Linear pattern of tool body type features

[Petertha]

I made this block as a 'base' part and then a separate 'tool' part. My intent was to position the tool at a predetermined seed position within the block, using Insert>Part subtract it from the base, then pattern that in an array along the 2 edges using a spacing I had already worked out in a separate reference sketch. I can position the tool with mates & make it cut as a single instance, but having difficulty with the pattern aspect. Am I barking up the wrong tree on this workflow? Is it more intended to drop each tool onsey-twosey mode?

[gupta9665]

After you have insert the tool, you need to use the body option in the linear pattern, and then use all the bodies to subtract.

You can also try face pattern after the first cut with 1 body.

Other option would be to pattern the individual component (body) in it's own part, and then add a plate/extrude on top of each other so that you can merge all the bodies ( or make a plate/extrude first, and then add the tool body + pattern). Then add it to the base part, and subtract. This will keep the performance on check, and also just one body to select.

[TTevolve]

Curious, is there an advantage to using a model and subtracting from the base instead of just doing a cut in the base and not having 2 parts at all?

Why not just do a revolved cut in the black and then just pattern that?

[AlexLachance]

Curious, is there an advantage to using a model and subtracting from the base instead of just doing a cut in the base and not having 2 parts at all?

Why not just do a revolved cut in the black and then just pattern that?

Repetition of the process would be my guess. You could most likely do it with a custom feature, as a revolved cut and pattern, don't think it would have any influence but honestly I don't work that way so I wouldn't know. Using a custom feature would have it "break link" and not update itself if the feature was to change, using a body as such would allow the flexibility of being able to modify the body and have it update itself across wherever it is used.

[Petertha]

Curious, is there an advantage to using a model and subtracting from the base instead of just doing a cut in the base and not having 2 parts at all?
Why not just do a revolved cut in the black and then just pattern that?

For this object it was in fact easier to just make the revolved cut seed in the block & pattern that. But the 'tool' concept is also useful. You may have a whole library of shapes corresponding to almost anything & then its simply a matter of placing them where they need to be. Maybe a common T-nut is a good example. It has a flange of specific diameter, thickness, 3 spurs, fillet radius, threaded shank dimension... so all that can be defined in a 'tool' & just subtract it from the part in any desired orientation. You can even control offset clearance depth via placement mates. At least that's how I envisioned its use.

But yes, an evil byproduct is the part now has a file association to the tool. I suppose not much different than an Assembly has association to Parts. But I should test that aspect if SW does something funy behind the scenes.

[TTevolve]

When I did holes in a part for Tee nuts we just did a C-bore and hole to the proper size in the part. When the tee nut is pressed in, the hole forms around it to help hold it in place, but for manufacturing the hole just needed to be a hole, it didn't have to conform tot he shape of the tee nut.

[jcapriotti]

But yes, an evil byproduct is the part now has a file association to the tool. I suppose not much different than an Assembly has association to Parts. But I should test that aspect if SW does something funy behind the scenes.

I would really avoid the external reference if at all possible. It will add overhead, and you have to worry about the reference if you rename or move it later. This is a good case for a library feature. It will take more time to build and setup but worlds easier to work with and maintain.

Click me, I'm a video:

[Petertha]

That (library) is very useful information! I always assumed it was related to 'male part-like' objects, but you are showing (I think) a material removal feature exactly what I was trying to do. OK I need to dig into this more. Thanks!