Search found 461 matches
- Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:10 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
Re: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
This and many other threads, here and in other social media, basically say is it's inconvenient and doesn't work like other CAD systems. Again for years. In fact a lot of people is complaining about the assurdity of the one body/one solid rule. Is it a good reason? I don't know. By yourself admissi...
- Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:56 pm
- Forum: Pull Requests
- Topic: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
- Replies: 63
- Views: 51436
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
just because you personally don't need something does not mean it's not worth having I didn't say I don't want it. Just asked to better understand the need. Anyway I think that to implement it you have to copy the given sketch into a new temporary sketch. Then you have to add an outer rectangle def...
- Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:49 am
- Forum: Pull Requests
- Topic: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
- Replies: 63
- Views: 51436
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
I do not understand the need to add the option "Remove outside" to a pocket considering that you may already get the same result adding (to the sketch) a closed profile (in example a rectangle) which encloses the sketch and the projection (on the sketch plane) of the base feature.
- Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:26 am
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
- Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:20 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
- Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:32 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
here are multiple situations where it would not be obvious on plain sight that the body has multiple solids Ok could be not so evident when you open a document with several bodies which was prepared by another person. If it was made by yourself you should have noticed the solilds when working in th...
- Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:48 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
- Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:45 am
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
No argument has been presented that supports not allowing this, so by default the conclusion is that it should be permitted, so the only complaint left to be discussed is what words to use to communicate such things. +1 to be precise: no argument accepted by you. But as participation here is rather...
- Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:37 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
@realthunder just to clarify: Moving Split_i0 (or Split_i1) to a different body would not be really important to me. If I have extruded them from a single sketch in the same Body, it is because I wanted to have both there. But the fact that apparence/color cant't be applied to split_i0, split_i1 see...
- Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:17 pm
- Forum: Open discussion
- Topic: A randomly started discussion about the necessity of the PD single solid rule
- Replies: 191
- Views: 26167
Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket
to get the same results in catia one would actually first add manually two bodies and then create the sketch and two profile outputs from the sketch that would then be used to create individual extrudes (pad's in catia) for two solids in the two bodies (if one would follow a bit cleaner workflow on...