topic Re: Hole table error in Fusion Support Forum

Hole table error

BrendanHayes — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:53:59 GMT

Having an issue with the hole table feature on 2D drawings. For some reason on the last few attempts of using this feature, if there are several tapped holes only 1 of them appears in the table with the correct dimensions. All the other identical tapped holes show what i presume is the core drill size for the relevant tapped holes. I've checked and redone the model several times using the hole feature but the error never changes. If i have 4 identical tapped holes for example

Re: Hole table error

ClintBrown3D — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:15:00 GMT

Hi @BrendanHayes

Sorry to hear that you are having trouble. Please share a link to your drawing, so that I can ask the team to investigate this, or if it is sensitive, feel free to send it directly to me Clint. Brown {a} Autodesk.com

I suspect that some of these holes might be patterned. If that is the case, try editing the patterns, and choose pattern feature, instead of face, this will ensure that the hole features are replicated, these will then appear correctly in the table.

Re: Hole table error

jhackney1972 — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:16:22 GMT

Please attach your model ONLY so the Forum users can take a look. Open you model, go the the File menu, select Export and save to your hard drive. Attach to a reply post using the attachment section of your post.

Re: Hole table error

BrendanHayes — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:23:31 GMT

https://a360.co/3TAYYt1

Re: Hole table error

ClintBrown3D — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:56:33 GMT

Hi @BrendanHayes

Is there a reason why you are not using design history? The Hole chart reports back on the features in the model. While I can see some hole features, I cannot verify them, as they are not parametric and editable.

The information attached to those faces is what we are reporting back on.

There are some weirdly nested hole features in this model

Hole 16 is 4 Holes (I assume that these were the M10's)

Then Holes 17, 18 & 19 are placed over them, which is why you are seeing

I suggest using model history and putting these in parametrically, you will have much better results.