Problem with Part chamfer on Part design body

[brjhaverkamp]

Hello all,

I ran into a strange problem. I am creating a simple box for the units for my 3D Catan printing project.
I created the whole thing in the Part Design workbench.

Now I needed a chamfer with an angle other than 45 degrees, so I tried to use the Part Chamfer.
This went OK on one edge, but when I played with the parameters and added more edges, it went bezerk.

Sofar it is OK, but it turned out the sketches of the existing box suddenly have different orientation, and the whole box is messed up.
Deleting the chamfer doesn't help. The damage is done.

I also see that the chamfer adds a circular dependency via a basefeature. That might be a problem, but deleting the chamfer should fix that to the original state.

Is this a bug? Or a feature? And if the latter, how should I add a 60' Chamfer?

OS: Windows 10
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.18.16110 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: (HEAD detached at upstream/releases/FreeCAD-0-18)
Hash: f7dccfaa909e5b9da26bf50c4a22ccca9bb10c40
Python version: 3.6.6
Qt version: 5.6.2
Coin version: 4.0.0a
OCC version: 7.3.0
Locale: English/UnitedStates (en_US)

Kind regards,

Bert

[meme2704]

Hi
Known problem of renumèrotation of the faces, and the more one persists more it is revealed
Clear does not allow feedback, but instead increases
to have a chamfer at 60 °, use the "variable length" option and remember in maths, height of a triangle at 60 ° (1mm = 0.866mm)

[vocx]

...

Sofar it is OK, but it turned out the sketches of the existing box suddenly have different orientation, and the whole box is messed up.
Deleting the chamfer doesn't help. The damage is done.
...

It sounds like a topological naming problem. You should use datum planes to support your sketches so that they don't move.

Also, you should provide your file and images showing the problem. It's hard to know how to solve this otherwise.

[brjhaverkamp]

Hi all,

I completely forgot to add the files indeed. Apologies.
I had them ready and then the kids distracted me (Always handy to be able to blame the kids..

@Vocx, I agree it looks like a topological naming issue at first sight. But normally that arises when you try to edit something up in the dependency tree.
This is different in two ways:
1) I only added the chamfer at the end of the dependency tree
2) reverting the change by deleting the chamfer didnt get me back to the original state.

The last one bugs me the most. If I had saved at the wrong time, it would have been irrepairable.

Also the added dependency loop after adding the chamfer is weird. But I leave it to the experts to interpret.

Regards,

Bert

[chrisb]

You have introduced a cyclic dependency. This may be a consequence of a mistake which is already present before chamfering: You referenced something inside of a body, which leads to a "Link goes out of allowed scope" message, shown as a red arrow in the dependency graph.

[meme2704]

Harr , it's painful,
At first Partdesign does not handle chamfer of variable length (well, not find)
With Part, normally, we can do the 4 sides at once, but here, 3 sides go well, but the 4th is reversed

[meme2704]

After solving the problem above, here is the example with variable chamfers

[brjhaverkamp]

Hi Meme2704,

Thanks for the advice. Indeed, by doing the Chamfer by edge, it works well.
So you say the part chamfer has a known issue if you select too many edges?
Good to know. Hope this can be fixed one day.
Or even better, the part-design chamfer can be extended to do non 45' angles.


@ Chrisb: The automatically added cyclic dependency is still weird. I based my chamfer on Padd33 in the model, just like Meme2704 did. The problem is that I got a Basefeature for free as well, while doing that and that caused the cyclic redundancy.

But as this seems to be a known issue, I'll leave it for now and use Meme2704's workaround.

Greets,

Bert

[chrisb]

@ Chrisb: The automatically added cyclic dependency is still weird. I based my chamfer on Padd33 in the model, just like Meme2704 did. The problem is that I got a Basefeature for free as well, while doing that and that caused the cyclic redundancy.

The issue is known, but I don't know how to reproduce. If you can give a step by step description of how you got there it would be great!

[brjhaverkamp]

Sorry Chris,

I thought I could reproduce, but I just tried and even though the chamfer doesn't work, the Cyclic Dependency is not apearing.
So I am not able to contribute this time. Maybe I run into it once more in the future.

Bert