I have an assembly which contains a part with holes that are controled by a pattern. We are using the peer variables tool in the assembly environment to control how many holes are located down the part (these holes and pattern are located in the part file). Is there a way to pattern a bracket and fasteners so that they will match the number of holes that are present in the part file when it is changed. Basically we need a pattern of parts on the assembly level that matches the pattern of hole features located in the part file.
Solved! Go to Solution.
I hope I have understood You correctly, but patterning a set of parts in an assembly is using the pattern from the part.
So IMHO there is no need for any additional feature/function/tool or operation.
Is this Your question?
this is exactly the nature of an Assy Pattern.
In the pattern command wizard you will be asked to pick the part that contains the pattern, and thereafter asked to pick the pattern within the part... and then IIRC asked for the starting instance... or the instance where you already have a part placed from the assy.
this should work just as you ask. if the part changes the number of assy patterned occurrence will change as well.
Yes, this did work. I screwed it up initially and began to way overthink it. For some reason I had to click the third hole of the pattern instead of the first (one where the fastener pattern starts). For this example I had a set of holes that were patterned. Usually when I have patterned fasteners from one hole to a group of other holes ive clicked on the hole with the fasteners located as the reference position. What is the reason for selecting the third hole as the reference hole here?
If you don't place the fastener in the base feature you could get odd results when you change the number of pattern instances. This maybe because the pattern instance gets what I would call 'renumbered', so the origin for the pattern gets shifted.
It is always safer to place the fateners in the base feature location.
Having said that, patterns have been known to get screwed up for as long as I have used SE and sometimes you will have to redefine them. Ive had many occasions when the pattern has gone off in the wrong direction.
Sometimes ALT+U will put them right, but not always.