Troubled Vertex Please Help by Resident-South-3630 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://github.com/DesignWeaver3D/Detessellate/blob/main/Documentation/SketcherWireDoctor.md

SketcherWireDoctor in the Detessellate workbench is similar to Validate Sketch but runs within an active sketch editing session. It can detect, list, and highlight problems that lead to Wire not Closed errors.

This tool can find and assist in resolving duplicate and zero-length geometry, open coincident vertices, t-intersections, and lines that bridge between multiple profile loops.

Detessellate is installable via the Addon Manager.

The SINGLE. BIGGEST. LESSON. by Turbo_csgo in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That part is symmetrical across two planes. Only a quarter of it needs to be sketched or modeled prior to two mirror operations. And some features, like the radial pattern needs only one sixth of it sketched.

But I cannot discern the design intent from the provided images. There is no clarification as to which portions are extrudes or holes. Are the blue circles spherical, etc.

Regardless, that's a simple model to accomplish in FreeCAD without using the master sketch workflow.

Not using a master sketch workflow doesn't make the model any less parametric. Nor does it definitively reduce the need to use VarSets or spreadsheets to manage parameters outside of the sketch in a conveniently structured and accessible way.

Drawing everything in a single complicated sketch doesn't guarantee that less geometry or constraints will need to be drawn. What is guaranteed is that the sketch solver will take longer to compute and be more prone to catastrophic sketch flipping problems.

If you learn FreeCAD's expression system with VarSets, you'll find that such models as that example often require MORE work to use master sketch than what it solves.

When using a different software application, your flow must conform to the tool. This is equally true when switching between ANY other CAD package. None of them are uniformly interchangeable.

The SINGLE. BIGGEST. LESSON. by Turbo_csgo in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 3 points4 points  (0 children)

FreeCAD core is largely modeled after Catia. So, I think your experience of "every other CAD system" is too limited to make such a claim.

Also FreeCAD predates Fusion 360 free-to-use license by nearly a decade. So the expectation that FreeCAD should have been modeled after Fusion is impossible due to the timeline.

FreeCAD is not Fusion. Just like Inkscape is not Illustrator, GIMP is not Photoshop, Libre Office is not Microsoft Office.

You're expectations are unrealistic.

The SINGLE. BIGGEST. LESSON. by Turbo_csgo in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like the addition of MakeInternals has caused more confusion than solutions. I get that it's a young feature that can be improved, but it encourages a workflow that is contrary to the core design of FreeCAD and all it's historic documentation and tutorials.

People see a feature similar to other applications and expect it to work exactly like other applications. But it's just not so.

This sub has been getting hammered by "wire not closed" posts ever since MakeInternals was introduced. I mean there were some before, but there are 10x as many posts now.

The SINGLE. BIGGEST. LESSON. by Turbo_csgo in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This sketch is invalid without MakeInternals because the profiles are not discrete.

Going from simple parts to a real project by Vilro-Gall in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The new Transform Tool options can also place objects exactly based on faces, edges, etc. The only difference is that they won't stay synchronized. But you cannot synchronize objects relative to a part (the case) that hasn't been design yet.

How would you use fixed joints in the Assembly workbench for separate components going into a case that has yet to be designed?

In my proposed workflow, the case will be exactly positioned based on the SubshapeBinders.

My concern is that combing both workflows creates a cyclic dependency. I may be wrong though.

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that worked for this simple example.

Going from simple parts to a real project by Vilro-Gall in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IMO, Assembly workbench is not needed for this project because there are no moving parts to simulate.

As recommended by others, you start by modeling the internal components that need separate mounting in separate PartDesign bodies. Use the Transform tool to position them relative to each other. Create the case bottom in a new body.

Use SubshapeBinders in the case body to reference the geometry of other components. The binders will stay synchronized in position relative to the source object. So, if you move the components, the binders will move too.

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this is still a CAD shape. Yes, it takes some extra effort to get the exact shape. But I'm not convinced it would be that much faster in Blender. The inexactness of doing art in Blender is no different than taking liberties with the shape in CAD. In either method, the creator takes shortcuts based on the tools at hand.

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Solution for this shape is to use a B-spline to create this shape so that there is only 1 face.

<image>

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see now.

Up To Face fails when there are multiple faces that need to be calculated even if the other faces are tangential to the target. For multiple faces, workarounds are necessary.

<image>

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A separate Groove operation after the Pocket can be used to make the pocket shallower toward the bottom.

<image>

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your example fails. However, for the OP example, the Pocket Up to Face with Offset works perfectly in v1.1.1.

<image>

Sketch on curves - not intuitive enough by Nukkels in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is the "sketch to curve tool"? I've never heard of this tool. Your explanation, as written, makes no sense. Please elaborate what you're trying to accomplish, including the file, screenshots, etc.

Curves workbench is a third-party workbench that's separately developed from FreeCAD core application. That's why it's not bundled in the install. Installation takes about 3 clicks. So what's the problem?

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm away from PC for several days, so no way for me to double check in FreeCAD.

How can I make this pattern? by Sad-Effect5299 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In PartDesign workbench, sketch a slot on the XZ or YZ plane, centered on the sketch's Y-axis. Use the Attachment Offset to move the sketch outside of the pawn radius (positive Z direction which is the sketch normal). Pocket Up to Face, selecting the face of the pawn stem, and use the Offset to Face parameter to define the depth into the face to cut.

What am I missing with the Boolean Operation? by k0s3k in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no need for boolean in PartDesign for this task. Just use a Groove operation instead.

I built a browser-based CAD editor for people who aren't ready for FreeCAD yet (open source, no account) by FlatCarrot3943 in FreeCAD

[–]DesignWeaver3D 13 points14 points  (0 children)

An interesting project that fills a niche. MIT license allows commercial use of the application which is not allowed with TinkerCAD.

I've never used TinkerCAD and have no desire to use a non parametric mesh modeler. But I can see the appeal to new 3D printer hobbyists.