Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape, CAD, maker project and design.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:

  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

How do I add an entity to a sketch pattern?

MaxpmMaxpm Member Posts: 1 EDU
I've successfully created a circular sketch pattern and now I want to add a new entity to it.  However, short of deleting the pattern and starting over from scratch, I can't figure out how.  Creating a separate pattern for the new entity isn't acceptable to me; I want it to follow the repeat count of the original pattern.
Tagged:

Answers

  • NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 965
    It can't be done because a sketch pattern is a constraint not a feature. That is why it is better to use feature patterns where possible. 
    Neil Cooke, Director of Technical Marketing, Onshape Inc.
  • hairy_kiwihairy_kiwi Member Posts: 1
    I ran into the same issue recently and as you describe, each time needed to redraw the circular pattern with the additional entities.

    I also noticed the entity number and radial displacement parameter text-boxes could easily become obscured by other sketch entities, to the point where they were impossible to find. The only work-around I came up for this secondary issue was to start the pattern center 'off-site' and then use constraints it to bring it back to the desired location.

  • brian_bradybrian_brady Member, Developers Posts: 201 EDU
    NeilCooke said:
    It can't be done because a sketch pattern is a constraint not a feature. That is why it is better to use feature patterns where possible. 
    @NeilCooke ;

    I've read several times that we should use face patterns, not feature patterns for best performance for some unknown reason. This time you are proposing using feature patterns not sketch patterns (which I agree with wholeheartedly). Why not face patterns? I always use feature patterns because they are easier and make more sense to me that face patterns. What should we be using? Why can't feature patterns be as efficient as face patterns?
  • ilya_baranilya_baran Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 636
    Face and body patterns are more efficient than feature patterns.  Face and body are purely geometric operations and are done quickly.  Feature patterns actually reexecute all of the feature logic that many times -- and that's a lot more expensive.  Sketch patterns are a different beast altogether, making your sketch larger and slowing down constraint solving.
    Ilya Baran \ Director of FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc
  • NeilCookeNeilCooke Moderator, Onshape Employees Posts: 965
    @brian_brady sorry I was just being lazy but also wanted to clearly differentiate from a sketch pattern. What I should have written is part/feature/face pattern. Part and face patterns have their place but do not always work especially if the geometry they are patterning on to is different. Feature patterns are also easier to pick, but expensive in terms of part regeneration. 
    Neil Cooke, Director of Technical Marketing, Onshape Inc.
  • brian_bradybrian_brady Member, Developers Posts: 201 EDU
    edited September 13
    Face and body patterns are more efficient than feature patterns.  Face and body are purely geometric operations and are done quickly.  Feature patterns actually reexecute all of the feature logic that many times -- and that's a lot more expensive.  Sketch patterns are a different beast altogether, making your sketch larger and slowing down constraint solving.
    Why don't feature patterns just perform like face patterns "under the hood" but allow you to select features while modeling (which is much easier)? My thoughts are that only the first item in the pattern should be editable anyway, unless there were some sort of switch that made each patterned feature a separately editable entity.
  • ilya_baranilya_baran Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 636
    @brian_brady
    We could add the ability to select features to face pattern, but it would be a different behavior than feature pattern.  The issue is not what is editable (individual feature instances in a feature pattern are not editable) but rather, whether a feature instance can "adapt" to its situation.  For example, see the examples in the original video: https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/2675/improvements-to-onshape-february-11th-2016/p1 -- the geometry can actually be very different for each instance of a feature pattern; not so with a face pattern (or your "combined" proposal).
    Ilya Baran \ Director of FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc
  • brian_bradybrian_brady Member, Developers Posts: 201 EDU
    @ilya_baran,

    Maybe a checkbox in the feature pattern dialog that says "Create as face pattern"? For geometry that does not need the adaptive nature described in the video you linked, such as large flat plates with many holes/patterns of holes, the adaptive nature would not be needed.
  • ilya_baranilya_baran Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 636
    @elif, what do you think?
    Ilya Baran \ Director of FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc
  • elifelif Onshape Employees Posts: 34
    We have been considering a "lightweight" feature pattern that basically uses features only as selections. If it's not in the improvements list, please add it there and vote on it so that it can get prioritized accordingly.
    Team Lead, Part Studios
Sign In or Register to comment.