uwestoehr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:44 am
That is clear. I asked why you don't use the Part::FaceMakerCheese::makeFace() method to handle the inner wires. This method is used by PD loft. Therefore we can treat this method as being stable and I thought we should use existing methods preferably than to create new ones.
So the question is what drawback of Part::FaceMakerCheese::makeFace() do you see that you haven't used it for your rewrite?
Because 2D operation isn't really OCC's strength, especially when offset is involved. Offseting single wire on the other hand is much more robust, and so does cutting which is a 3D operation. For example, you can offset the inner wire beyond the outer wire boundary without any problem.
Another, more general question: Your work is absolutely amazing, but I don't see discussions about this nor PRs. Therefore I cannot follow a discussion, join the development or learn things. For example for the tapered padding, this was often requested by users but I never saw a PR. What was the reason?
It is actually part of the TopoNaming PR. The first batch which is already submitted contains all the TopoShape code like _splitWire(), linearize(), etc. If you follow that topo naming thread, you'll know that I mentioned in the OP that for user who is eager to try, I have already made the following up batches as branch TopoNamingPart, TopoNamingSketch and TopoNamingSketchPart. The taper angle feature is already included in TopoNamingPart
. There are more enhancement of PartDesign in my branch, but has much more close dependency on the topo naming functionality and some others like rendering and tree view enhancement.
Can you in future please make directly a PR and start discussions? We have now more mergers and manpower to handle them. I know that debates need time and take energy but in the end we benefit from the different user application input and thus can setup solutions that suit the most.
Yes indeed. I'll try to make smaller PRs in the future.