メインコンテンツへスキップ

Rotation upto a line?

コメント

31件のコメント

  • Jacant

    It's a bit awkward doing it with the rotate. I would just use the 'Orient to Object' option.

    0
  • Me Here

    Yep. That works. Thanks.

    I would never have thought to do it that way as I need a rotation, but you have to select a translation handle to enable the tool.

    If you have any successful examples of using rotate Upto; I'd really like to understand how to use it; but I cannot find a single mention of it in any of the docs I looked at.

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Agree with you about finding information / examples on this.

    The example you show , using the procedure below, seems excessive...

    To answer your question, construct an arc to the horizontal line to establish a vertex - in this case a vertex is necessary.

    The key is aligning move tool Red axis ( x ), to the moved object ( alt click ), thus establishing a move/ measurement reference. Then, there are 2 options. Either select Red axis, then use the 'orient to object' tool and select another vertex or a non parallel line to instantantly align to a vertex or make parallel to.

    or,

    select the angular ruler aligning it to a target vertex or non parallel line. Resulting measurement change to 0 to align or input an offset, 5, 10 degrees etc from the vertex or axis.

    Move tool is active, select add / removes items desired, continue move .

     

    0
  • Me Here

    The measure method works also, but both require some construction work. It seems to me that if Rotate->Upto worked the way I think it should, that would not be neccessary.

    Ie. Set the Move handle, click the required rotation handle, select the feature of the thing being moved, click th Upto tool, then click the line/plane/whatever that you're rotating towards:

    Seems to me it then has enough information to calculate the required rotation. But as the pop up error shows, apparently not.

    I wish I knew how it is meant to be used.

    Then, I feel that way about half of the feature set.

    eg.

    1. What does "Activate Curves container" do? (And why does it appear on the annotation planes context menu?)
    2. What can I achieve by grouping things in layers, that I cannot achieve by grouping them in subcomponents?
    3. What can I do with the camera on teh display menu?
    4. Many more.

     

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim, I don't get the purpose of the angular alignment ruler. It requires I type an angle, and if I knew the angle, I could just do a normal rotate by that value.

    In your example you are akigning an existing feature to a non-parallel line or axis; but there is no such feature in my example, just the corner of the rectangle that needs to rotate until it touches the line.

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    This should be in another post...

    'What can I achieve by grouping things in layers, that I cannot achieve by grouping them in subcomponents?'

    Anything can be assigned to a layer independently of components - so planes,  curves and in the gif below, i have all fasteners on a layer...so, if viewing any individual component or any set of say, unrelated components , to and/not display related fasteners, turn on/off the layer. layers can be grouped for on/off states - hope the gif shows this...

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    The feature of the angular ruler, which is similar to any ruler usage is an offset can be used in a single input - or a change of input afterwards, err, 5 degrees from... err, no try 10 etc.

    For your original post, i did say you need to construct an arc to get a vertex - same as Jacant's response.

    Buk, It took me embarrassingly long time to get used to it...

     

    0
  • Jacant

    Activate Curves container

    The results show better if you have more than one Annotation plane. By selecting it the 2D plane that it is on will be activated so you can modify sketches on that plane.

    0
  • Me Here

    i did say you need to construct an arc to get a vertex

    So you did Tim. Sorry, I guess I went straight to studying what you were doing in your gifs.

    BTW. Something just dawned on me. If I draw an Arc rather than a circle, I can cut&paste the dimension straight from the arc into the move tool and undo the construction. Saves a couple of steps and avoids clutter:

    0
  • Me Here

    @jacant. Interesting. I can see that would be useful.

    Now I'm wondering why it appears on the curves container context menu. It does seem to make any difference?

    0
  • Jacant

    What can I achieve by grouping things in layer.

    Think of it as 'Floors' in a building. Each one can be turned on or off at will. It also gathers all relevant Components together on that Layer. Lets say 'Doors', each 'Floor' will have Doors as components, only this separates them to each Floor or Layer. The same with say Electrics and Plumbing.

    Also with layers you can control the 'Line Style' to incorporate different styles and colours. These lines will only show when used as 'Layout Curves'

    0
  • Jacant

    What can I do with the camera on the display menu

    You can change from Orthographic projection to Perspective. You can also use the Flythrough mode.

    https://designspark.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013955138-How-do-I-use-the-flythrough-mode- 

    Many more ?

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    'BTW. Something just dawned on me. If I draw an Arc rather than a circle, I can cut&paste the dimension straight from the arc into the move tool and undo the construction. Saves a couple of steps and avoids clutter:'

    Yes, that's a big thumbs up for 'decluttering' - although i do see an existing vertex is being measured to establishing the angle - or so it seems. Hmm, using constraints sketcher i wasn't able to do that - anyway, no matter...

    How a design is divided up is probably in principle a matter of convention / practice. Parts / sub-assemblies, bigger assemblies etc all will have associated information for each item - hence the owning 'component'. The commonality of planes / curves within all of these seems a useful additional component associated grouping to turn on / off simply.

    Using Layers with 2D layouts is useful - but i haven't used it much, although i should more. Much can be established in 2D first.

     

     

    0
  • Me Here

    You can change from Orthographic projection to Perspective.

    I seem to recall you could do that in v2 -- if you ever felt the need. I've never seen the attraction, though I suppose it might be useful in architectural scale stuff.

    You can also use the Flythrough mode.

    Okay. I kind of get the mechanics of it. Click the camera icon, open a second window, wiggle the viewport around, drag the director window closed and when you click the airplane icon, it replays the wiggling fro the perspective of the camera.

    Cool. But why? I don't seem to be able to save it, so -- other than gifcam or similar -- I can't show it to anyone, and it is very unclear whether you can have one per model, whether it persists beyond closing the file, or the program.

    Beyond trying out once for grins, its purpose eludes me.

    Put it this way, I can think of at least 10 features I'd rather see included.

     

     

    0
  • Me Here

    tim: although i do see an existing vertex is being measured to establishing the angle - or so it seems.

    My turn :) I did say in the OP "I want to rotate the rectangle until the top right corner just touches the horizontal axis.".

    0
  • Me Here

    jacant: I'd love to see how you produced your mitre gear?

    0
  • Jacant

    I watched the video and just copied the steps. Once the shape had been created and rotated I placed a 'Point' at the correct height, then just did a Merge. Once that was achieved I then Moved with create pattern. I then tried to Combine them. It did not work on the last tooth, so I created a Plane on the original x y circle, moved it up and Cut the solid and the loose tooth. It would then Combine. There were lots of overlapping faces. I just selected all of them and used the Fill tool. The bottom edge of the gear was faceted, so I created a new x z Sketch plane, create a line at the end of the tooth and create two more line to join to create a triangle. Pull this around the axis to smooth out the gear. Using the same sketch plane create another shape 6mm up from the end of the tooth to cut the top center out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD4yi0KQbu8 

     

    0
  • Jacant

    I'm up to here. Can't get it to work in DSM

    0
  • Me Here

    jacant:" Once the shape had been created and rotated"

    Around what axis did you rotate the tooth? The base or a point in the middle of the tooth somewhere?

    jacant:"I placed a 'Point' at the correct height"

    How did you determine the "correct point"?

    jacant:"then just did a Merge."

    Merge? Is that the same a Blend, or something else I've missed?

    0
  • Me Here

    jacant:"I'm up to here. Can't get it to work in DSM"

    I wouldn't bother, as that produces a bevel gear with angled, but straight tooth flanks, which nobody makes or uses.

    When they need to increase the contact ratio of bevel gears, they do so both angling and curving the teeth:

    Note how the teeth are curved as well as angled; this is because it allows the use of a circular cutter/grinder to produce them:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bojVO3KBOfg (There is a split second at 4:33 where you catch a glimpes of the cutter stationary and an see that it consists of two sets of blade-like teeth, one set for each face of the tooth.)

    The radius of the cutter depends on the diameter of the gear being cut.

    Or sometime curving, but not angling (zerol):

    Note how lines passing through the same point on the heel and toe of each tooth converge on the centre line of the gear; but the centre of the face curves away from that line.

    I think I'm onto a better way to produce these using DSM; but it does run for a loooong time.

    0
  • Me Here

    Still yet to see this complete -- I started with a 100t, and waited to hours for it to complete before killing it -- this is 30t.

    I started with a single tooth outline -- just face splines and tip line, no root yet -- and rotated it about the point where the reference circle and the tooth centre line intersect by the base cone angle (here 45°).

    Then I rotate patterned that 30x, and the connected two teeth with a straight line (in 3D) to form the root and patterened that. Then unpatterened both patterns. Then I drew a circle smaller than the root diameter and filled it to to produce the heel crown.

    Then I moved it the correct distance away from the origin (15mm) and Pull-Scaled it around the origin, (0.75) to produce the toe crown..

    Then I selected both and clicked blend. And this is produced very quickly:

    I haven't yet clicked the Finish Check as it is then that it disappeared up its own you-know-what when trying 100T. Presumably turning the surfaces into a solid, but quite why it takes so long given how quickly it did (what I always assumed was the difficult part) the blend. Anyway. I'll click finish and go have some kip and hope it is finished by the time I wake.

    If there is one single feature that will change my mind about v5, it is the Blend tool. It is very impressive.

    Update: That surprised me,it finished ina couple of minutes.

    From there a simple Move->Copy->rotate->90° around the origin and yjr rotate on about its own axis by half a tooth and:

    Just cos:

    Now I think that zerol and spiral bevel can be produced the same way with the addition of an appropriate guide line. Later...

    0
  • Tim Heeney

    Buk,

    I'm a long way off your knowledge on gear types, so perhaps my suggestion of modeling up a single gear tooth, then duplicating it to overcome the blending lag has already been discounted as inappropriate. That's how i did these some time ago now... Enhanced Graphics slows display for now, fixed in V6 i've been told - nice as a final image though - i keep changing these...sorry.

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim:"so perhaps my suggestion of modeling up a single gear tooth, then duplicating it to overcome the blending lag has already been discounted as inappropriate."

    It -- construct a single tooth and then pattern and combine --  was the only way to do it v2; and it works well enough for straight cut and helical gears, but when you try it with bevel gear teeth, the v2 blend couldn't handle blending between scaled surfaces and produced weird results -- one side okay, but the mirror image wonky: https://designspark.zendesk.com/hc/user_images/HAxjrgfQWKMoRJleh6HXqA.png 

    Additionally,  the combine never works well and you end up having to trim up the shape as jacent noted above.

    Tim:"I'm a long way off your knowledge on gear types,"

    I'm far from an expert, but I have done a lot of reading on the subject and some of it has started to stick :)

    One of the best -- because of the clarity of the explanations and less reliance on the math -- sources that I've only recently found is here: https://www.tec-science.com/category/mechanical-power-transmission/involute-gear/ 

    0
  • Jacant

    jacant:" Once the shape had been created and rotated"

    Around what axis did you rotate the tooth? The base or a point in the middle of the tooth somewhere?

     

    I was one step ahead there. I first put a 'Point at 0,0,16.691 the Cone base-to-apex height. Then selected it and the tooth surface. Did a 'Blend' (Merge). Then rotated the solid around the 'Z' axis. Tried to Combine, would not work so I truncated the top, the Combine now worked. Used the Fill tool to get rid of all the overlapping faces. Created the shapes as described to smooth out the faceted gear.

    I have just read this again.

    Once the shape had been created and rotated 

    I meant the Rotation of the tooth surface around the 0,9,0 the 'Reference radius' by 28.334° the 'Reference cone angle'

     

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim: "Enhanced Graphics slows display for now,"

    Could you explain that a bit more?

    0
  • Tim Heeney

     Me Here: 'Could you explain that a bit more?'  Sure Buk,

    If using the V5 with the Traditional sketcher, there is a massive difference in FPS ( F9) between Shaded and Enhanced Shaded. Gifs 1 and 2

    Not much ( if any) difference in Constraint version which is SLOW anyway Gif 3.

    I use the Direct3D11 rather than OpenGL as it's a faster renderer anyway.

    Sorted in Spaceclaims point release and i assume for us in V6.

     and lastly the new Constraints version which is the slowest of all. Not a decernable difference between standard and enhanced shaded. Fixed for V6 i believe.

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim,

    Sorry not to have responded earlier, but I don't receive notification of your posts (I do jacants) for reasons I do not understand. I only saw this because I came back to the thread to re-read something.

    To the subject. Thanks for the info regarding Enhanced graphics and F9; I wasn't aware of either. Then again,I hadn't really noticed any limitations on drawing speed.

    Then I look at you getting your slowest value of 41fps and realise that is my best speed!  Using DirectX, shaded and unconstrained, and a relatively simple model (the pederini corkscrew you might remember) and I'm getting 45fps to your 350+.

    I guess the next time I have a little spare cash I should invest in a graphics card :) (Probably and older, second-hand one off ebay) I'm currently using the GPU built in to my AMD A10 cpu (Radeon A7).

    Which should be something interesting as I've no knowledge of GCs at all.

    0
  • Me Here

    Tim,

    Could you do me a favour and load up the example file located in

    C:\Program Files\DesignSpark\DesignSpark Mechanical 5.0\Addins\DSMAddin>ExampleAutomationDesign.rsdoc

    set the view to trimeric and then run the F9 performance check and post the results?

    I get this:

    I want to get a feel for just how slow my GPU is, with a view to getting some advice (elswhere) on a reasonably priced second-hand GC.

    0
  • Jacant

    The first image replicates your settings. (High and 5). Second image shows my usual settings. (Medium 7)

    0
  • Me Here

    Thanks jacant.

    I've ordered a Radeon RX 550 which benchmarks very similar to your GTX 850M (2766 .v. 2595 respectively.) at least 2 times faster than what I.

    Should be here next week. Maybe I won't spend as much time playing 8-ball against the computer whilst I wait for DSM :)

    0

サインインしてコメントを残してください。