Fully constrained sketch no errors but missing hole.

[drmacro]

325 constraints is too too too large , the best is Sclm simple barr whith 2 hole , and 2 circular array

Ok cool I'm a total newcomer when it comes to freecad and my experience with CAD is limited.
But I want to have the shape of spline shaft as a sketch without polar patterns involved, sometimes I'm using it as a hole and sometimes for extrusion, so if you got a better solution I'm very open for modifications.

A simple sketch (as I did) works the same in each case. Make the hole, pattern the result. Make the Pad, pattern the result.

BTW, to avoid confusion when talking about these things: in Part Design workbench you Pad, in Part workbench you Extrude. They are similar, but different, and using the word extrude when talking about a Pad can become confusing.

[koirat]

I appreciate all the effort you guys make in making my sketch better.
But can we accept the fact that I want to have this little piece in one piece .

I want to have it like this for a reasons:

I will carbon copy it to my other sketches. (I'm creating my own sketches library)
I will use its edges to make constraints for other edges.
I don't want to have too much sketches for some bodies, so I'm not going to create additional sketch just to do the pocket.

Theoretically it is possible to make it much more readable by using equality constraints instead of measures but as I have said I could not tame it, a the end of constraining I got this "orange" over-constraining all the time and when I started to delete constraints it broke.

Now if you know the way to do it without array methods I will be glad.

[drmacro]

I appreciate all the effort you guys make in making my sketch better.
But can we accept the fact that I want to have this little piece in one piece .

IMO, no, not when there is a better approach.

I want to have it like this for a reasons:

I will carbon copy it to my other sketches. (I'm creating my own sketches library)

I used CC to make the different size splines.

I will use its edges to make constraints for other edges.

As can be done with simpler sketches. (and possibly other tools)

I don't want to have too much sketches for some bodies, so I'm not going to create additional sketch just to do the pocket.

I don't understand what this means, you have created 2 sketches, I have created 2 sketches.

If you want to explain the long term goal of your thinking, it may help us understand why you feel the need for more complicated sketches.

Theoretically it is possible to make it much more readable by using equality constraints instead of measures but as I have said I could not tame it, a the end of constraining I got this "orange" over-constraining all the time and when I started to delete constraints it broke.

Then that is something you need to actually create the issue in a sketch and then start a thread where we can, hopefully, give you pointers on how it can be tamed. One typical cause of over constrained warning is complicated sketches and complicated constraining schemes.

Now if you know the way to do it without array methods I will be glad.

But, arrays are the most efficient way to accomplish the task as I understand it...maybe I don't. As I ask above, explanation of the ultimate goal...

If you prefer your way, then that is enough to say and we need not continue the discussion. We are simply attempting to help you design a more efficient and maintainable model.

[papyblaise]

a mini as I can 91contraints
the method as we propose is less and less load

[chrisb]

Theoretically it is possible to make it much more readable by using equality constraints instead of measures but as I have said I could not tame it, a the end of constraining I got this "orange" over-constraining all the time and when I started to delete constraints it broke.

Upload the sketch improved as far as possible with the overconstraint. Then somebody may help you as some sort of exercise.

For real improvements there are enough proposals above from guys who are really eperienced. You should seriously consider their advice.

[Shalmeneser]

110 constraints. But the theeth are parallels.

[drmacro]

Are we having a competition?

9 edges, 24 constraints...

Snip macro screenshot-a5e1dc.png (66.15 KiB) Viewed 909 times

[koirat]

a mini as I can 91contraints

Your picture is unfortunately wrong.
Edges should not go into the center.



In the attachement SplineShaft.FCStd there is a body named SplineShaftNew.
It was my attempt at simplifying the sketch.

When you look at the picture, I have selected all those marked arcs and used equality constraint, but the result is not equal.
The second thing is that I cannot move any edge but the sketch is still not considered fully constrained.

EqualityOnArcProblem.png (75.92 KiB) Viewed 882 times

SplineShaft.FCStd

(50.35 KiB) Downloaded 19 times

[Shalmeneser]

When you look at the picture, I have selected all those marked arcs and used equality constraint, but the result is not equal.

Equality on arc gives same radius.
To have the same width, you have to use a blue line with same length.

[chrisb]

Based on Shalmeneser's approach I could reduce the number of constraints to 95.

Please note that I would not recommend to model this way, because it is not very clear. It is just to be seen as an exercise.