Wondering if someone can explain the reasoning behind requiring a support face for a pocket? I'm simply trying to better understand the philosophy of FreeCAD, hopefully to make it's use more instinctive to me.
I've had a few occasions where no support face exists and it's necessary to create a pad and do a boolean cut. Is this an intended/accepted consequence, or am I missing an alternative solution?
This screenshot provides a simple illustration:
I've noticed that pads have a 'Mirrored extent' property, I assume this has not been implemented yet?
Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
A pocket is a hollow i.e. it removes some material from another solid which is done with boolean cut operation. But you can't do a cut with "nothing".Wondering if someone can explain the reasoning behind requiring a support face for a pocket? I'm simply trying to better understand the philosophy of FreeCAD, hopefully to make it's use more instinctive to me.
As shown in you screenshot that's the way to go. A pocket always needs a plane as face and thus doesn't work with cylinders or other surfaces.I've had a few occasions where no support face exists and it's necessary to create a pad and do a boolean cut. Is this an intended/accepted consequence, or am I missing an alternative solution?
AFAIK it's not implemented.I've noticed that pads have a 'Mirrored extent' property, I assume this has not been implemented yet?
Re: Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
Thanks. Just making sure I wasn't missing something.
Thinking about it the behaviour is the same as I'm used to, just that the make-pad, boolean-cut steps were hidden/combined into one 'extrude as cut' step.
Thinking about it the behaviour is the same as I'm used to, just that the make-pad, boolean-cut steps were hidden/combined into one 'extrude as cut' step.
Re: Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
Actually the pocket is at the moment really done for imprints on planar faces. for your use case I would do a different feature.
You can do this by adding the support by hand...
You can do this by adding the support by hand...
Stop whining - start coding!
Re: Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
Out of curiosity, do you plan for the Pocket feature to eventually be able to handle a case like j-dowsett's?jriegel wrote:Actually the pocket is at the moment really done for imprints on planar faces. for your use case I would do a different feature.
You can do this by adding the support by hand...
Re: Rationale behind support face requirement for pocket?
Sure! the problem at the moment is we can not automatically find the support. We need the MainPart (Main Body) feature for that.
Stop whining - start coding!