Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

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.

Allow selecting patterned part as merge scope in intersection

alnisalnis Member, Developers Posts: 364 EDU
Currently, when using a pattern such as a linear pattern or circular pattern, it is possible to have the pattern add to the part being patterned. It would be useful in some cases to have this work with the "Intersect" option, too, since its behavior is not consistent with the "Add" option at the moment. Here's a simple example (link to document:https://cad.onshape.com/documents/0433b25fe5828cf767f0e8a6/w/33bb48c463a06e5a017cc7da/e/bec19ea901e71bc449c7a58c):

Using the "Add" type with the part selected as the merge scope, everything works as expected:

However, using the "Intersect" type with Part 1 selected as the merge scope, the feature fails and does not work how you would expect coming from the "Add" option:

Here is the expected result for the second input if the "Intersect" option were to behave the same as the "Add" option (the circular pattern produces new parts, and the boolean intersects them):

I know this has somewhat limited use cases, but it simplifies modeling geometric/mathematical shapes a bit, and I can also see how it would be useful for mechanical products. My guess is that it wouldn't be too difficult to implement since the "New" option plus an "Intersect" boolean already provides the desired outcome. This would help to increase the consistency and simplicity of the default Onshape feature set so that the sub-options work in the same way. Maybe it would be a good, small "first fix/improvement" for a new employee on the team?

Thank you for your consideration!
Onshape Intern | Get in touch: [email protected] | My personal site: https://alnis.dev


  • lougallolougallo Member, Moderator, Onshape Employees, Developers Posts: 1,938
    @alnis_smidchens boolean is done with part bodies not features in this case.  Best to have the pattern make NEW bodies then use intersect.
    Lou Gallo / PD/UX - Support - Community / Onshape, Inc.
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,302 PRO
    Could you add intersect to your own custom feature,? should be able to copy the circle pattern feature and add the boolean at the end. @alnis_smidchens
  • alnisalnis Member, Developers Posts: 364 EDU
    It's definitely easy to just use a second boolean feature with the new bodies created, I just figured the behavior would be more consistent with the "Intersect" option if it behaved more like the "Add" option.
    Onshape Intern | Get in touch: [email protected] | My personal site: https://alnis.dev
  • john_mcclaryjohn_mcclary Member, Developers Posts: 3,302 PRO
    I agree, especially to make it parametric when make the pattern count a configured variable 
  • Evan_ReeseEvan_Reese Member Posts: 977 PRO
    i'm into this. I guess I haven't hit on this case yet, but Alins' example is how I'd expect it to work.
    Evan Reese / Principal and Industrial Designer with Ovyl
    Website: ovyl.io
    Instagram: @evan.reese.designs
  • lanalana Onshape Employees Posts: 612
    We've confused you by calling two different options Intersection.  Boolean Intersection means set intersection of all the tools, but Intersection in Boolean post processing step ( Extrude, Revolve etc. ) actually means subtract complement (a cookie-cutter) . Pattern follows the same pattern, picking up the seed as a tool.  https://cad.onshape.com/documents/8434d15472b877db22b62950/w/c754d86f540241d8a1293f8e/e/f4deece7fbf6d31b39e81ff0
    Sorry about confusion. 
  • alnisalnis Member, Developers Posts: 364 EDU
    Ah, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for the example! Please don't apologize, it was a PICNIC (Problem In Chair, Not In Computer); I should have played around with the circular pattern more before making an IR :D
    Onshape Intern | Get in touch: [email protected] | My personal site: https://alnis.dev
Sign In or Register to comment.