That's a very good option too. Expressions and spreadsheets have been my preferred way to go in Solidworks -- I have been a CREO user for a while now and our standard practice is to put driving / functional dimensions and geometry in skeleton sketches.

Thanks, appreciate the feedback! I'm looking at doing something less tutorial-feeling (of which there are plenty) and more focussed on best practices to avoid issues. Is there anything specific you would like to see?

​@@engineeringmaths I agree with you, many people don't like freecad because there is the "topology" problem inside that desctruct their model. I prefer to say after more than one year on freecad that all beginers should know all these problems. Thumb's up ! (and i'm subscribing to your channel to). For me, it's better to have the report view on the right to have more place for modelisation.

@@engineeringmaths If you can spare the time, a video on using datum planes with pipes and subtractive pipes would be nice. How to make intersections that do not break if I change something. 👏

@@hjtv3900 additive pipes / lofts are a nightmare even in professional CAD packages! 😄I have added this to my list, will definitely work on this soon.

​@@engineeringmaths have you told your customers that square is the new round?

Hey, sorry for the issue at 15:03, this is down to my editing skills! I used "mirror", so selecting the node on the left, the vertical axis, the right axis, and then the ">

Thanks! The realthunder branch is excellent, but I'd rather wait for it to be merged into the main freecad release when it's ready and stable enough. This approach is a bit more robust at the moment if you want to automate parameter changes etc...

Good point on references. Regarding referencing external geometries, I literally have a video coming up in a couple hours 😃 make sure to check it out!

@@engineeringmaths Thanks. I deduce with your new video that for referencing, using cascading datum planes is a good approach (for simple objects only) (like cascading style sheets !)-> Exemple : referencing on datum plane with another datum plane etc. Like this the geometry will be less dependent from topology problems (that will be resolved in future versions of freecad).

A spreadsheet is a good idea and it's a typical way to drive family tables or variations of parts, but the driving features should ideally all be in the model tree so that they make it obvious to another user what they do.

You can only rename constraints as far as I understand but you can reference pretty much any other parameter by using the formula button on variables. It's not obvious at first but I briefly explain how to do it in my top down assembly video, around this timestamp: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rteErdF3vLzOo5c.html I do need to sort out all the kinks in my recording set up, I will definitely look into setting up either a mouse highlighting tool or a larger cursor when recording. Really appreciate the feedback!

Ahh sorry my bad, looks like the window capture didn't work properly. If you double click on a dimension in Sketcher, you will get a popup that lets you rename the constraint. I agree that it's not ideal, but if you need to move away from certain commercial software that's "free until it's not", this is a reasonably stable way to not lose your mind when you want to change something later. Also using skeleton sketches is pretty standard in industry when doing top down design, it does make things a bit slower but it pays off in time saved on fixing broken models.

@@engineeringmaths Thanks for the reply. I use sketchup for doing room layout woodworking projects and for designing project boxes for electronics projects to be 3D printed. I want to use FreeCAD for do my designs for 3D printing. All just hobby stuff.

@@andymok7945 unfortunately if you want to stay away from the autod*sk ransom / subscription model, there aren't many open source alternatives other than Blender (for non-parametric) and FreeCAD (for "parametric, almost, when it works")... I used to say that all CAD software is almost the same, the only difference is they make you angry in different places.

​@@engineeringmaths solvespace is pretty nice

*Topology* is a branch of mathematics concerned with the properties of geometric objects that remain unchanged under continuous deformations. These deformations include stretching, twisting, crumpling, and bending, without introducing holes, tearing, or gluing. In other words, topology studies the “shape” of objects in a flexible way. Here are some key points related to topology: *Topological Space* A topological space is a set of points endowed with a specific structure called a topology. The topology defines which subsets of the space are considered “open” (in a precise mathematical sense). Open sets capture the idea of “closeness” between points. Examples of topological spaces include Euclidean spaces (like our familiar 2D and 3D spaces) and more general metric spaces. *Topological Properties* A property that remains invariant under continuous deformations is called a topological property. Examples of topological properties include: - Dimension: Distinguishing between a line (1D) and a surface (2D). - Compactness: Distinguishing between a line and a circle. - Connectedness: Distinguishing a circle from two non-intersecting circles. *Historical Context* The ideas underlying topology trace back to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the 17th century. Leonhard Euler’s famous “Seven Bridges of Königsberg” problem and his polyhedron formula are considered early topological theorems. The term “topology” was introduced by Johann Benedict Listing in the 19th century, but the concept of a topological space fully developed in the 20th century. Now, let’s connect this to topological naming: In computer science and modeling, “topological naming” refers to a naming convention that preserves the topological relationships between objects. When we perform operations on a model (such as attaching a blend to an edge), the resulting names reflect the previous state of the model. Essentially, it’s about maintaining consistency in naming based on the underlying topology.

​@@emiellrWow. What a comprehensive explanation on the subject of topology . Thanks. I don't dispute the naming of a shape remaining consistent but my observation of freecad is that it will, say renumber edges, that one has already chamfered to be other edges, with the same name, but with a different numerical suffix, as it changes the numerical numbering of edges, if one changes something one has created a couple of steps before in the workflow. I am sure it is a complex issue to solve as it involves a deep historical depth of understanding of how the computational construction of the software was used to depict a 3 dimensional object . I am grateful to the people who are contributing to hopefully solving the problem.

I'm not a fan of that approach as you tend to lose design intent depending on what features are used for

The tutorials do this because pretty much every other parametric design tool isn't fundamentally broken and models don't explode every-time something is done like adding a chamfer. They want people to think FreeCAD is usable for doing serious work when in reality it is a mess.

Thanks for the feedback! Not showing my face would make my life easier, however I have had lots of feedback in the past where people much preferred seeing a face during video tutorials, seminars and presentations. Would you prefer the approach shown in stanfordvr.com/mm/2015/kizilcec-jep-instructors-face.pdf which seems to show the face only in strategic moments? The effects of either approach seem to be minuscule but always happy to make evidence based decisions! If you find any reasonably serious piece of work looking at it having a detrimental effect overall, it would be great if you could share it! Or if there is a clever way in KZfaq to let the user choose? Thanks again!

@@engineeringmaths you should definitely show your face and not show your face at the same time.

@@engineeringmaths I like that you show your face! It makes these videos more personal and relatable, even if the face cam doesn't provide any other value. Please keep it!

Distracting and waste of screen space. Agreed!

@@engineeringmaths Thank you for the reference to the interesting article by Kizilcec. A combination of showing your face in the intro and outro would be nice because it makes the video more personal. When working the models, there is little benefit to me in seeing your face. @Mac Mac: It is a bit harsh to call it distracting and a waste of screen space. But there is some truth in your remark.