To set all small circles equals, you can :
* Box-select everything
* unselect big circles
* E-key
To set all small circles equals, you can :
thanks, this is a good indication.
I completely agree with the OP and I have yet to see a good explanation as to why polar patterns within sketches can create problems and/or is a bad habit.NewJoker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:56 pm Hi,
I know that there is a Polar Pattern tool in the Part Design workbench but no such thing in the Sketcher (even though it has a Rectangular Array option already). I think that it could be really useful. Is there any feature request or macro for that ? Or is the Part Design Polar Pattern the only option for now ?
It's just that the same discussion is for some reason going on in parallel in two threads: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 58#p545209
Yes, as pointed out by adrianinsaval, you're probably confused because you posted some comments in my thread where I raised a similar concern. My thread:drmacro wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 6:44 pm It is rather annoying that, I think, 2 posts of mine in this thread have gone missing...
So, I'll paraphrase.
As for what you refer to in the NX example. I don't really see what functionality you are describing. The bits that I think I get seem like things that can be done in FreeCAD, but, not grokking the details, I can't really offer an example to address it. I'm happy to listen to more description because it sounds like it might be a cool thing to try.
In the OP of this thread you mention you "feel like the development of FreeCAD has gotten stuck in a narrow-minded one-dimensional way of thinking where there is only one way you're supposed to solve a problem."
I believe you mistake the reality of the situation for some sort of "way of thinking".
To quote one of the founders: "FreeCAD has a very small team of developers. We have not as much time as we would like to dedicate to FreeCAD, and things are not planned ahead, they are done when some developer sees it fit and when he finds time to do it. So we don't maintain a list of tasks to be done. It is up to you to find something you would like to do, for example a defect you would like to correct, or a small feature you think is missing."
It is not a way of thinking, it's simply there aren't enough hands. The "team" he refers to is a handful (and that might be an over estimate) of people who are volunteers in their spare time.
You also mention possibly seeming arrogant and that there is some sort of disrespect when forum members aren't cheering people, like you, who come here and proffer these ideas. If there is any arrogance, it is in thinking you are the first person to put these ideas forward or assuming that you have cornered the market on being user of commercial CAD software.
Over and over we see the question: "how do I do this in FreeCAD". Then someone explains the way to do it. That way may be the only way available, or it may be different, kludgey, or even be a verified workaround. And the response is "well I used to do it this way in this here other software, I like that better, you should think about changing it to my liking because I'm frustrated". It doesn't really matter if you are frustrated or if the feature you suggest is the one feature that will make AutoDESK shudder in their boots...the issue is, who's going to code it?
That was exactly my point. I know that there are things that have both kinds of elements: patternable and non patternable. But there is no requirement to model them in the same sketch.
See the example above: split it into a pattern and a non pattern part.What if the circle was not in line with the rectangle? Would I be able to use a pattern then?
This is a difficult one, because I admit that there is no (mathematical) proof of my statement; or at least not a complete one. However, there are strong indications that I am right anyway:[*] You say that the sketch is too complicated and that this is a bad thing. Yet again you neglect to explain why and how this is the case.
Let's stick to the topic and not open another can of worms with a mirror in it. It boils down to something similar to the example given above, which I attach for further investigations.[*] You say that I could split this example in two and then use a pattern (mirror?) to complete it.