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

[kisolre]

No, the shape used for patterning is calculated as "result - original(original)", i.e. original of the original.

Why? What if the pattern in not created by a patterning feature? As in gears or some imported STEP:
.

GearDressup.JPG (55.13 KiB) Viewed 118349 times

[kisolre]

Here is an example with Part chamfer/Draft array that works:
.

Arrayed Chamfer.JPG (75.45 KiB) Viewed 118331 times

[realthunder]

Why? What if the pattern in not created by a patterning feature? As in gears or some imported STEP:

Yes, that is indeed valid use case. I'll make some changes.

Here is an example with Part chamfer/Draft array that works:

For this, your solution is over complex. @uwestoehr above has already shown you how to do it. Just move fillet before polar pattern.

[kisolre]

For this, your solution is over complex.

That was just an example of my understanding how things work/should work behind the scene - generate the difference(Part Cut), pattern it (Draft array), remove from original (Part Cut)

[realthunder]

I think the confusion arises because people like @kisolre assumes the pattern only applies to the dressing (i.e. fillet, chamfer, etc), while the current implementation patterns the dressed-up-additive/subtractive feature.

I have made some change and allow user to choose either behavior, using the existing property SupportTransform. The question is which behavior is more natural, and should be the default one.

For example, suppose there is a Fillet, which is applied to a Pad. Now the user wants to create a Polar pattern.

When Fillet.SupportTransform is true, the user only needs to add the Fillet, and the filleted Pad will be used to create the pattern.

When Fillet.SupportTransform is false, the user must add both the Pad and the Fillet to get the same end result. The advantage is more flexibility, say using a different pattern for pad and fillet.

Note that if the fillet is applied on a non-additive/subtractive feature, such as another pattern, then it always behave as if SupportTransform is false.

[realthunder]

Did some play around. Now I think pattern only the dressing is more natural. Because, there is really no enforcement for the dressing to be applied only to the added or subtracted shape. For example, as shown in the model below, even though Fillet001 is based on Cylinder, which creates the center hole, the fillet is not applied to any of the geometry generated by the Cylinder.

Screenshot from 2020-03-21 12-24-46.png (60.04 KiB) Viewed 118279 times

[realthunder]

PR submitted here. 'SupportTransform' defaults to false.

[chrisb]

Thanks for this change. Using the underlying feature can be convenient, because there is no need to add features to the pattern. Transform=false is the way the other features work, so it may seem more natural. You gave one use case, a similar one is, wher a fillet is well applied only to a certain feature, but due to smooth transitions it can extend over more even not selected edges.

[vocx]

Did some play around. Now I think pattern only the dressing is more natural. ...

I tried two dress-ups in a row, for example, first a fillet, then a chamfer, and then the linear pattern, and no shape was generated. Is this a bug?

[realthunder]

I tried two dress-ups in a row, for example, first a fillet, then a chamfer, and then the linear pattern, and no shape was generated. Is this a bug?

Did you try with this PR? If so, can you please post your file here?