Sketch Patterns & Offset (Not Constrained??)
- Thread starter jfleming
- Start date
Lew_Merrick
Guest
But what if you want a "copy" of features with some "omitted" from the copy?
HaroldL
Alibre Super User
jfleming said:
That's why I don't, as a general practice, use Sketch Patterns. You could use Copy (Ctrl+V) and Paste Stamper ( in the RMB menu) that copies the constraints and dimensions of the sketch elements being copied or patterned. You would still need to apply some constraints and dimensions to locate the individual sketches within the pattern.
I tend to use Feature patterns because you have more control and can edit the pattern.
To Lew's point, if one or more of the features in the pattern need to be omitted then I just start a sketch and Project to Sketch the edges of the feature being omitted and Extrude Boss to fill it in. One could even create a new feature sketch and use the omitted feature as the "origin" for the new shape.
Both the Sketch Pattern and Feature Pattern could use some work to give them more useful options, like the ability to suppress individual copies within the pattern. Or allowing the spacing to be changed at different intervals,i.e.: a pattern spacing like 2.000,1.500,3.125,6.000, just to name a couple.
bigseb
Alibre Super User
Yes it does.jfleming said:
BUT
It gives you freedom to constrain it how you want. Creo, on the other hand, auto-constrains everything. This is a major headache to undo, mainly because you cannot delete constraints but only replace one with another. Geomagic Design gives you a ton of freedom.
NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
I agree with the OP especially for offset. But to the others points a simple check box could be used to enable/disable the constraints.
jfleming
Alibre Super User
Thank you for the replies fellas. All good points.
What I ended up doing was making Sketch 1, with a circular array of points (bolt circle x 8 bolts). Left it unconstrained.
Then created Sketch 2, and referenced Sketch 1. This seemed to work for what I needed it to. As long as someone (me) doesn't go jacking with Sketch 1, it should be fine, correct? Or is this just bad design practice???
What I ended up doing was making Sketch 1, with a circular array of points (bolt circle x 8 bolts). Left it unconstrained.
Then created Sketch 2, and referenced Sketch 1. This seemed to work for what I needed it to. As long as someone (me) doesn't go jacking with Sketch 1, it should be fine, correct? Or is this just bad design practice???
NateLiquidGravity
Alibre Super User
Best design practice is all geometry fixed or fully constrained.
HaroldL
Alibre Super User
Anyone familiar with SolidWorks will recognize that your method is similar to how the SolidWorks Hole Wizard works. It creates two sketches, the 2D Position sketch contains the points for hole locations while a 3D sketch is the profile which is revolved to make the Hole feature. The user still has the option of constraining, or not, the 2D sketch and can add or delete points or change the location of points in that sketch to control the number and location of holes. What I like about the SW Hole Wizard is that you can use the hole feature to drive the assembly of hardware that may be installed in the holes.jfleming said:
For your example I would create Sketch 1 using the Regular Polygon tool. Then use the Hole Tool to place points for your holes. Exit the Hole Tool then EDIT the Hole Tool sketch and use Project to Sketch, with Maintain association selected, to project Sketch 1 as Reference figures and constrain the Hole points the points of the projected sketch.
JST
Alibre Super User
I'd vote for the "choice" idea... The biggest pain in the neck for this is if you have to move the whole array, which might be cooling slots, etc, by some amount. With the "features" that you were "never going to need to move" moving, you are back to having to constrain everything, if you didn't to begin with.
The sketch pattern, however, seems to take less system resources than a feature pattern. I suppose that could be an issue in some cases. I had a pattern I wanted to show, so that it would go thru to Keyshot, but it was too big for GMD to handle. Wasn't even that big physically...
The sketch pattern, however, seems to take less system resources than a feature pattern. I suppose that could be an issue in some cases. I had a pattern I wanted to show, so that it would go thru to Keyshot, but it was too big for GMD to handle. Wasn't even that big physically...