topic Re: Can't get hatch pattern to work in AutoCAD Forum

Can't get hatch pattern to work

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Sep 2021 15:27:00 GMT

Hi all,

I'm trying to get a hatchpattern to work. I want a masonry pattern for bricks of 62mm high and 220mm wide.

I have a pattern of 75 high and 225mm wide. When i try to custom this one in Notepad, it doesn't turn out to be what I expected. The vertical lines do not match the horizontal lines. I tried a few different methods but it doesn't seem to work. Can anybody help me please? Thanks! I renamed the documents from .pat to .txt because the forum does not accept .pat file.

Re: Can't get hatch pattern to work

fatal.error — Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:13:30 GMT

*62x220mm, halfsteensverband 62 x 220 mm 0, 0, 0, 0, 62 90, 0, 0, 62, 110, 62, -62

Re: Can't get hatch pattern to work

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:52:25 GMT

Thanks it works! Still think it`s strange that the other way worked for the original but nog for the custom one isn't is?

Re: Can't get hatch pattern to work

Kent1Cooper — Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:11:42 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:

.... it`s strange that the other way worked for the original but nog for the custom one isn't is?

Not really. The original 75x225 is somewhat oddly written, and the 225 in its second line is actually not the tile [or brick, or whatever] length, but three times the tile width, which only as a coincidence happens to be the same number as the tile length. Its X-offset value in the 90-degree direction is not one tile over, but for some unknown reason three tiles over. But your 220 is not three times 62, which is why just substituting what look like they should be equivalent numbers doesn't give the right result.

The equivalent of the solution here, for the original 75x225 pattern, would be to replace the 225 with 75, so that the X-offset goes only one tile over. The drawn result would be the same, but it would be more logical.

Re: Can't get hatch pattern to work

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:59:55 GMT

Ah I was trying to see a connection there but couldn't find it. But that makes sense, although it's a strange way.

Thanks!