[Pattern Features enhancing] : circular and linear pattern must support also fillets and chamfers

[Piero69]

I feel like a circular and linear pattern don't support the fillet and chamfer feature, this would implemented

i made a cut with filleted edges and then a circular patter with 48 instances. if the pattern don't allow to add fillets i have to fillet manually all the 48x2=96 borders

[Jee-Bee]

If you just tried one search action you had seen this is requested about 100 times...
but at this moment nobody is activly maintaining PDN... So if you have to do it yourself or you should wait till somebody thinks it is importand enough to do...

[chrisb]

The only way is to modify your design so that you can use Draft->Array on the whole body.

[fcaduser]

@ chrisb

And generally speaking using a polar pattern is the *first* choice to consider when you have such part.

[chrisb]

Right, I should have said: The only way to use a repitition function is to modify your design so that you can use Draft->Array on the whole body.

[adrianinsaval]

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 94#p368494

[realthunder]

PR submitted here

It's a quick fix. Someone please check if this works well, or introduces any problem to existing file.

The fix works like this. FeatureDressUp (parent of fillet, chamfer, draft) is changed to be derived from FeatureAddSub (parent of pad, pocket, etc). The AddSubShape is calculated by subtracting the dressed up shape with the base shape of its base feature (yes, base of the base). This solution does not have any topo naming issue.

This new feature is disabled for existing FeatureDressUp with its property 'SupportTransform' setting to False, for backward compatibility reason. You can manually turn on this property to see the difference. For newly created FeatureDressUp, it will be set to True.

[chrisb]

Wow!
Good to see fresh development in PartDesign!

[realthunder]

Wow!
Good to see fresh development in PartDesign!

Well, I have big plans for PartDesign, adding support of multi-body, for one. Got delayed a bit, because of other stuff. And your wish for linked base for body has already been implemented. Not sure if I shall split it out or wait till the multi-body is done, at least must wait for my group change PR gets merged first.

[Zolko]

Well, I have big plans for PartDesign

Hold-on, shouldn't this be planned in a more organized way ?

If you're taking on to dive into the PartDesign workbench — which is great news in itself — then I'd personally like to see some discussion about priorities, especially now that App::Link is merged. For me, for example, the priority would rather be to correctly handle PartDesign::DatumThings, and one of those would be to be able to extrude (pad ?) a sketch up to a datum plane: today it's not possible.

Another big question is: how are Part, Body and Assemblies supposed to interact ? If PartDesign is orphaned code, and since you have spent quite some effort in making App::Part objects App::Link compatible, shouldn't the focus rather go towards the Part workbench ? It can mostly do the same things.