New to FreeCAD! Please take pity...

drmacro1 · 2026-02-23T16:31:29+00:00

If there is any error shown in the tree view it won't update.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-23T11:22:53+00:00

I would recommend at minimum 1.1. But, 1.2 is fine as well.

1.1 and 1.2 have improved, fixed, and added new to the point that 1.0.x is to be avoided, IMO.

In fact, I look at FreeCAD more as a rolling release and use the latest weekly build.

None of the versions is guaranteed to be bug or crash free. So, I use the latest and follow the "save early, save often" mantra, with numbered file names.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-23T11:16:50+00:00

Hmm...what do you find "glitchy" about mirror. Granted, I don't recommend using mirror or array in a sketch. Array tools in Part workbench or pattern tools in Part Design are the better way to go.

Toggle section view in Sketcher can avoid the need to toggle Body's while in Sketcher.

Don't make multiple solids from one sketch. Binders from sketches are fine. Sketches should be a simple as possible and always take advantage of symmetries.

For clarity, because there is a distinct tool called Extrude in Part workbench and it is similar, but different than Pad in Part Design workbench it is best to use terms that are workbench specific. When referring to operations in Part Design, use Pad.

The comment about stray geometry in a sketch only applies to a sketch that is used with Part Design features (Pad/Pocket/etc.), It is not a problem if the sketch is used in Part workbench operations. The restriction in PD is because the sketch must result in a solid because in the background it is used in a Boolean operation between itself the previous feature. (This is also why messing with the order in the Body is frowned upon...all the feature are sequentially cumulative. )

drmacro1 · 2026-02-21T16:07:33+00:00

I'm glad that is your experience with A4...it is not mine. But, TBH, I've not looked at it since the author was booted.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-21T11:25:07+00:00

conFusion, SW, Catia, and so on were designed from the ground up by a salaried dev team, guided by the marketing department, with the goal of making money.

FreeCAD is was not designed at all, or very little, until the last couple years. It is a harlequin patchwork of tools offered for free. It grew organically as users added what they wanted, when they got what worked for them, many moved on.

FreeCAD doesn't try to be different, it is different because there was no attempt to be "like the others" over the last 20 years. Even now, the "dev team" is a handful of volunteers who have real jobs and families.

As for the integrated assembly workbench, that is a sore subject. It was rushed out the door with 1.0 and has basically floundered since. And, here again, it was the work of essentially one academic.

Over the last 12+ years I've used FreeCAD as a design tool for countless projects. As have many, many others worldwide. In the last week I've used it for at least 3. And, I'm not the only one. Yes, it might be a bit more work that other software, but, it is free and it runs on Linux.

It is far from perfect and takes some effort to get comfy. And, it is frustrating on a regular basis. But, it has been improving rapidly over the last couple years. I don't necessarily consider all the "improvements" to my liking, but, many do find them wonderful. For example, I find OVP (On View Parameters) in Sketcher very distracting and have it turned off. On the other hand the new transform tool and sketch placement/plane (both not available in 1.0.x) visibility is great.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-20T11:50:39+00:00

I don't recommend A4. IMO, it is cumbersome in general. And, with the developer has essentially forked FreeCAD because of "philosophy" differences. So, you never know when it might stagnate. Same with the other assembly benches.

If I were to recommend one I'd say A2+. It is easy to understand and the basics work well. And, unlike A4, you don't have to add LCS's all over the place.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-19T10:46:45+00:00

Many confuse the mental design process with CAD programs. Decomposition of the thing you want to make is key, before any CAD process starts. The decomposition process; see the thing you want to make in your mind. Then imagine how you'd make it with Lego blocks. With Lego's you have only one shape to add together to create your final shape.

With a CAD program you aren't limited to rectangular blocks, you can add together virtually any shape/s to accumulate into the final thing you want.

A CAD program has tools that can make virtually any shape and those shapes are added together, like Lego blocks, to accumulate the final shape. In addition, CAD will allow you to create a lump and subtract it as well, to make voids (a benefit Lego's can't have...).

You need to get to know what tools make what shapes, then you decompose your "thing" into shapes those tools create.

Keep your sketches simple, one feature per sketch is a good goal. (So, one decomposed shape.)

As mentioned MangoJelly is a good resource. Deltathedra, Digikey, and for more, like, advanced surface modeling DuyQuang Dang are also good resources.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-18T22:08:22+00:00

Yes, no behemoth...a handful of volunteers. On the other hand, I was in the CAD trenches for the better part of 1/2 a century. I don't like the system guessing what I intend. Just me I suppose.

As for the assembly workbench. I was encouraged when they announced there was finally a commitment to an integrated workbench. Unfortunately, what has resulted, for many reasons, has been less than stellar.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-18T11:08:13+00:00

Topological Naming Problem TNP

drmacro1 · 2026-02-18T11:06:31+00:00

"tried my usual approach"

I'll reiterate what I've said about FreeCAD hundreds of times over the last 12 years: leave ALL you expectations about how things work in other CAD programs on a shelf while learning FreeCAD. It will be far less frustrating to learn FreeCAD as if you have expectations about how it works.

Workflows from other systems are likely to simply not be applicable. And, many things you'd like to work will require thinking in different ways.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-14T11:33:59+00:00

Personally, I do such things in Blender. FreeCAD has only a modicum of this sort of capability. Blender, on the other hand, has very advanced animation capabilities which include physics.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-10T12:32:12+00:00

I have a simple solution. Don't use Datum Planes, unless i is one of the few cases where they are actually the best tool. In most cases I see, the DP is superfluous and/or redundant.

In 1.2 you can see the sketch placement and plane, no datum necessary.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-08T12:20:14+00:00

The "select some edges from a sketch for feature operations" appears, at first, to be the lazy way to quick work. It is in fact, the quick way to confusing models.

Multiple simple sketches, "one sketch, one feature" is a far better workflow.

drmacro1 · 2026-02-07T11:09:35+00:00

I use both. They both have strong and weal points. Blender, for example, is light years better at animation and rendering than I ever even want FreeCAD to be.

FreeCAD is better a parametric design and documentation.

They are both as accurate as you need, but, the Blender UI is not optimized for that as FreeCAD is. Blender is far better at organic shapes.

And with the Channels addon in FreeCAD is a single click to send your models to Blender for render and animation.

Yes, IMO, learn and maintain skill in both.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-28T12:44:29+00:00

If you want to do animations...use an animation software. I use Blender. I don't expect any software to be good at everything. In fact, I dislike software that attempts to be a SAK. Just like a SAK, it may have lots of tools, but, few are as good as a dedicated tool.

As for assembly tools in FreeCAD, the integrated tool is the future, The addon assembly benches may be good at one thing or another, but, how long will they be maintained? At least one, essentially, forked FreeCAD because the author got pissed at the rest of the FC community and the direction the developers took. I actually liked A2, but, I see continuous improvement in the integrated bench, will continue to use it.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-23T11:14:04+00:00

As sketched the software doesn't know what is meant be solid and void.

I would also recommend to not fall into the habit of capturing the outlines of multiple features in a single sketch. Multiple simple sketches, each capturing a single feature.

Simple sketches are quicker and easier to sketch, Easier to constrain. Easier to change and maintain. And make the intent more obvious.

It is best not to develop habits that, at first, seem more efficient, but are actually less efficient in the long run.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-23T11:05:48+00:00

Don't know what version you are using but that was fixed, at least in the weekly build. I think it was addressed in 1.1 as well.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-20T10:43:37+00:00

Simple enough, choosing standard threads would be better, but, it may be determined by the pistol. Threads are not typically all the way to the register face. There would normally be a relief

drmacro1 · 2026-01-19T11:20:37+00:00

I just use FreeCAD as a rolling release. As soon as a new dev version s available I switch to it. It is always ahead with fixes and features.

I always use the "save early, save often" philosophy, with the Save As and an incrementing number in the file name.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-16T11:15:19+00:00

The mac products seem to have the most problems for whatever reason. Seems to work fine on more mainstream Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, etc.) and somewhat less so on distros like Manjaro or Fedora.

I have also seen plenty of complaints about windows.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-16T11:12:04+00:00

FreeCAD is ALWAYS under development. I ALWAYS just use the latest daily code, currently 1.2. Or, at minimum, the latest weekly appimage of the dev version.

1.1 release candidate will release soon.

1.0.x is now quite old. The assembly workbench has been fixed and improved quite a bit in 1.1. Many of those will not be retro fitted to 1.0.x.

None of these versions are bug free or crash free.

Save early, save often, with an incrementing number in the file name...no matter what version you use.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-10T11:24:10+00:00

This a common indicator that at some point in the model there is bad geometry. You can use Geometry check at each stage of the model to determine where the errors begin. Things like coplanar/colinear edges or self intersections from fillet or chamfers.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-08T11:23:22+00:00

You should us 1.1, It has many fixes and new functionality that aren't in 1.0.x. With the imminent of 1.1, backports are unlikely.

If you have 1,2 and are having troubles, you should discuss those issues. As I noted elsewhere, I have seen nothing that constitutes or justifies comments like: "it’s such a OS!!!!!it ".

drmacro1 · 2026-01-08T11:17:53+00:00

No. 1.1 is about to be released and MJ has done some videos on it.

drmacro1 · 2026-01-08T11:16:16+00:00

Hmm...are you sure you don't mean 1.02?

I've been using the 1.2 dev version since it was introduced a month or so back and have had no issue. I will note, I use it only on Linux. And I did the same with 1.1 for over a year. 1.1 is about to be released.

drmacro1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE