so on. If you know one professional CAD package, you'll have only little trouble learning a second or third one, *at least as far as basic geometry is concerned*. But FreeCAD is different and not in a good way. Tools are named differently, their use is non-intuitive, they are distributed over different workspaces, you need more clicks and more steps for the same operations, everything is just different but not for the better. FreeCAD completely ignores UI quasi-standards of mechanical-CAD software, and wants to do everything in its own way, except less comfortable and more circuitous.

Thank you for this guide, it has given me a start point to answering the problem I posed in a previous video.

Can't follow this. When I look at the part workbench, there is no way to create a sketch. And when I try to use OuterEdge - 4 it says property not found. And since you don't describe where that information comes from, I have find somebody else to explain to me what you aren't telling me.

1. Combine all the ambiguously similar workbenches, part and part design for example, these should be one bench. 2. Strip the basic UI down to three workbenches- one for part design and creation, one for building assemblies, and one to create drawings of the parts and assemblies. 3. Sketch should be a tool within workbenches, not a separate workbench. 4. Make all the other workbenches optional, they can be turned on or installed as needed so there are fewer things to distract or confuse new users.

Is there a FreeCAD macro or tool, that given a wire path from a sketch on surface in curves workbench, will etch it with a thickness and depth parameter? The edges of the etch should be parallel to each other and not radial pointing to the curve origin. This is meant to create a cam path on a drum surface.