Custom patterns

[#1]

I would like to have custom patterns!

Patterns can stay the way they are, but besides spacing and distance, please, add custom, so users can define custom distances. That would save a lot of time! Now, have to do 2, 3 or 4 different patterns of same thing, just to get spacings right.

Greg

[#2]

So your saying patterns based on say an embedded spread sheet with multiple different spacings?  This would be nice.

[#3]

Add fill paterns to that list. In fact just look at the options available to NX users

[#4]

Also, make the patterns work the same way in the part and assembly environments.

For instance:  circular pattern of 4 items @ 90 degrees in the part environment gives you 4 features spaced out over a 90 degree arc.  Go to the assembly environment, and the same thing gives you 4 features spaced 90 degrees apart.  Why the difference?

Also, why can we do a pattern on a sketched curve in the part environment but not the assembly environment?

[#5]

I agree as well.

We do a number of things here that need to be arrayed around a circle. I'd say 1/2 the time the spacing isn't even.

6 objects around a body aren't always going to be 60 degrees apart. Being able to use a table to say:

item 2   120

item 3   170

item 4   240

item 5   300

item 6   355

would be great!

As it is now, the only option is is to place 6 different assemblies and their associated connection peices on the main body 6 separate times (or more depending on how many are needed).

[#6]

Let me pose another question. Assuming you could only receive "custom distance" functionality in one environment (Part or Assembly). Which would be more critical to all of you? This project [US14656] is under review by the development team.

[#7]

I vote for assembly enviroment!

Greg

[#8]

part environment is always better

in assembly you can always link to the part pattern :-)

[#9]

by michael.marx on ‎2013-03-07 03:23 PM

part environment is always better

in assembly you can always link to the part pattern :-)

Agreed. If we can't have both, let the Part dictate and the Assembly follow

[#10]

Accepted idea [US14656]. Please continue to provide feedback on environment preference. Thanks!