Bug in Pattern

[TheCADWhisperer]

I had all sorts of trouble trying a Feature Pattern with this design.

Chair file is intended results.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

that´s my way

günther

[TheCADWhisperer]

@g-andresen 

Well, my way was to just do everything in Autodesk Inventor Professional where everything just works, but I no longer have access to Inventor so trying to post issues that can be improved upon in Fusion.

Hopefully Andy gets serious about Fusion.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

I cannot see any problem.

Maybe @Phil.E  can say something about it.

günther

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@g-andresen wrote:

Hi,

I cannot see any problem.

Maybe @Phil.E  can say something about it.

günther

---

If you didn't see the problem - then why did you propose a convoluted work-around?

I am confused here.  I already posted a work-around in the original post.

If I get the time, I will make a video so that you can observe the issue.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

---

@TheCADWhisperer  schrieb:

---

---

If you didn't see the problem - then why did you propose a convoluted work-around?

---

For me, this is not a workaround!
Since features cannot be created across several bodies*, you need assistant bodies, as is the case with free bending of sheet metal bodies, for example.

günther

* what occur during the process

[Phil.E]

You are correct. Once the first extrude splits the body, every pattern instance creates a new body for the next pattern instance to cut, roughly speaking. So the pattern command cannot act upon bodies that don't exist until the pattern command creates them. That's what we used to call in Texas where I grew up "a self licking ice cream cone". 

Could Fusion be improved to handle this? Yes, of course. Is it a top priority? No clue yet. I will have to defer to the team that works on model patterns. I don't see this request coming up a lot, but I'm not on that team and am not familiar with their backlog.

Another workflow is patterning bodies and combining them with the original.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@Phil.E wrote:.

Could Fusion be improved to handle this? Yes, of course. Is it a top priority, I will have to defer to the team that works on model patterns...

---

Yes, please! I had a Zoom conference with a product manager about improvements to the pattern tools last Friday and this would be very timely! 

[TheCADWhisperer]

@TrippyLighting 

The problem in this case is that Fusion does not permit disjointed bodies.

Guess there are trade-offs.

[TrippyLighting]

I appreciate all he "logical" conclusions that re drawn in this thread, but on further testing there is evidence that those conclusions are simply try to explain how the developer might have intended for the tool to work

However, even if that was the intention, it wasn't implemented properly, hence there is clearly a bug her!

I opened @TheCADWhisperer pattern bug design edited the existing pattern. Depending on what sequence of edits I use I get different results, which according to the aforementioned "logic" should not even be possible.

If anyone feels compelled to play around with this even more, perhaps enable suppression and suppress an instance, I predict results will still be different.

[Phil.E]

I don't disagree with what you say, but nobody is making excuses. It isn't intended to succeed in this workflow, and what is required is a new approach to the pattern logic. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly correct the record here, but finding buggy results in a non-supported workflow isn't at all surprising.

[TrippyLighting]

It definitely wasn't my intention to accuse anyone of finding excuses 😉

The explanations were valid, they just weren't supported by my findings.

If the UI allows selections that get to the results I showed in my screencast, how would an unsuspecting user know that this isn't supported?

That is particularly the case if that user comes from a more mature CAD tool.

[Phil.E]

No worries, I agree. It would be better if it failed entirely with a descriptive warning about what is supported. A better experience is what I hope the pattern team can add to the conversation.