Welcome to 3DCADForums

Join our CAD community forums where over 25,000 users interact to solve day to day problems and share ideas. We encourage you to visit, invite you to participate and look forward to your input and opinions. Acrobat 3D, AutoCAD, Catia, Inventor, IronCAD, Creo, Pro/ENGINEER, Solid Edge, SolidWorks, and others.

Register Log in

Catia will not Remove a Translated Pad


New member
Hello All,
I am doing a small job in Catia to export to Mastercam. The part is small so I figured I would gang 5 of them together.
Did a pad for the stock, imported the piece and translated it into position in the stock.
Created points for the spacing of the individual pieces.
Started doing pads to match the holes in the example piece, in the stock.
Boolean Removed the pads for the middle piece, worked as normal.
Selected those PADS and did a point to point translation to move them to the other positions.
Original pads, one point left. Original pads, 2 points left. 2 new positions, 3 points right. A total of 3 translations, each in it's own body. Always picking the individual Pad. Everything moved as normal.
Did a Remove for each body from the "STOCK" body.
They each end up in a REMOVE folder.
There is no error.
There is no Update option.
The 4 pads are still there.
What happened?
See attached
Not Right.JPG


New member
Check the model thats on red.
correct me if im wrong but i think it is already removed. Try to use the dynamic sectioning and see through you model.
I believe its already hollow inside, but you just cant view it.

Or can you label each parts cause im not sure on which one your working into. Hope i can help.


Super Moderator
I'm not sure why the original 4 pads are still there; a translation moves the body without making a copy. I just tried to duplicate the problem but I couldn't recreate the error. I might not understand the exact steps you did. Why are there 12 Removes in the tree? Where do these extra pads show up in the tree?

I would have modeled the mold with a Pattern, instead of the Translations. But your method should work, plus it provides some flexibility.
Last edited: