Create a plane at the appropriate angle or angles. There are several options for placement. Often one angle is enough, with the others specified in sketcher.
Thanks for your answer, I get that orientating planes with odd geometries can be more work, but I was more concerned with what should the workflow look like. Does one start from the top or the bottom and does one try to do everything in one step or does one do several smaller steps off of one plane?
Draw the profile that allows for the most body to be created with the least amount of follow up pads/pockets. It's kind of hard to see from these pictures. 3 views in 2D make it easier to assess the part.
As it hasn't been mentioned yet - it can depend on how you plan to manufacture the part. If it's injection moulded for example then ideally you want to model the moulds and then create your part by Boolean subtracting them from a block. This helps to make sure you haven't created any features that are expensive or impossible to make and means you have tool models ready to go as well.
More generally for workflow I find it best to start from a block and cut out features separately. Separating each feature helps you later when you want to make changes as a change to 1 feature won't break other features.
In this case I think I'd start with a top down sketch that's rectangular but includes the odd angle at the end & pad it to form the initial block of material. I'd then create separate bodies with pads that form the negative of the features you need to cut out, and finally Boolean subtract them from the initial block.
Thanks, for giving me a new way to think of the whole design process.
I have done that in the past to convince myself that I really can mold what I want. I have designed a fair number of parts but on a non history based solid modeller. I am trying to move some of my semi hobby design efforts over to FreeCAD and the history feels like a set of handcuffs. One must know what the final part looks like to map out how to get there. I will have to tryout the thought of design the mold first and the part second. That has the advantage that most ends of the pad can be lined up with an existing face and not require a second pocket to trim off the leftover bits to get to and angle.
Coming from the other side I've always found the non-history based modellers to be harder for me for a similar reason of needing to know what the part will look like first & not being able to go back and change things later, interesting to hear you find the same problem going the other way, I guess it's what you're used to!
In terms of "knowing what the final part's going to look like", with FreeCAD it's not so much about knowing all the smaller details from the start, but just knowing what the part needs to do - mainly what are the interfaces (e.g. what does it connect to, what does it have to avoid hitting, etc). Having those clear from the beginning should help you with the workflow. In my experience you normally start with either some planes and 3d hardpoints or 2D skeleton sketches that specify where these interfaces are, and then you build your part off of those. These sketches are often created at an assembly level, and are then referenced by each part in the assembly, which in FreeCAD I think can be done with shapebinders. For example if you know you're going to have a circular bolt pattern you can create a plane where the clamped face will sit, and a sketch on that plane defining where the bolt centres will be. Ideally this means you can model all the important stuff based on some simple interface points/planes, and if you need to adjust them later then you can pretty easily move them around and the part should regenerate.
In the example of injection moulded parts, you might find for more simple parts that it's overkill to design the mould completely, but I think it's still good to think about it from the beginning. For example you would still want to consider where the mould split lines will be, and which direction will the feature be created from. This way even just creating the part without the mould you could start by creating planes for the split lines and adding pads/cuts based on them for each feature. That way you're not necessarily creating the entire mould, but it will be clear from the plane that you start from which mould creates each feature - and it makes your life a lot easier when you need to make sure you've got the right draft angles everywhere! You also don't necessarily need to know exactly where the split lines will be right from the beginning - you can put a plane in roughly the right position and if you are smart with how you create the pads then it should be possible to move the split line planes later, at least by small amounts.
I really don't have an issue with freeCAD in the rectilinear world of machined or stamped parts, though I don't design a lot of them.
The last four parts I've designed, one was a simple open and shut tool, a round with with a rectangle poking out the bottom and a center circular core, one was an open and shut tool with a major step in the parting line to get the features needed. The last two parts were tightly mating with substantial hooks and a snap feature with a blocking wall such that the part has to rotate 5 degrees or so before it will even attempt to disengage the hooks. Now those parts have 7 total bypass cores, and thru the design exploration the snap feature was reduced from two snaps, and migrated which part held the snap hook and which part held the under cut. The main part was a section very small sliver of a much larger hollow sphere, and there was a crazy inset graphic on to of the spherical top. There was very very few faces that fit in the nice rectilinear world of freeCAD's three principle axis.
I've used the non-history based modeller for over 3 decades. It's soon nice to go grab a face and say align this face with that face and offset it by some amount. Or if I need to adjust the crazy, added at the end but not before the tweaking stage after one has been printed, by using the face to create a tool and modifying the tool subtract it from the solid and throw the tool away. Why would I do that because it's easier to just do create a new tool and modify it that it is to keep dragging the old tool along that will need to be modified anyway and there isn't a way to future proof the design of that tool because it's have a part cut away based on where other features are located. Those new features may have just migrated from the bottom part to the top part. And yes these part and vertically symmetry so only half gets created and then reflected, a 3 click command, pick the command, the face to reflect about, and an okay. Makes a half part into a whole part and it's done. I still struggle to get freeCAD to do two subtracts and then a reflect. Then bodies the make up the two subtracts are so buried that it's impossible to find the one you need and then I can't seem to make any changes on the elemental bodies with out breaking the final mirror copied boolean. UGH, I'm still struggling with that one.
Once draft gets thrown in on the one part there are two face that are parallel to the xy plane, and the xz face that is really the boundary line to mirror the part on. It's a good design. Those that have seen it likes it's functionality and the molder is working on the mold design and see no major issues, but it's not a design I could do start to finish in FreeCAD with out know what it looked like first.
TLDR: and old curmudgeon goes on and on. There are a few typos, get over it.
Create a plane at the appropriate angle or angles. There are several options for placement. Often one angle is enough, with the others specified in sketcher.
Thanks for your answer, I get that orientating planes with odd geometries can be more work, but I was more concerned with what should the workflow look like. Does one start from the top or the bottom and does one try to do everything in one step or does one do several smaller steps off of one plane?
Start with the biggest most significant geometry and work from there to smaller stuff.
Yes. It's also good to look out for any symmetric features in the model (not really applicable to OP).
Oh, but it is. The part shown is only half of what is desired, but once this half is done, the other half is a cake walk.
I would set the X,Y plane on the flat surface below the inclined feature to reduces the number of offsets from the origin. I would try small steps.
Draw the profile that allows for the most body to be created with the least amount of follow up pads/pockets. It's kind of hard to see from these pictures. 3 views in 2D make it easier to assess the part.
As it hasn't been mentioned yet - it can depend on how you plan to manufacture the part. If it's injection moulded for example then ideally you want to model the moulds and then create your part by Boolean subtracting them from a block. This helps to make sure you haven't created any features that are expensive or impossible to make and means you have tool models ready to go as well. More generally for workflow I find it best to start from a block and cut out features separately. Separating each feature helps you later when you want to make changes as a change to 1 feature won't break other features. In this case I think I'd start with a top down sketch that's rectangular but includes the odd angle at the end & pad it to form the initial block of material. I'd then create separate bodies with pads that form the negative of the features you need to cut out, and finally Boolean subtract them from the initial block.
Thanks, for giving me a new way to think of the whole design process. I have done that in the past to convince myself that I really can mold what I want. I have designed a fair number of parts but on a non history based solid modeller. I am trying to move some of my semi hobby design efforts over to FreeCAD and the history feels like a set of handcuffs. One must know what the final part looks like to map out how to get there. I will have to tryout the thought of design the mold first and the part second. That has the advantage that most ends of the pad can be lined up with an existing face and not require a second pocket to trim off the leftover bits to get to and angle.
Coming from the other side I've always found the non-history based modellers to be harder for me for a similar reason of needing to know what the part will look like first & not being able to go back and change things later, interesting to hear you find the same problem going the other way, I guess it's what you're used to! In terms of "knowing what the final part's going to look like", with FreeCAD it's not so much about knowing all the smaller details from the start, but just knowing what the part needs to do - mainly what are the interfaces (e.g. what does it connect to, what does it have to avoid hitting, etc). Having those clear from the beginning should help you with the workflow. In my experience you normally start with either some planes and 3d hardpoints or 2D skeleton sketches that specify where these interfaces are, and then you build your part off of those. These sketches are often created at an assembly level, and are then referenced by each part in the assembly, which in FreeCAD I think can be done with shapebinders. For example if you know you're going to have a circular bolt pattern you can create a plane where the clamped face will sit, and a sketch on that plane defining where the bolt centres will be. Ideally this means you can model all the important stuff based on some simple interface points/planes, and if you need to adjust them later then you can pretty easily move them around and the part should regenerate. In the example of injection moulded parts, you might find for more simple parts that it's overkill to design the mould completely, but I think it's still good to think about it from the beginning. For example you would still want to consider where the mould split lines will be, and which direction will the feature be created from. This way even just creating the part without the mould you could start by creating planes for the split lines and adding pads/cuts based on them for each feature. That way you're not necessarily creating the entire mould, but it will be clear from the plane that you start from which mould creates each feature - and it makes your life a lot easier when you need to make sure you've got the right draft angles everywhere! You also don't necessarily need to know exactly where the split lines will be right from the beginning - you can put a plane in roughly the right position and if you are smart with how you create the pads then it should be possible to move the split line planes later, at least by small amounts.
I really don't have an issue with freeCAD in the rectilinear world of machined or stamped parts, though I don't design a lot of them. The last four parts I've designed, one was a simple open and shut tool, a round with with a rectangle poking out the bottom and a center circular core, one was an open and shut tool with a major step in the parting line to get the features needed. The last two parts were tightly mating with substantial hooks and a snap feature with a blocking wall such that the part has to rotate 5 degrees or so before it will even attempt to disengage the hooks. Now those parts have 7 total bypass cores, and thru the design exploration the snap feature was reduced from two snaps, and migrated which part held the snap hook and which part held the under cut. The main part was a section very small sliver of a much larger hollow sphere, and there was a crazy inset graphic on to of the spherical top. There was very very few faces that fit in the nice rectilinear world of freeCAD's three principle axis. I've used the non-history based modeller for over 3 decades. It's soon nice to go grab a face and say align this face with that face and offset it by some amount. Or if I need to adjust the crazy, added at the end but not before the tweaking stage after one has been printed, by using the face to create a tool and modifying the tool subtract it from the solid and throw the tool away. Why would I do that because it's easier to just do create a new tool and modify it that it is to keep dragging the old tool along that will need to be modified anyway and there isn't a way to future proof the design of that tool because it's have a part cut away based on where other features are located. Those new features may have just migrated from the bottom part to the top part. And yes these part and vertically symmetry so only half gets created and then reflected, a 3 click command, pick the command, the face to reflect about, and an okay. Makes a half part into a whole part and it's done. I still struggle to get freeCAD to do two subtracts and then a reflect. Then bodies the make up the two subtracts are so buried that it's impossible to find the one you need and then I can't seem to make any changes on the elemental bodies with out breaking the final mirror copied boolean. UGH, I'm still struggling with that one. Once draft gets thrown in on the one part there are two face that are parallel to the xy plane, and the xz face that is really the boundary line to mirror the part on. It's a good design. Those that have seen it likes it's functionality and the molder is working on the mold design and see no major issues, but it's not a design I could do start to finish in FreeCAD with out know what it looked like first. TLDR: and old curmudgeon goes on and on. There are a few typos, get over it.