#4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post here if you have re-based and finalised code to integrate into master, which was discussed, agreed to and tested in other forums. You can also submit your PR directly on github.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by adrianinsaval »

it's definitively more than one single extrusion and cut, and it's also problematic (not to say impossible) to obtain the addsubshape from a common operation. If we don't need to go with the more expensive operation we should not use it. In simple projects you will not feel the difference, but on complex model (specially on low end computers) it can be noticeable.
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by wsteffe »

user1234 wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 7:56 pm So it is only a split, a common and a add. I find that is not that much, also in relative to multiple patterns.
That has to be compared with a single cut (plus adding a wire which is a very fast operation).
And I would also add a refine to get rid of the additional edges in the split plane (not created by the single cut).
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53930
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by chrisb »

A refine can break a model. It should never be applied automatically unless configured as such in the preferences.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
wsteffe
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: #4828 PartDesign: inverse for pocket

Post by wsteffe »

chrisb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 8:41 am A refine can break a model. It should never be applied automatically unless configured as such in the preferences.
In fact. And this is another argument against "split+common+union" which would require also a refine to get the same result of "pocket with sketch+wire"
Post Reply