Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Could you please give some more details on the sketch based workflows you are referring to?
With the March product update, we can create Tapered Thread using the options provided in Hole command. PLease let us know if this is not solving some of your workflows. We can defintely take a look at those and try to bridge the gap.
Start with a sketch (this may be imported from another tool, or made in Fusion)
Note that the centerline is constrained, and the hole spacing is a rectangular pattern.
Now, extrude to a solid body:
OK, so we have the basic body, and just need to put threads on it. Select the holes and choose "make thread":
There are all kinds of pipe threads there. If I made parts for Germany, or the UK, or Japan, I'd be in good shape. But I make parts for the US, and I don't find a NPT option here.
This of follows through to CAM (now "manufacture") as well, where I'd like to generate thread milling G-code.
I understand how it is theoretically possible to create these holes in the 3D mode, based on 3D helper features constructed using midplanes/offsets/etc, and then mark those holes as NPT. That's a highly invonvenient workflow, it needs a lot more clicking, and it doesn't integrate with sketches.
Let's put this another way: Why is there a "make thread" option at all? If "make hole" is the way to make holes, why don't you take away the "make thread" option? (Please don't take away that option -- "make hole" is inconvenient, and "make thread" is good.)
@colinNJB25 Sorry, but we only support female tapered threads using Hole command at the moment.
Support for male tapered threads and modeled tapered threads will be provided in future updates but I'm afraid we don't have a definite time frame for that yet.
Hi @jwatte Thank you for sharing the details. I understood your concern. We will defintely consider this request and enhance Thread command to support creation of taper threads (both male and female). However we don't have any definite timeline yet for this particular enhancement request.
Regarding the sketch based workflow you described, you could try creating sketch points (instead of circles) and use them to create hole with taper threads. Below images describes this approach. Hope this helps.
I have used the point feature for quite some time now since a circle on a sketch doesn't know if you want to do a taper, counterbore or straight hole. It's just simpler to use the hole command and click the points to position.
@sunil.v.b Of course I can change my workflow to bend to the particular feature you put these threads (even though they're totally different from the original request in this post.)
Except, if I import the part or the sketch from another place, I can't actually change them. I can perhaps fill them in, and then re-model them?
And if I have features dependent on the holes in turn, I'd have to create another sketch, and project the holes to that sketch, and keep going.
I can also make my drawings using a rock to hit a dull chisel onto a granite cave wall. That seems good, too. 😕
I mean, it's fine that you added NPT to the "Make Hole" feature, but please unmark this feature request as "Implemented" because the feature, as requested, is not implemented.
Not yet. They just implemented NPT into thread types after 3 years. Moreover, if the data is there to generate the graphic, implementing modeled threads is not that far a stretch.
Basically, please guys we love your product. It's awesome. We really need this feature and have a myriad of uses for it. Thank you and we love you.
I applaud AD (semi-sarcastically) for finally getting to this after nearly 5 years; but, to be clear, this "idea" has NOT been implemented and its status should be changed to something like "accepted" or "working on it". Re-read the original idea.
@Anonymous wrote:
Please add NPT pipe threads to the thread options in the thread dialog box. Tnx!
As @jwatte correctly pointed out, it asks for AD to add NPT pipe threads in the thread dialog box, not in the hole feature dialog box. Of course, it's probably preferred that users use the hole feature when making threads and one could make the argument that that is what's implied, but that's not the point. Obviously, all workflows should be supported as well as having modeled threads, as has been repeatedly mentioned in these comments.
To reiterate, I'm happy AD finally added female tapered threads and is working on male and modeled threads, but I am unhappy and strongly disagree with marking this idea as "Implemented". It truly is NOT implemented in both the literal text of the idea and the will of the users who generated all these comments. @yoshimitsuspeed said it best, "Ahhh good ol Autodesk. Achieves 20% of a goal and marks it as implemented."
And it's still not implemented like the original request described. I've been running on the Hobbyist license, so I understand that I have little say because it's free for me. I have, however, been considering purchasing a subscription to this to show my support for such a great program.
Meh I have been paying for 5 years and they couldn't care less about my opinion any more than yours. Things like this definitely make me regret my wanting to support them. Especially now that they eliminated the tiers and the early adopter program that kept me locked into the discounted pricing that is now available to everyone. Maybe I should invoice them for the $1800 I have given them since I still qualify under their startup free version.
Yes, I tried it. However what the OP requested hasn't really happened. What I personally want out of this is male and female modelable npt threads. As it stands its really just a tapered hole.
