move hole on new floor

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Please avoid unjustified complaints from concrete evidence. It's not a salesman.

But come on. I'm joking. I didn't want to do any complaints. What do you mean he's not a salesman? What do you mean? I didn't put it, so? I said I just liked it, you don't always have to punctuate certain things about you, we're not children of kindergarten.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Hey, everybody.

I did the test to see if moving the hole on another floor lost the odds, the result and ok remain associative so nothing remains parametric. .


Here is the video

ciao rs4! ottimo!!!:wink:

 

[cacciatorino]

But come on. I'm joking. I didn't want to do any complaints. What do you mean he's not a salesman? What do you mean? I didn't put it, so? I said I just liked it, you don't always have to punctuate certain things about you, we're not children of kindergarten.

better prevent than cure, as you easily inflame discussions in this forum.

not knowing us in person, it is always better that we try to create situations that on the other side of the screen may be misunderstood, although born with no mischief.

 

[RS4]

ciao rs4! ottimo!!!:wink:

Hi, patrick. when talking about parametric godiiiii:biggrin:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

better prevent than cure, as you easily inflame discussions in this forum.

not knowing us in person, it is always better that we try to create situations that on the other side of the screen may be misunderstood, although born with no mischief.

Okay... it's and I understand, but I'm a little bit of a little girl, I don't have a smile on my lips when I write.:wink:

Hi, patrick. when talking about parametric godiiiii:biggrin:

yes enough, even though I've been overhauling with the explicit.eh eh

 

[radio]

...
in the video the positioning quota of the hole is illustrated, in the table, coming directly from the model, and fails the link .....

...
even if, in sync mode, you see from the radio video posted herehttp://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showpost.php?p=298516&postcount=30that the quotas are lost the references and must be reimported.

....

My mistake, I created the table in a "traditional" way then going to "rescue" the quotas from the model, but so doing copy the quotas, the same of the model 3d are not used.
the new versions of if they make available the environment pmi which allows to create the views that will end in the table, directly from the environment 3d; how can you see from the video the quotas in table 2d follow what is done on the part, and do not fail even if the edge to which the quota is tied is collected (id univoco? ).
n.b. the above applies to the synchronous mode of itself.
[youtube]yperovyodgdi[/youtube] ciao.

 

[IPdesign]

Can I make my contribution?
http://youtu.be/mgiznwbsy-0

 

[marcof]

Can I make my contribution?
http://youtu.be/mgiznwbsy-0

interesting and almost:tongue: complete. I say almost because those that are seen are the odds of the hole, which follow the hole itself in the draft. example: distance of the hole center 20 mm from the nearest right edge, hole repositioning in the model in the upper face and shift of the sketch quota to 20 mm from the nearest new right edge, check in the draft of the qutomatic upgrade or less of the share to the new position.

p.s: I didn't know that on the tube it was also possible to upload videos with the 3d oction for curiosity, with what did you do the capture of the video?

 

[Er Presidente]

yes enough, even though I've been overhauling with the explicit.eh eh

"she's trastulla..." everything against you will come! :biggrin:

 

[IPdesign]

Can I make my contribution?
[youtube]mgiznwbsy-0[/youtube]

Updated link

 

[IPdesign]

p.s: I didn't know that on the tube it was also possible to upload videos with the 3d oction for curiosity, with what did you do the capture of the video?

What do you mean, option 3d?
captured with the internal command of nx for movies, probably for that is a loose clutch.
but the end was to see the repositioning.

 

[IPdesign]

interesting and almost:tongue: complete. I say almost because those that are seen are the odds of the hole, which follow the hole itself in the draft. example: distance of the hole center 20 mm from the nearest right edge, hole repositioning in the model in the upper face and shift of the sketch quota to 20 mm from the nearest new right edge, check in the draft of the qutomatic upgrade or less of the share to the new position.

Okay, then I missed this note.
as I said nx allows to do these things in an unimaginable number of ways, not least with direct modeling.
That said, my footage just wanted to be part of an answer to good old Patrick:biggrin::tongue: following the complaints made towards the amount of clicks that had seen the footage of baskets .
clearly the type of work of baskets offers many more possibilities of control, but as obvious, the more options we can control and the more laborious it becomes the procedure.
which is the best as always depends on what we have to get.

but here you exult from the initial question of the tread and precisely how to move a hole from one face to another .

Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report.

 

[marcof]

What do you mean, option 3d?
captured with the internal command of nx for movies, probably for that is a loose clutch.

no no, the quality is excellent and the high resolution. if you check in the buttons with the options of the youtube video there is, next to that for the choice of resolution, also activation of the vision in 3d, as at the cinema. probably is a "sborona" option :smile: nx command to capture the video I had never seen

but the end was to see the repositioning.

In fact... so as I asked you, in the table the repositioning of the quota (imported by the model or created on the table... or both) compared to a face is maintained or is the quota disconnected?

 

[stefanobruno]

inventor with table.

 

[ceschi1959]

you can see in the movie that, even in nx, there is the possibility of a 'automatic' quotation of features parameters. I did this to plant the position of the hole. the quotas, once the hole is moved, must be reassociated (I do not know if by deficiency on my part in the use of the function, which never works, or for a certain operation of the cad) or deleted and remittance.
[youtube]fk4hq_i[/youtube]

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

That said, my footage just wanted to be part of an answer to good old Patrick:biggrin::tongue: following the complaints made towards the amount of clicks that had seen the footage of baskets .

hello paolo, always nice "reread you".
I'm not old. It is true I am reaching you in the clearing of the cap but it does not mean anything... :smile:
good you always, especially when I do not do these exercises.

 

[IPdesign]

I'm not old. .

Okay, okay, otherwise young? ahaha
the pleasure is reciprocal and you know it well! :wink:

returning to topich on the discourse associated quotas etc...
In this discussion we are only discussing moving a hole on a different plane, assuming that this plan is parallel to the previous one, we have omitted the possibility that the plan can as often happens be oriented differently, or that the origin of a hole does not fall exactly on a flat surface.
as I noted, if the goal was to show the speed of moving a hole, nx with 3/4 clickh is able to do so,
but in all honesty, the example posted is what can be considered an example aimed at demonstrating speed.
if instead we have specific position conditions on the plane or even a plan that is not slow, then clicks become many more and this I think is due to all cad .
We should in my opinion at this point, since we all have proven to be able to move the hole without big problems of raising a step the asticella .

I propose another test evolution of this.
hunting, tell me if you continue here or if you open a new tread:smile:

p.s. do not think it is a test to demonstrate the superiority of nx, I do not sell nx or at least the current date I have direct relations with siemens, so the goal is only to verify what can do a software compared to another .

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Okay, okay, otherwise young? ahaha
the pleasure is reciprocal and you know it well! :wink:

returning to topich on the discourse associated quotas etc...
In this discussion we are only discussing moving a hole on a different plane, assuming that this plan is parallel to the previous one, we have omitted the possibility that the plan can as often happens be oriented differently, or that the origin of a hole does not fall exactly on a flat surface.
as I noted, if the goal was to show the speed of moving a hole, nx with 3/4 clickh is able to do so,
but in all honesty, the example posted is what can be considered an example aimed at demonstrating speed.
if instead we have specific position conditions on the plane or even a plan that is not slow, then clicks become many more and this I think is due to all cad .
We should in my opinion at this point, since we all have proven to be able to move the hole without big problems of raising a step the asticella .

I propose another test evolution of this.
hunting, tell me if you continue here or if you open a new tread:smile:

p.s. do not think it is a test to demonstrate the superiority of nx, I do not sell nx or at least the current date I have direct relations with siemens, so the goal is only to verify what can do a software compared to another .

Paolo quoto, clearly they are quite trivial examples but they have evidenced some gaps especially in the model-table association, it is true as you say that you could make an evolution, in reality it changes very little at least for a hole feature and it is enough, rather (I throw them..) we do a test on a geometry or group of features and see how the various cads behave on repetitive groups.

 

[marcof]

Paolo quoto, clearly are quite trivial examples that however have highlighted some gaps especially in the model-table association

I wanted to ask you this:
If with I create move that hole on an orthogonal face to the one of origin and that it does not have with this no common edge, the odds of the sketch I imagine they want to be hung up to some right reference?. in the table the quotas previously imported from the model (and those put on the table) how do they behave when they pass from the top view to the front for the change of the sketch plan?

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I wanted to ask you this:
If with I create move that hole on an orthogonal face to the one of origin and that it does not have with this no common edge, the odds of the sketch I imagine they want to be hung up to some right reference?. in the table the quotas previously imported from the model (and those put on the table) how do they behave when they pass from the top view to the front for the change of the sketch plan?

depends but in the classic case this happens:
for the plan change with quotas coming from the 3d model it happens that only the quotas of the positioning not those of the form (hole depth, thread and metric) are self-eliminated from the view and must be removed.
in the case of manual quotation idem, but with the difference that they do not self-eliminate, they remain there and you have to reattach the references.
If you don't understand something, I'll make you a video.