https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/2559
There are also various small fixes. I have made a user oriented video to introduce the Link feature.
PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
-
realthunder
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
Thanks for this very important video. I think this should be moved to the Tutorials and videos forum, do you agree?
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
great job, no small effort as well ! Thank you for your contributions, realthunder!
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
The video is good but don't forget the written documentation.
For example, I created the Std LinkMake page. The other accessible command is Std_LinkMakeGroup, which apparently has several modes of operation.
Some of the link and expression commands are also accessible from the tree view, the property editor, and 3D view, so the basic documentation should be available, in order to link to it as necessary.
For example, I created the Std LinkMake page. The other accessible command is Std_LinkMakeGroup, which apparently has several modes of operation.
Some of the link and expression commands are also accessible from the tree view, the property editor, and 3D view, so the basic documentation should be available, in order to link to it as necessary.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
-
realthunder
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
I am thinking of removing Link group commands in the future and integrate some of its features into App::Part. That's why I didn't mention it in the video. I'll complete that page once everything is settled.vocx wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:17 pm The video is good but don't forget the written documentation.
For example, I created the Std LinkMake page. The other accessible command is Std_LinkMakeGroup, which apparently has several modes of operation.
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
Understood. If I recall from the big Assembly3 thread, the LinkGroup would sort of become an alternative to App::Part because of disagreements with Ickby's implementation of App::Part. However, I also got the impression that well, the LinkGroup functionality could still be merged into App::Part to avoid having a competing object. Is this correct?realthunder wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:49 am I am thinking of removing Link group commands in the future and integrate some of its features into App::Part.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
-
realthunder
- Veteran
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:55 am
Re: PR#2559: expose link and navigation actions
Yes, that's true.vocx wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:11 am Understood. If I recall from the big Assembly3 thread, the LinkGroup would sort of become an alternative to App::Part because of disagreements with Ickby's implementation of App::Part. However, I also got the impression that well, the LinkGroup functionality could still be merged into App::Part to avoid having a competing object. Is this correct?