Need to use a variable to define the entity count of a linear sketch pattern

neobobkrause

The pattern constraint on a sketch can accept a numeric entity count value. However it won't accept a value based on a variable reference.

It might also be worth mentioning that I was able to use a variable reference to define the entity count of a linear shape pattern.

_Ðave_

This is a good use for variables, hope it gets fixed soon.

neobobkrause

Interestingly, the entity count of the constraint can take an expression. For example, 'round(100)' is accepted, yet 'round(#repeats)' is flagged as an invalid expression.

neobobkrause

Wah? I tried again this morning to use a variable reference in the definition of the entity count of a linear sketch pattern -- and it worked! Is it possible that the OnShape team really responds THAT quickly? Well done.

Wait, what happened? The variable value was 5. When I entered the variable reference the entity count of the pattern changed to 5. But when I looked at the entity count definition I found a hard-coded value of 5. Use of a variable reference now back to generating an error. Investigating further.

thomas_kozak

I've asked about this previously and it is being looked at.  As you observed, you can currently create the pattern with a variable but it resets it to a hard-coded number and won't accept the variable after that.

The workaround I was pointed to is to do any patterning as a feature rather than in the sketch.  In my case I was doing a variable-defined number of slots around an axis.  Using Face Pattern it's possible to set this to a variable.

I agree that this needs to work in sketches as well.

noland_germain

Any word on when this will be fixed? Very frustrating. The feature workaround is useless and/or extremely awkward in many use cases.

nathan_argetsinger

I'm in the same boat.  Onshape was *very close* to being the perfect parametric generator for laser cutter templates requiring nested tessellations of patterns to share with my team.  Would very much be willing to implement this myself - the core

nicola_orlando

Hi, I've just had this exact same issue six years later? Wasn't this being looked at?

NeilCooke

No, it is not.

neobobkrause

NeilCooke said:

No, it is not.

Ouch!

michael_unger759

oh ... i dind´t realise that this problem is that old ... maybe there will be an answer soon

mahir

In this thread @kevin_o_toole_1 gives a good explanation why it's not a small effort to add this capability.