Awesome video, as well as work that you're doing. Solution two seems to be the most natural to me. However it's worth to ask how much does the creation of new objects will impact the performance in a huge assembly.
New AssemblyLink wouldn't be a performance hit. They would be better performance wise than the first solution (copy on changed links). It's just that it is adding complexity to the software by adding one more type of objects.
Thanks for posting these videos. Would love to see some more coding videos, they were great as well.
Got it, I'll try to deliver! :)
reinventing what Realthunder made years ago? His version is called 'linkstage' for a reason.
Awesome video, as well as work that you're doing. Solution two seems to be the most natural to me. However it's worth to ask how much does the creation of new objects will impact the performance in a huge assembly.
New AssemblyLink wouldn't be a performance hit. They would be better performance wise than the first solution (copy on changed links). It's just that it is adding complexity to the software by adding one more type of objects.
What happens if you modify the original assembly (e.g., change/add/remove constraints) that has been included as a flexible subassembly?
The idea is that they keep in sync. So if there's some modification in the assembly, the assemblyLink updates