We started this series with the assumption that there is a strong community demand for a default assembly workbench in FreeCAD. The community discussion that followed that article confirmed our belief. We then researched existing options — Assembly 2, A2plus, Assembly 3, and Assembly 4 — and even quickly studied related workbenches and macros.

Our research had a number of limitations though. We avoided exploring the earliest solutions such as the original workbench by Jürgen Riegel and FreeGCS because they were incomplete. We also decided against studying both Exploded Assembly and Animation workbenches because this type of feature deserves dedicated attention.

In the previous posts in this series we’ve already discussed reasons to create a default assembly workbench and then explored existing options: Assembly 2, A2plus, Assembly 3, and Assembly 4.

There are several more tools that provide a subset of their features, and these tools regularly come up in discussions on creating assemblies: the BodyBuilder macro, the Manipulator workbench, and the Part-o-magic workbench. Since none of them can realistically serve as a foundation for a potential default assembly workbench, in this review, we’ll focus on their interaction models to see what we can learn from them.

In the previous posts in this series, we talked about the need for a default assembly workbench in FreeCAD and reviewed Assembly 2, A2plus, and Assembly 3. Let’s talk about Assembly 4.

This is the fourth part in the series where we explore the possibility of creating a default assembly workbench for FreeCAD. We started out with a conversation about why we need a default assembly workbench in the program, then reviewed Assembly 2 and A2plus. Now let’s talk about the Assembly 3 workbench.

We’ve already talked about the need for a default assembly workbench in FreeCAD and reviewed Assembly 2. Now let’s get into the nitty-gritty of the A2plus workbench.

This is part two of our series on the need for an integrated default assembly workbench for FreeCAD. Part One gives and introduction and explains our methods. In this part, we take a closer look at Assembly 2, one of the early approaches to adding this feature set to FreeCAD.

This is the first post in the series where we discuss the need for an integrated assembly workbench, review existing 3rd-party options, and discuss takeaways from our research.

Should hiring managers base a decision on someone’s GitHub profile? No. But will it ever hurt to have a robust GitHub account? Also no.

I’m a hiring manager for a new open core company, and I watched the discussion under @manuel_frigerio’s tweet blow up with amusement. The debate about using people’s GitHub profiles to make hiring decisions isn’t new. The typical backlash ensued and Manuel has since made his tweets private. And sure, using someone’s GitHub profile, particularly their contribution graph, to judge their skills as a developer is flawed.

FreeCAD's 'topological naming problem' is legendary. It's frequently cited as the number one reason holding back widespread adoption of FreeCAD for commercial use.

Developer RealThunder introduced a fix to the problem years ago, but it has never been fully incorporated into the core product.

Will FreeCAD ever have a solution? Yes. But it’s going to take time.

Let’s back up a bit.

I recently came across an audio recording of C.S. Lewis's famous The Screwtape Letters read by John Cleese. It's excellent and made me wonder what Uncle Screwtape would think of the modern world, software development, and open-source software. I was inspired to ask ChatGPT. What follows is an unedited transcript.