SheetMetal WB migration to 0.17

[sgrogan]

Thanks to DeepSOIC and shaise.
This is FreeCAD at it's best. Problem > Discussion > Solution.

[NormandC]

I found a few minutes to test the new 0.17 compatible SheetMetal wb. It's great!

If you'll allow me, I have one comment and one feature request:

• The "extrude" feature name kind of conflicts with the existing Part Extrude. May I suggest replacing it with Extend? This is a term used in other CAD systems for similar functions.
• Would it be possible to make the Unfold object parametrically linked to the Body history? Since the produced solid could not be added to the Body tree without creating a mess in it, maybe a second Body could be created to include this solid? This new body's label could have (Unfold) appended. (I know, that's a tall order!)

Thanks!

[shaise]

The "extrude" feature name kind of conflicts with the existing Part Extrude.! May I suggest replacing it with Extend?

Agreed and done.

Would it be possible to make the Unfold object parametrically linked to the Body history?

I was pounding with this question when I added Ulrich's Unfold macro into the workbench. I think since it is not a part of the workflow, but only the end result (there is no meaning in unfolding an object then continue to add folds to the flatten result), then there is no reason for it to be parametric. It is not even replacing the base object, but rather creates a stand alone copy.
Another reason is that it is relatively computational heavy, it can be annoying to wait for re-compute after each change. As I see it, work on the folded sheet metal until you are satisfied with the result, then use the unfolder to get the flattened representation.

[triplus]

I needed to create small piece from sheetmetal and decided to test the procedure out in FreeCAD 0.17 PartDesign. It worked.

P.S. If no document is opened and user activates SheetMetal workbench error occurs.

[NormandC]

Agreed and done.

Cool!

I think since it is not a part of the workflow, but only the end result (there is no meaning in unfolding an object then continue to add folds to the flatten result), then there is no reason for it to be parametric.

I disagree.

I work with sheet metal parts almost every day at work. I often go back and forth between the folded part and the flattened part (I have to switch modes from a menu: they are displayed as separate bodies in the tree, but only one or the other can be seen in the 3D view at a time). I have to edit sheet metal parts quite often, change features etc. So a parametric unfold item would save time. But,

Another reason is that it is relatively computational heavy, it can be annoying to wait for re-compute after each change.

This I understand. FreeCAD seems to have limitations in that regard; in the commercial CAD system I use at work, the flattened part is not automatically recomputed when not in flattened mode.

[shaise]

NormandC,

The workflow you described of switching between flatten and folded views, is indeed usable. The thing is that it is not compatible with FreeCADs parametric system.
If I make the unfolded sheet parametrically connected to your part then any changes you do the part AFTER that, will NOT affect the unfolded part. Only if you make changes to things you made before generating the unfold (say change the wall length of a bend you did before unfolding) only then will it affect the unfolded part. To see your new changes taking effect on the unfolded part, you will have to re generate it. So that's why I think it is not useful.
I think that now, with the new container system it is a good idea to devise a new parametric system that lets you link to what the container exposes to the world rather then to a specific part inside. This + if I can find a way to detect where to start the unfolding from automatically (right now, Ulrich's macro requires you to select a face) and I will be able to give you this feature.

shai

[shaise]

P.S. If no document is opened and user activates SheetMetal workbench error occurs.

Thanks!
Fixed.

[NormandC]

I think that now, with the new container system it is a good idea to devise a new parametric system that lets you link to what the container exposes to the world rather then to a specific part inside. This + if I can find a way to detect where to start the unfolding from automatically (right now, Ulrich's macro requires you to select a face) and I will be able to give you this feature.

I understand this is not an easy task, so don't sweat it.

FYI, in the commercial CAD I use at work, when switching to the flatten mode the first time, the software prompts the user to select a face and an edge to reference the x axis.

[Serchu]

Hi, have tested today the Sheet Metal module and find it very usefull and easy to understand. Can you add a tool to create the initial flat pannel directly in the Sheet Metal module?

Best regards, and thanks for this great module.

[shaise]

Can you explain what you mean?
There is a button that flatten your sheet metal model once you finish.