ChamferDDOperation: Operation(s) selected can not be patterned alone.

[Stuart]

I'm trying to do a circular pattern of a chamfer.

If I add all the edges to the chamfer operation it works, but when I try to pattern a single chamfer I get the error com.alibre.design.ops.ChamferDDOperation: Operation(s) selected can not be patterned alone.

What is this error trying to tell me?



-Stuart

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

Just wondering if you might be better off with a revolve.

 

[bigseb]

Patterning chamfers/fillets in Alibre has never worked. Usually it will if patterned along with a 'base' feature but not always. But never on their own.

 

[Stuart]

Patterning chamfers/fillets in Alibre has never worked. Usually it will if patterned along with a 'base' feature but not always. But never on their own.

Good to know.

Just wondering if you might be better off with a revolve.

A revolve wont work. It needs to fit the existing geometry at the ends. The round protruding parts are hollow.

 

[Nick952]

You could try adding the revolved chamfer (or chamfer, using the chamfer tool) earlier in the design, before the "round protruding parts" are added, so in effect building through / on the chamfer.

 

[DavidJ]

Or use a partial revolve, then pattern that.

 

[idslk]

From my side:
1) general it would be lazy to be able to pattern a champfer
2) here particulary it would need only 3 more edges to select for the chamfers...
3) a revolve? If you have a part like that:
(would be nice to have the original...)

you may have a section view (if completely hollow) like that:

doing some thing to revolve? not so easy, if i don't overlooked something...

In my opinion:
If a change of design order is not possible the way 2 will be the easiest...

Regards
Stefan

 

[Stuart]

The part at this point is a shell and hollow as in Stephan's pic. The chamfer part needs to be solid, so I can't "cut" it before the shell operation.

A revolve or sweep To Next would be handy.

 

[Stuart]

I should add that there are currently 4 segments, but it's configurable which is mostly why I want to use a circular pattern.

 

[bigseb]

Not trying to sound like a stuck record but moi... no problem.

 

[idslk]

Hello Stuart,

A revolve or sweep To Next would be handy.

+1

it's configurable

can you explain what in detail should be configurable?

Hello Sebastian,

Not trying to sound like a stuck record but moi... no problem.

challenge is to get it done in Alibre... ;-)

Regards
Stefan

 

[bigseb]

... challenge is to get it done in Alibre... ;-)

In the past I would loved to have tackled this and find an Alibre solution. These days... life's just too short tbh.

 

[idslk]

 

[Stuart]

can you explain what in detail should be configurable?

I mean my design is configurable. There is a parameter that controls the number of "spokes". With a circular pattern, I could easily replicate the chamfer to match the number of spokes in each configuration.

 

[Stuart]

Here's a more close up view that shows the "angled ledge" that makes a sweep or revolve not work without the To Next option.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Hi Stuart -- Think about it. Were you cutting such a set of Fillets the vertical corners would have to be Filleted before the horizontal edges could be Filleted. More to the point a Filleting Cutter has a "minimum ID" that allows such a cutter to be ground and resharpened. You are asking for something that can only be "3D Printed" from exceptionally weak materials. -- Lew

 

[Stuart]

something that can only be "3D Printed"

It will only be 3D printed.

I have managed to simplify the design down to a single wedge. Then when I apply a circular topology pattern I get "PTRN_BAD_BUMP: the face or loop to which the pattern was applied is not part of a valid bump or hole (ext)" What's an example of what causes that?

 

[Stuart]

Ok, so topology pattern is the wrong thing to use.

I'm trying to select everything for a feature pattern. Does a Shell Operation not create a feature? I can't add it to the pattern list.

 

[bigseb]

Tried modelling it is sections and then boolean uniting them into one part? Sometimes its the omly way to a really complex part.

 

[Stuart]

Trying really hard not to use boolean unite. You can't have a part configuration select the configuration of the boolean'd part. That's already giving me a headache in another part.