Huh, interestingly, if you edit the chamfer after rearranging, you can see how to do this without rearranging (by creating the thread first) - just select the edge that was there before the thread - it's a small section or arc near the lead-in point of the thread
The treasure is in the comments! I used to do the revolve as well. It has one huge advantage that its reliable. I have done chamfers before but often when i changed parameters or anything they would break. This short little thread made me test it and understand why. The chamfer before thread and then moving it is a bit random - it may or may not compute as it either picks the right spot or not and this has caused me issues in the past when it randomly changed. Just now testing it i made the same chamfer a few times and once it computed and twice it did not after moving it in the timeline. Knowing how to pick the correct edge to do the chamfer on once the thread is already made is the big lesson i got from this. It also works on inner threads and on both the ends (open or closed) but its a bit more difficult to tell which line to pick the chamfer on there (luckily trial and error works) With 3d printing its often a good idea to limit the movement of the threaded object (so there is pressure on the layer lines rather than ripping them apart) and to know where exactly the threads end when tightened and since this workflow does not move the threads it can finally be done chamfers included. I tried changing the threads and chamfer dimensions and it does seem to be stable. I have yet to test it on custom threads. Offset face seems to be more stable if done before chamfers, after them it does not compute well for some reason.
*SO. How does this make bolts stronger? The weak link is layer adhesion. You’ve not addressed that. Use supports and print the bolt at a 45° (or whatever your machine can handle) for layers that transcend the threads.*
Oh wow, thanks for this, can’t wait to try it. I’ve been doing the rotated triangle thing forever. 0.4mm is a crazy large amount of easing, though. If you need more than 0.15mm, I suspect that something in your printer or slicer setup is not tuned correctly.
The 0.4 is mainly for some of our student that use older printers like the Ender 3 that doesn’t have super tight tolerances or for threads that may get fuzzed up over time with constant screwing. But yeah they could totally be tighter :)
@@osmanpasha_diy yeah on my used Ender 3 from Craigslist where the dude left it on 220V mode in the US and rammed the nozzle into the print bed (giant groove in it) after fixing it up I was able to easily get 0.2mm to work (0.2mm total, so 0.1mm when using the offset tool since you're offsetting the top and the bottom) I've been wonder how to get the bolts to fit into the holes easier though. I was doing a countersink on the hole-side threads but now that I think of it a chamfer on the bolt is indeed what store bought bolts do...
I’m sorry, this was in my feed and I watched it and could tell that at the 1:00 mark, all the information that was going to be said was already said. Yes, time can be saved by doing this, but how much - 20 sec? The video title is also misleading, since the faster refers to the modeling and not the printing and is only 20 sec improvement, and the. Idea does not address better or stronger in any way.
We’re not a massive fan of unnecessarily long videos that bait the solution till the end. If you get what you need at the beginning, fantastic, and if you want to learn a bit more about the topic then stick around :)
Create the thread, right click and choose supress feature on the thread, and then create the chamfer. Then you can unsupress the thread and everything works.
I only model the threads and create the face offsets at the end of the entire design process (before exporting either the STEP file or STL for printing). Again, saves computational time, and then the chamfers work on male or female threads.
I just tried this but it didn't work for me. the bottom of the thread is all sorts of messed up. it's like going inside of itself maybe this only works if your cylinder and thread diameter are the same and using ISO metric threads but I like to use ISO metric trapezoidal for 3d prints. it gives more coarse thread pitch making it easier to screw in
Printed vertically the thread will be weak as hell due to layer lines. You can get away with it if you're printing fisher price nuts and bolts. Anything small and they'll be useless
Prusa MK4. But you can get the exact same quality of vertical wall text; it's just based on the amount it's extruded from the surface, too far out, and it will droop too much. If you have a great 3d printer with great cooling then thats no problem, but if you have a basic printer then you need to reduce the extrusion to about 0.25 or 0.5 mm
Interesting :) one of the other comments said to make a chamfer, add a thread under it and then move the chamfer after it in the timeline and it does in fact work
We haven’t discussed doing a course on openscad yet but we’ll see if any of our other students are interested :) our next course and book is going to diving into Onshape with a slight robotics team lean
I like this, but there is a good reason to keep that chamfer-by-rotation in mind. That would be a great way to do it if you wanted a pilot section on yout bolt. By that I mean a short length cylinder at roughly the minor dia to help locate the bolt during assembly. A great feature for bolts that line up and hold a sliding mechanism, for example.
I wanted to listen to this entire video but I just couldn’t do it. Once some starts a video explaining in great detail, all the stuff they are planning to explain in detail in the video I’m totally done. Adios
Even better workflow optimization would be to not design bolt or nut at all. Just use predesigned ones of type/length/thread from library or parametric model, done by self earlier or 3rd parties. "To not reinvent wheel" in each project all over again. And it's not applicable to just bolts/nuts. There are loads of standartised parts, including various fasteners, out there, including libraries or models for them. At most, it should be extended with some 3d printing custom nitbits, like smart bridging for dealing with hex hole quality/supports/postproduction, and maybe adding flank-drive rounding or corner hollowing of hex holes to increase resilency to stripping, and even such customisations can be reused from previous work/models.
0.4mm offset is wild and depends a lot on the printer's calibration. I'm using between 0.1 and 0.2mm (the bigger the thread diameter the lower the offset) and my screws and nuts work fine. For the chamfer, I'm usually catching the overhanging part of the thread and round it to 0.5 to 1mm. Works great for catching the nut and bolt together and is easy to print.
For 3d printed threads, I find that especially with materials that require a heated enclosure, standard ansi and iso thread profiles can have overhangs that make coarser threads not print cleanly. This doesn't generally stop them from functioning, but it is annoying. Three solutions for folks that have this issue: 1 Use inner-outter or inner-outer-inner wall printing order (do this anyway, it makes everything better). 2 Use a tighter thread pitch. Not appropriate for all applications. 3 Model threads with a 45 degree overhang. This is pretty easy. Just add a helix around your cylinder and sweep the profile you prefer. Generally, you can just do this to the male thread and boolean it with an offset to create the female. I will write a script that auto generates these shallower threads at some point, when I get sufficiently annoyed modeling the thing. For now, I just have a parametric thread model I use.
A lot of the time you're better off just using a tap/die. Unless it's an unusual size, or for some reason you need to print off a ton of parts with threads, it will often make more sense to just cut the threads rather than take the time to design them. The cheapest tap and die set you can find will work perfectly fine since it's plastic. Plus the threads will be way better quality, especially on smaller sizes that an FDM printer has no chance of printing well.
Definitely although I have had to put in so many threads into prints that my tap heats up from friction and melts rather than cuts the plastic prints so best to keep an eye on it :)
Excellent presentation of a more refined solution. I figured out the triangle sweep method on my own, but always felt it was a sore thumb in my workflow - trying this mthod out right now. Subbed.
Hello there. Thanks for the video. I coincidentally was looking for this solution few days before your video, just found out those techniques was not working for me. Either the partial thread with chamfer and the timeline one. At the end I realized these don’t work with BSP. 🙄
As an engineer doing complex injection molding design for a decade and a half I would say the number of features in the model timeline is far less important than if your timeline represents design intent and how fast you can make the inevitable change requests to the model. For less complex designs it’s also better so that you can make configurations of the same model for use at different sizes. Less features is maybe great for a competition recreating an existing design but falls flat in the real world of designing something new.
Another content provider that likes to see himself talk. And talk talk talk you do. Anyone watching skip to the last minute save yourself alot of time.
3D printing threads is kinda meh to begin with to even bother, unless its something mildly cosmetic, fasteners are the only way. That tangent on 2 vs 3 features - oh geee, just staph - things like that tend to iron out automatically the more you use your CAD.
I'm usually in too much a hurry when I need threads for whatever reason. I've found the faster solution to be goto mcmaster and download the 3d model from there and modify it if needed.
Well, actually there is a way to do it using only one feature (the chamfer itself) and a small trick with timeline. Make a thread, then go one step back in timeline (before the thread creation) create a chamfer, move the timeline to the end and swap the thread and the chamfer in the timeline (change the order). The result will be the same, with ONE operation .
It’s my personal favorite CAD software. It’s very powerful for hobbyists but probably not the best choice for an engineering firm. It’s completely free but there is a paid version but in our course we tell you how you can get it completely for free. I don’t have a ton of experience with the PCB side but from what I’ve seen it does in fact work well. A few of our student have gotten prototype boards from their PCB CAD models and I think this is where fusion updates a lot of tools every month too.
@@CADclassOfficial As I understand it, the free version of fusion is limited to 2 layer PCBs. Which is a showstopper for me. Also, I want a painless way to do 3D metal printing. Does the subscription version of fusion allow me to get stuff made? I see Autodesk touting its additive manufacturing extension, which is more expensive than fusion itself!. And I'm assuming its not really necessary to actually get something made. I mostly do electronics design, but I'm interested in learning CAD. Thanks.
@@johnnycardoso1965 doesn't work. at least not like in the video. When he chamfers, he can chamfer any length. Here it won't work. Is it because I'm using the free version? @CADclassOfficial
@julianopolito, create a 1mm chamfer, then create the thread, with modeling and displacement of 1mm (the same as the applied chamfer). I use 1mm+25%=1.25mm. It will work depending on the thread size you are using. It doesn't matter what version of Fusion it is, as it's just a build operation. This tip I gave is more complex, as you create the thread with displacement, suppress it in the history and then create the chamfer and then move the chamfer to before the construction of the thread, in the history. Then you cancel the thread suppression. @julianopolito, are you Brazilian?
Thumbs down for not mentioning it was EXCLUSIVELY about the stupid Fusion 360. Made me waste my time. It's not "CAD", it's just Fusion 360. Other "CAD" have different ways of making threads. There's even a brilliant library for OpenSCAD that creates wonderful threads in seconds.
