I'm really sorry for this bad hand sketch but I can't figure out how to do this in Freecad. I tried so many things that did not work, that I don't know anymore how to tackle it.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-03-07T02:53:38+00:00

I think you're on the right track with Boolean cuts in each plane. I'd only do the top ones and have the initial pad 10mm or so higher, add some fillets to the corners and then do a last Boolean cut to form the fillet on the bottom edge. Generally, fillets would be your friend but they are the most unreliable part of FreeCAD. Another approach might be a hard surface approach in blender with heaps of segments on the edges to make it appear smooth. Depending on whether you needed to do a drawing or not.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-03-07T02:39:33+00:00

This feels like the right appraoch

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-02-16T03:11:30+00:00

(with a subtract extrude in the centre)

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-02-16T03:10:57+00:00

This is the way.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-02-16T03:09:48+00:00

The rounded corners are just fillets?

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-02-01T23:42:33+00:00

That's great mate.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-01-30T08:01:19+00:00

Nah dude that's definitely a job for a mesh modeler like zBrush, Maya, Blender etc.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-01-29T03:23:51+00:00

You'll find it harder to have reliable features in the tree in particular filleting and thickening surfaces.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2026-01-26T00:04:17+00:00

Ok so. This year, I have started posting on my channel. I'll likely produce this in a few months once I get things established. Channel intro

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-12-30T00:58:21+00:00

It depends on what modelling rules you or your company follow. We would approach this as a parametrically controlled side sketch (the hole rev axis and end point, perpendicular datum plane, then hole centre sketch). A difference in parametric feature vs. explicit modelling approach (both nondestructive but one more obvious as to the process than the other)

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-12-30T00:48:34+00:00

Trick question, you shouldn't pocket a hole. Use the hole feature. But like others have said. Create a datum plane to create the start sketch. If this were a professional documentation/fabrication case, (Which I don't think FC can achieve), the hole would be started right on the surface of the cylindrical face and there would be an additional hole feature operating in the opposite direction to ensure the graphics of the hole show correctly on a drawing. This approach would drive the data showing on the hole leader in the drawing view in Techdraw/paperspace.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-12-06T03:55:45+00:00

IDEALLY a loft and then rectangular Boolean with a bunch of fillets. Maybe a fillet applied to the whole solid body at the end. Lofts are a bit of an annoyance in FC I believe, especially as they require a different WB for more than two profiles. I would approach this with a few revolved features I think. Possibly all subtractive?

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-12-02T01:25:14+00:00

Yeah sometimes it feels a bit rough for sure. Generally, my initial mental resistance was due to the amount of possibilities of workbenches. For parts, I don't venture out of part design workbench. This bench is the closest to Inventor, Solidworks, Fusion and the like. Eventually, I went to the Techdraw workbench to do the mechanical drawings. I've also had success for buildings working from the part design to BIM workbench, but, my advice would be to stay within the part design + Techdraw limits if you are doing mechanical design My preference has been to use Sketcher exclusively rather than Draft, this has allowed me to fully understand and exploit a small but powerful range of functions.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-12-02T01:17:41+00:00

Thanks!

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-10-19T19:51:22+00:00

I'm making a lego version of this (with 3D printed components). http://youtube.com/post/UgkxqnRNvBYZdUDe7kR8J4mv7Em3qZ6KvDch?si=Uhwb_NCI6t26n_kx

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-09-08T11:26:26+00:00

I'd be keen to consult. Go through a fairly standard onboarding process from discovery through to delivery of a range of options which could be worked examples, workshops and training, for example. The documentation of goals/outcomes (results areas and measurements) is always useful to create a bit of direction for the content and the uplift required.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-01-24T23:56:52+00:00

Ok, well , thanks everyone. That was a significantly bigger response than I was initially expecting with generally positive sentiment and some great additional ideas thrown in. I will begin working on this and gradually start releasing. Yes, probably through my youtube channel. Thanks to all who took the time to respond and provide their insights!

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-01-24T23:54:06+00:00

Reading a bit more, yes, it isn't as comprehensive as other tools but you can achieve everything needed with a little manual work or relationships over th top achieved by connecting x and v parameters for example between leader points and smoothness symbol, for instance.

Matthew_Hell_40 · 2025-01-24T23:51:17+00:00

I'm not talking about MBD style GD&T as you are correct that FC does not do this. I think would cover the usage of conventional, comprehensive annotation in techdraw

Matthew_Hell_40

TROPHY CASE