Instead of web tool, try Thin Extrude and set so the Sketch is along the centerline of the body. Extrude one hexagon then pattern the bodies as above. This makes it super easy to paramaterize the size of the hexagon and altering diameter or wall thickness does not impact the other.
@@iambuschi - Note: 'Thin Extrude' (in 'SOLID' context tab) can use a 'closed profile', OR 'open'. - Then just set depth, and width: 'Distance', and 'Wall Thickness'.
Thanks for the amazing technique Buschi ! I tried the following: I created 2 parameters, one for the thickness and one for the width of one side of the hexagon. In sketch I created a hexagon and an offset hexagon distanced by (thickness parameter) and applied the side parameter. I added two axes as in Buschi’s method. I extruded the outer hexagon. then did the rectangular pattern. for the spacing I use sqrt(3) * side + thickness. it sounds complicated but all the design is controlled by the 2 parameters.
You should really use Construction lines for your two lines going out from the center point of the hex. Its a big QOL change. In fact, any line that isn't doing to be a wall once extruded, should be a construction line.
Excellent work man. Glad I intrugued you enough for an updated video!🤘It's time autodesk built a tool to automate all this with optomised processing but we can wish lol (EDIT: actually they do have a pattern tool thats part of the plastic package that might do this). You also figured out where I struggled with the web tool i think. There's always multiple ways in fusion! Thinking about it, there's another way in surface modelling that you could extrude the hexagon as a surface, then thicken it. then rectangular pattern it. I wonder if this makes a difference to process speed. Likely it will cause more work for the CPU to be honest but i will try 👍
Processing wise the new approach I think also doesn't scale really nicely.. at least not in cases You really have a lot of hexagons.. would be great to have yet another fall back approach ;)
The simplest method I use is: In sketch create hexagon. Add two expansion axes as in Buschi’s method. Use rectangular pattern with Spacing. Enclose in the required shape. Extrude. Done! Additional advantage of this method is easy calculations that happens instantaneously.
The reason the gap was there at the middle was because you had hardcoded in the distances for the repeating pattern, which you didn’t adjust for when you changed the original thickness. If you had driven it via parameters, I don’t think those gaps would have appeared.
Have you watched the entire video? :) I did what you rightfully comment in the second half of the video :) There is yet a better way and I am currently working on another video using it for a Softbox grid tutorial..
This is such a fantastic techniques. I've already used it several times today. I just make a big sheet of this pattern and then punch holes through it as needed for different shapes. THANK YOU!
- BTW, to "trim away" unwanted geom, use 'extrude(INTERSECT)'. - This way, it doesn't matter how much "overage" there is, and you don't have to create an "outer" profile and use 'extrude(CUT)'.
Not exactly sure what you mean when I should use the offset tool.. You mean to generate the basic outline of geometry? Why would that be a better approach?
Mhh I don't think the offset can serve you the same way here.. Although I think I know where you aim at.. The great thing is that there a million ways to the goal.. :)
Mhh I don't think the offset can serve you the same way here.. Although I think I know where you aim at.. The great thing is that there a million ways to the goal.. :)
![KSI - Thick Of It (feat. Trippie Redd) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/At8v_Yc044Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Instead of web tool, try Thin Extrude and set so the Sketch is along the centerline of the body. Extrude one hexagon then pattern the bodies as above. This makes it super easy to paramaterize the size of the hexagon and altering diameter or wall thickness does not impact the other.
- Yes, 'THIN EXTRUDE' for the win! :)
To be honest, I have not fully grasped the concept there yet... Will try it out and see if I can manage.. :)
@@iambuschi
- Note: 'Thin Extrude' (in 'SOLID' context tab) can use a 'closed profile', OR 'open'.
- Then just set depth, and width: 'Distance', and 'Wall Thickness'.
@@swamihuman9395 check out my other video.. Your comment even made into it ;) ruclips.net/video/QEoUMSO9SXo/видео.html thx for the valuable feedback!
Thanks for the amazing technique Buschi ! I tried the following: I created 2 parameters, one for the thickness and one for the width of one side of the hexagon. In sketch I created a hexagon and an offset hexagon distanced by (thickness parameter) and applied the side parameter. I added two axes as in Buschi’s method. I extruded the outer hexagon. then did the rectangular pattern. for the spacing I use sqrt(3) * side + thickness. it sounds complicated but all the design is controlled by the 2 parameters.
This might be better for iterating new designs but it is slower for sure. Both methods have their place.
Great channel! Thank you!
You should really use Construction lines for your two lines going out from the center point of the hex. Its a big QOL change. In fact, any line that isn't doing to be a wall once extruded, should be a construction line.
Excellent work man. Glad I intrugued you enough for an updated video!🤘It's time autodesk built a tool to automate all this with optomised processing but we can wish lol
(EDIT: actually they do have a pattern tool thats part of the plastic package that might do this).
You also figured out where I struggled with the web tool i think. There's always multiple ways in fusion! Thinking about it, there's another way in surface modelling that you could extrude the hexagon as a surface, then thicken it. then rectangular pattern it. I wonder if this makes a difference to process speed. Likely it will cause more work for the CPU to be honest but i will try 👍
Processing wise the new approach I think also doesn't scale really nicely.. at least not in cases You really have a lot of hexagons.. would be great to have yet another fall back approach ;)
This was very helpful - thankyou!
The simplest method I use is: In sketch create hexagon. Add two expansion axes as in Buschi’s method. Use rectangular pattern with Spacing. Enclose in the required shape. Extrude. Done! Additional advantage of this method is easy calculations that happens instantaneously.
Thank you !
The reason the gap was there at the middle was because you had hardcoded in the distances for the repeating pattern, which you didn’t adjust for when you changed the original thickness. If you had driven it via parameters, I don’t think those gaps would have appeared.
Have you watched the entire video? :) I did what you rightfully comment in the second half of the video :) There is yet a better way and I am currently working on another video using it for a Softbox grid tutorial..
Very good. How would you then make a box out of these hex panels?
Maybe have a look here ruclips.net/video/QEoUMSO9SXo/видео.html it is another video where I used that technique to build a full light former grid..
This is such a fantastic techniques. I've already used it several times today. I just make a big sheet of this pattern and then punch holes through it as needed for different shapes. THANK YOU!
- BTW, to "trim away" unwanted geom, use 'extrude(INTERSECT)'.
- This way, it doesn't matter how much "overage" there is, and you don't have to create an "outer" profile and use 'extrude(CUT)'.
Nice tip indeed.. it is fascinating how many ways there are to the wanted outcome.. and some are clearly better than others.. :)
I personally find the thin exturde - pattern - combine workflow easier to use and manage
Yes, me too.. 😀 Actually really grateful for the comment that pointed this method out to me..
could also just draw a hex, extrude it and use the shell toll, instead of the web tool
l
danke !
Bitte sehr! :)
Use offset in sketch
Not exactly sure what you mean when I should use the offset tool.. You mean to generate the basic outline of geometry? Why would that be a better approach?
Yes! You asked how to avoid the Web operation. Then the web is not needed@@iambuschi
Mhh I don't think the offset can serve you the same way here.. Although I think I know where you aim at.. The great thing is that there a million ways to the goal.. :)
Mhh I don't think the offset can serve you the same way here.. Although I think I know where you aim at.. The great thing is that there a million ways to the goal.. :)
i like the other way better