Thank you for your kind words :)

​@@OficineRobotica😂

Yes, indeed the pad up to face could use some extra features. That issue has plagued me as well.

This is really nice to hear. It means I achieved my goal :)

Thank you so much for your kind words :)

I love the standards implementation. This way one can model withought the risk of misfits.

Thank you so much for your kind words.Indeed my intention is to bring awareness of the capabilities of the software and promote it. Glad you liked it :)

That would be pretty weird. All of those companies pay for placement in the channels videos. The money flows the other direction

@@constructiverealities True, but I can hope at some point lol.

Yes, but in that way it won't represent the radius of the arc anymore unfortunatly. Anyway there are allot of ways to solve the same problem. Thank you for your kind words :)

Thank you so much for your kind words. Unfortunately, for this tutorial to work you really need LinkStage3 because the multibody functionality is not yet in master. I guess it can be done in PartDesign using booleans but the purpose of this tut was to show the new tools and workflows possible thanks to the new funtionalities introduced. Give LinkStage3 another go, allot has changed especially in the rendering department.

Man, I have refine on by default on all features and don't know why I always seem to avoid the symmetry tool. In the times that refine was discouraged because of OCC quirks I made a habit of avoiding seems on the model by building entire sketches. Indeed that would of cutted the tut length in half lol

I was thinking the same, but I have mixed experiences (as a beginner): Trying to mirror *within* a sketch usually causes a lot of grief for me. Mirroring a solid works much better. When trying to design a piece (as opposed to just redoing an existing piece as an exercise), it is nice to interactively manipulate the sketch and see how the whole sketch reacts -- I like to see the whole piece change as opposed to 1/4 piece.

It would be unfortunate for RT Link branch to become a hard fork. While you could make such a request in the RT Github I think you might find similar resistance there to anything that might move that branch further away from the mainstream. The Blender community faces similar issues when requests are made to make Blender behave more like, say, Maya as simply attempting to mimic commercial software is not what open source is about. Blender's answer is usually that if you can supply resources and coding to integrate any new feature then it is welcome, you are also welcome to request new features but unless such features are in keeping with the development roadmap they may be considered low priority.

@@paulreader1777 many disagree. FreeCAD has largely been relegated to non commercial nerdom because of modeling dogma and ultra quirky leadership. I would be tickled if this split off from freeCAD and put a voting /pay-to-play prioritization model to make a tool with practical utility.

@@constructiverealities You are welcome to disagree but there are sufficient using it to give it impetus and it will become more mature in the next couple of years. You are also welcome to contribute to the cost of development a la the Blender model which FreeCAD will ultimately emulate. FreeCAD is free and open for those who wish to use it, even with a few foibles. Those who don't wish to use it can choose a commercial product.

@@paulreader1777 i think you're missing my point. I'm all in on open source, financial contributions and making and using a great free cad (two words) application for everyone. I waved green money around with specific interest to support direct manipulation feature development (I come from spaceclaim universe) and was told to pound sand, because such a vulgar interface pattern was antithetical to what freeCAD (one word) should be and would "NEVER" be accepted upstream. I try to never argue with idiots, and the proof of point is that freeCAD has (and continues to) languish under this kind of weirdo fundamentalist ideology . It's an open invitation for a reformation of that breaks it free of this dogma and is responsive to needs that increase accessibility and puts some basic interaction/interface design from this century into play. Sketchup and spaceclaim regularly change people lives and get them hooked on design. Definitively, freeCAD does not with the exception of a handful of sadist. Where you see sadness, there is opportunity to advance utility and accessibility in having more choice in OSS cad.

It would be a long long explanation lol and would need a video of it's own but to make a long story short it has to do with the dependency graph, local coordinates systems and top down design. Both approaches work the same and are correct but due to the inner workings of FC, confining the features to one body helps allot avoiding the "cyclic reference" error when basing features of another body on this one for example in an assembly. It also yelds a cleaner tree when you have more than one body in your file. One thing that I wish is that the visual distinction in the tree of the solids would be clearer. I think that would be a good feature request :)

@@OficineRobotica Thanks for the summary, I kind of get it. I have encountered the cyclic issue many times but not sure if my process is just off or if there's an easy method to prevent it. I'll do some more research on the feature and learn more about the interacting components

Given the symmetry of the model, yes , it can absolutely be done that way. I have the "Aluminum extrusion" tutorial on my channel and the same can be applied to that model too :)

@@OficineRobotica Thanks for your reply. As always, very good tutorial.

The topo naming algorithm is the Achilies heel of freecad. In LinkStage3, Realthunder has largely resolved this problem but applying fillets and chamfers at later stages of the model helps on avoiding that problem. It's also a best practices stuff. Hope that makes sense :)

@@OficineRobotica thanks for the answer!

Some linkstage3 features are going to make it into main FreeCAD, but not all. The code between the two is diverging at such a rate that linkstage3 will probably become a hard fork eventually..

@@joes144 The idea of a hard fork is sad but these things do happen in open source projects. From the point of view of a user I just want the best FreeCAD possible but that does include stability, docs, community, and all those good things as well as shiny features.

@@AndrewHelgeCox I agree, but I'll be honest. I prefer linkstage3, it is generally quite stable and I intend to continue using it for the foreseeable future. It's a personal decision for everyone of course.

@@joes144 I really do hope that there is not a hard fork.

Realthunder sinks the code between master and his branch often, that means that he pulls in the new code in master and builds on top of that. Also there are pull requests for all his major features to be merged in master that are being reviewed. As of now his intentions seem to be clear. Linkstage3 is a test bed for features to be merged. The more we test the more he squashes bugs giving a higher probability of things to end up in the official release.

I need to be more clear about what version I'm using in my videos. In the title its written [LinkStage3] Downloaded from here github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_assembly3/releases

Of course you can do it. This is what FLOSS is all about. Just be carefull with the TNP in 0.20 and perhaps point to one of my videos also ;) .... Cheers and spread the word about freecad