[ticket #2998] Sketch with 2 shapes (rings) wont pad - Broken face

[Kunda1]

Thread to discuss issue #2998 - Sketch with 2 shapes (rings) wont pad - Broken face

[m0n5t3r]

So it's a feature, not a bug? I noticed the problem this week-end, at the beginning of last week a multi-object pad worked (I'm on the freecad-daily ppa). Having to create multiple bodies when you want a number of objects spaced at precise distances is ... annoying to say the least

Real world use case this week-end: 8mm thick part I needed to cut from 4mm plywood, designed the two halves - one has a hole, the other has the same hole + a nut trap, they needed to be aligned on one axis and placed one endmill diameter apart on the other; I ended up having 2 bodies and shape binders and all that, instead of a simple pad + one pocket for the nut trap.

Now I'm afraid to open the 37-identical-hexagons-spaced-2mm-apart-because-there-is-no-hexagonal-array-tool file I worked on last week (that's a true torture test for the constraint solver, too).

[chrisb]

For 37 identical objects with identical spacing you can use the Draft Array.
Another possibility is to start with a common base plate which you finally cut away in the Path Workbench.

[m0n5t3r]

For 37 identical objects with identical spacing you can use the Draft Array.
Another possibility is to start with a common base plate which you finally cut away in the Path Workbench.

if only there was a hexagonal array in there...

[DeepSOIC]

Even though there's no hexagonal array tool, it can be set up with a few tricks.
Grab some from this old thread:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 8&start=10
EDIT: and also here:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 8&start=10

[Kunda1]

@DeepSOIC wrote in the ticket https://freecadweb.org/tracker/view.php?id=2998#c8805

PartDesign silently discards the other profile and IMO it's not correct. It should either fail, or issue a warning... but in any case, it should give some info on what's wrong.

Is there agreement on this?

[NormandC]

This is related to issue #1707.

wandererfan tried to address it with PR 1398 but it got shot down, which I find inexplicable and quite frustrating.

[DeepSOIC]

This is related to issue #1707.

wandererfan tried to address it with PR 1398 but it got shot down, which I find inexplicable and quite frustrating.

I read the PR discussion, it was decided that one-solid-per-body rule should be abandoned. Hmm, I'm in!

[NormandC]

LOL. Best to mention your intent in the PR then, considering the last one I made just yesterday.

And good luck!