Aller au contenu principal

Changing the width of a plate - only the face gets pulled

Commentaires

17 commentaires

  • Tim Heeney

    hi.

    Please ensure the part passes a geometry check.

    The process of pulling a face to a dimension from another face works.

    quick question...what is this line below?

    0
  • B.Brincken

    "No geometry problems were found"

    And the line in the lower left was not used in this process.

    Here is a screenshot one moment before the above.

     

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Usually a solid isn't actually solid when it goes transparant ( unless you set the transparancy ) - when going transparant it indicates a face has become unattached.

    Your first post showing it solid, second post transparant.

    I see a line of some sort ( as i asked about previously ) and a something looking like a tang ( another solid) above the moved face. Without seeing the full structure browser i can't comment further except to say it's very unlikely there's something wrong with the pull command. Unfortunately you can't upload the model here.

    I suggest you investigate why Pull isn't working - re do the area / part that is causing a problem.

    I am only somebody freely helping the forum and nothing to do with RS / DSM etc.

    There are many good DSM / Spaceclaim posts on youtube on the subject of pull.

    0
  • B.Brincken

    If I start from scratch everything works as expected.
    So I'm not saying the pull function caught a flu of some sort ;-)

    In the structure tree, the base plate and one I tried to change are actually _one_ 'surface' object. But I did not call a function to combine them. Question:
    What action/s make DSM combine (or merge, or encapsulate) bodies (or faces) to one larger 'surface'?
    Mechanically this does not make much sense as well, IMHO.

    "Going transparant it indicates a face has become unattached" - interesting, but this was not done by me intentionally.
    So there seems to be some magic going on behind the scenes, leading to undesired effects in following edits, like here.

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Glad by starting afresh all is well.

    My best advice is to watch  / study the Structure Tree. I find it's invaluable...

    I attempt to keep a good structure with components/ assemblies of components/ curves/ coordinate systems/planes etc in their correct place ( ie owner ) - that way i spot mishaps as i go easily and it keeps all the information tidy and inplace for quick selection / manipulation etc.

    Accept how DSM works or doesn't work. How other CAD operates isn't necessarily the only and best way to achieve an outcome. Sure, other CAD came first, vendors have patent rights etc. DSM ain't perfect nor the best.

     

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Tim, I only tested if I can change the size of a single new plate - that works.
    "All is well" would mean that the complete construction is finished without mysterious objects. That might take some time.

    Simple question:
    What user action converts a group of faces to a 'surface' in the structure tree?

    Jacant, I accept how DSM works and am willing to learn, just tell me where to find the information. SpaceClaim.chm does not explain this surface-transition - within 957 pages. 

     

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Do you mean group of faces to a 'Solid' ?
    No, I mean exactly "group of faces to a 'surface' in the structure tree".
    I am not talking about 'surface' in the common sense, but as the word in the structure tree.

    See the screenshot - DSM has combined the base and two tilted plates to one "surface" object.
    When? Why? How can one avoid this?

    Now when I want to change one tilted plates' width, it seems that DSM does not consider faces inside this "surface" as parts of solids, so pull-ing on them do not change solids as well, but just moves around what was selected - the face.

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Yes, I deleted the suspicious line in the center of the base plate, only to see if it had any effect. It seems not.
    Are you saying drawing that line pushed the separate curves and solids into a "Surface" object?

    "If all of the curves are touching in 2D mode then only one Surface is created."
    The tilted plates were drawn _after_ the base plate was finished - which could only happen with "pull" in 3D.

    "It does not have to be on the same plane as one would think a 'Surface' is."
    Hmm. But why is DSM doing this - creating a single (so-called) "Surface" out of solids perpendicular to each other?
    This can obviously not be a surface in the common sense.

    The file is actually not that tedious to reproduce.
    What I try to find out in this thread - if I could recommend DSM to technicians in my project with a similar hands-on, non-geek, non-CAD background.
    DSM looks intuitive and non-bloated at first sight, but the experience of the last hours with the software let me hesitate (while I see no candidate who is clearly superior).

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Base plate - good question, why was no solid created?

    Tilted plates - have a thickness, as you can see in the screenshots. Same question here.

    And then - how where the base and the tilted plates combined to one ('surface') - does this happen always when they touch?

    I did not use the CTRL key during any pull.

     

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Could you translate "delude" for me in this context?

    IMHO, changing the size of a part until it touches some other part is a natural process in mechanical construction - but not welding these parts together (while it can be an art of its own).

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Why would I ever want parts to join automatically (which generates constraints for future changes)?

    0
  • B.Brincken

    Aaand .. you consider this to be a feature, not a bug?

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    This is totally a Feature.

    The default operation of either Merge or No Merge is user option setting and can be overridden on an 'as and when' basis

     

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Sometimes it's nice to have two or more separate 'solids' that contain say some 3D 'fixed features' in each part, then each part can be moved around to suit the evolving design but each part auto retains it's 'set' features independantly until combining them.

    Select the owning component, they both move...nice flexibility.

     

    0
  • B.Brincken

    The 'no merge' option makes it all fine.

    Hereby I withdraw my criticism.

    0
  • Jacant

    The 'no merge' option makes it all fine.

    Oh! That's OK then.

    Adios

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Hi B. Brincken.

    I started trying to make a collection of metal plates in a fashion similar to typical sheet metal fabrication - playing around with structure tree and selecting faces using the 'search all bodies' or not, same length or face size or coincident faces etc i wanted to see how DSM worked and how efficiently i could come up with something.

     

    Images above show my start and below how it's progressed. It's important to really understand that in no way could a parametric system be as efficient as i always go with my last thoughts and consistently reduce complexity and part count as i progess  - always can i add a good idea as there's never the requirement to consider how anything was constructed in the past.

    DSM doesn't have mirroring function - and that doesn't hinder the design at all. Importantly, symmetric parts used with copying / rotation etc absolutely assures minimum part  count and o/a lowest cost manufacturing.

    I've learnt much in this exercise...

    T

     

    All in here. Dim annotations for snapping / driving. Cutting planes , Hidden faces.

    Like anything, it really 'helps to be INTO ' what you do...

    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.