NOTE: this discussion was split off from other thread "hide measures". --DeepSOIC, suggested by NormandC
There's already a feature request on the bug tracker. But until a developer volunteers to implement it, this won't get done. The sketcher has not been worked on for most of the past year.
That's sad. Maybe I'll have a look at it but I'm so busy with this project I probably won't have time till after I'm done.
ehrichweiss wrote:I'm working with a project that has about 2500 hexagons
NormandC wrote:That's massive.
ehrichweiss wrote:No, I can't make it simpler or break it down into smaller pieces.
It wraps around a cylinder and due to the way that FC handles cylinders, I either do it all once a certain way, or I do it piece by piece by hand, OR it won't work because unfortunately Draft Array, and Part Design's Linear Pattern have their own little limitations on how I can put these hexagons on the cylinder. I already made it parametric with a spreadsheet but there's only so much I can do with many of the limitations that the tools impose. For example, if I use Linear Pattern, I can't constrain the distance between the patterns nearly as easily as if I use Draft Array, but DA will only use certain types of objects in a certain way. For example, I can make an Array of Sketches with it but I can't then easily Pad them after I'm done(no idea why, Upgrading and "Convert Draft to Sketch" all seem to do the wrong thing and I don't know why) BUT if I Pad the original hexagons then it takes the whole object(not just the hexagons) and makes for more cleanup than I have time for, even with the workflow I'm dealing with now. If Draft Array could take a Sketch and make an array of Sketches that I could then easily Pad, that'd be ideal and would take me about 5 minutes but alas, it doesn't seem to be that easy/intuitive yet.
Creating a sketch with 2500 constrained hexagons is totally insane. Even in commercial programs with mature solvers sketchers it would be an almost impossible task because at some point the solver would totally bog down. There's too much stuff to solve.
Yeah, insane is a good word for it.
- Are your hexagons the same size, or are they of different sizes (and how many sizes)?
- Do you have any kind of repeating pattern?
- What's your end game? What will you use these hexagons for? Will you produce a 3D shape?
They're all the same size. Yes, they have an easy pattern(simple honeycomb) but have to be very precise because they have to repeat across the face of the cylinder(the main problem here...and the number of crashes I get working with the cylinder is about 100 times(no exaggeration) more than what I get if I try this on a flat plane[another bug I need to report]) to within 0.01mm, and they'll be 3D, and eventually cut with a CNC(hence the constraints). The pattern is easy, the orientation, offset, size, etc. constraints are the big requirements though.
If all you need is 2D then I recommend you work in a dedicated 2D CAD program like LibreCAD or DraftSight.
Yeah, I wish it were that easy for me.