Component copy pattern on path issue with orientation Path Direction

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I couldn't find anything in the forum that describes the phenomenon that I'm experiencing when trying to create a pattern along a circular path with a copy of a component. But then again I'm pretty new to Fusion 360 and a post that i deemed to not pertain to my problem might have included the solution.

I created a component that I added to the design from my library, broke up the link to use 'Paste New' and move the created copies to points along the 5 different circular paths.

When I created a pattern on path for the original component I used the same parameters and settings as seen in the screencast and it worked as expected. 

But when I moved on to create a pattern on path for the next copy the command didn't deliver the same result as the first time, see the screencast.

The fact that the orientation 'Identical' works but 'Path Direction' does not confuses me.

Is there something in my sketches or the design that keeps me from executing this command correctly?

[g-andresen]

Hi,

I can't see the circumstances in detail in the screencast. Therefore I would like to give a general hint.
The jumping point of the pattern on path is the starting point. There are always problems if the object is not on the starting point of the path.

Günther

[davebYYPCU]

Try Circular Pattern.

[Anonymous]

The problem with circular pattern is, it is angle based but I need a certain distance for the pattern.

It is not impossible and I could calculate the correct angle for a symmetric pattern of 5 but the confusion for me is, why does pattern on path with orientation 'path direction' work on the first imported component, component 1:1, and not on the copy, component (1) 1:1?

[davebYYPCU]

I can’t answer for a fail after a success with the original, but you certainly can measure angles from the original.

Circular Pattern certainly more robust, and does not have to deal with object direction.

Might help...

[Anonymous]

That is true, and I might have to resort to this work flow. Thank you for the suggestion, btw.

But it still seems to me that there would be something wrong in the execution of the command, which would make me consider that there might even be a bug in the program.