movement parts together

[mgdi]

a greeting to the whole forum, all moderators and frequenters!

can you write renco....nito in the forum? because I've got it....nito and I can't get rid of the matassa below (just don't use more creo 3.0 m10 too often). .

I'm going to explain. .I would need everything to check with eye interference in different positions of a set

referring to the image:
- 1,2,3,5 are parts of the same group "a" (subassieme of the general axieme)
- 1,2 are rigid.
- 3 is a course that goes from zero (position in the image) to 40 simulating the stroke of the cylinder (and if I drag it with the handle it works)
- 5 are two pins that rotate without limits on the axes 4 (and if I drag them with the handle they work)

- place "a" fixed in the larger axieme using only constraints on its fixed components

- I should bind the axes 6 so that by changing the angle of 7 the two brackets 5 and the block 3 positions accordingly ....but nothing (even if necessary removing the constraint 40 max.).

I don't know if I explained... But if I had explained where the cabbage is?? ? ? ? ?

 

[MORENO100]

Hello mg,
I would like to understand better:
point1: how do you say with the "transcina" command you can move on/just the "3" part, right?
point2: If you use the "transcina" command on the levers "5" you should get their rotation and translation of the "3" part, right?
point3: if you use the "transcina" command on the body "7" I assume you should get its rotation, right?

If all these points are verified, I would suggest you generically move with the command "transcina" the lever "5" trying to align its hole on that of the part "7" (sometimes the program struggles to align the parts with each other if they are too distant....), then redefine the positioning of the lever "5" defining a "new together" to then align the two holes with the cinematic bond ".

Try and let me know.

 

[DANI-3D]

... I would suggest you generically move with the command "transcina" the lever "5" trying to align its hole on that of the part "7" (sometimes the program struggles to align the parts with each other if they are too distant.....)

I also think it depends on the axes that have to be approached a little by hand.

 

[mgdi]

Hello Moorish, thank you

point 1: exact
point 2: exact
point 3: the body 7 is rigid, I fixed 3 positions/inclinations with family table (actually they are not inclinations in the sense of having set a corner but there is a tangency bond between a pulley that in the image you do not see and a plan, the offset share of the plane determines the inclination of the body 7 , but this I do not think it should affect)

I had also approached the holes of 5 and 7 with drag and tried then to give the bond... but nothing

.... I didn't remember having to define a "new together" for body 5
defined a "new together" for body 5 (but at the level of part and not below together) everything went well!!! !

1000 thanks

 

[MORENO100]

of nothing, it is a pleasure to be useful ^^.
a 10 for the forum. photonic!! !

 

[320i S]

.... I didn't remember having to define a "new together" for body 5
defined a "new together" for body 5 (but at the level of part and not below together) everything went well!!! !

1000 thanks

this is essential when you have 2 bodies of different mechanisms on which to assemble the body in question, otherwise the kinematic bond becomes to all the rigid effects.

However for this type of special mechanisms, I recommend starting initially with a cinematic skeleton (if you have the license advanced assembly), it removes a casino of rogne initially.

 

[mgdi]

this is essential when you have 2 bodies of different mechanisms on which to assemble the body in question, otherwise the kinematic bond becomes to all the rigid effects.

true but just I didn't remember and guilty I didn't even go to read a few lines below in the window of the definition of constraints!!! ....I now design so rarely that some alibi I can grant it!!!! Or not?

of nothing, it is a pleasure to be useful ^^.
a 10 for the forum. photonic!! !

if the forum is worth 10 is because so are the moderators and the attendants!! ! !

Thank you! ! !

 

[320i S]

true but just I didn't remember and guilty I didn't even go to read a few lines below in the window of the definition of constraints!!! ....I now design so rarely that some alibi I can grant it!!!! Or not?

ah yes, it happens to forget about the less used functions, but consider that almost all cads with cinematisms, in fact, require specific constraints for each component on which they are assembled.

 

[mgdi]

ah yes, it happens to forget about the less used functions, but consider that almost all cads with cinematisms, in fact, require specific constraints for each component on which they are assembled.

so don't let me alibi!!!!! :wink::wink::wink:

 

[320i S]

Yes, this time...