• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

mirror ipt or iam including idw

  • Thread starter Thread starter daveriva79
  • Start date Start date

daveriva79

Guest
good morning, is it possible once the table of a piece, whether it is ipt or iam, to obtain directly the table of the same mirrored piece?
 
Hi.
No, it's not autocad!
it is necessary to generate the mirrored part/axis and then to realize the table
Good job
 
the day you can easily do, all those using solidworks will pass to inventor.

the fast solution must be found with careful management of the assemblies and details.
I prefer to move the processes that make the piece symmetrical rather than use the function of derivation of the details (or worse of the overalls ), at the cost of working the double in case of changes.
the table always has a considerable cost compared to the modeling.

there is also who puts the label [ 1 pezzo dx + 1 pezzo sx ]Sometimes that's enough, and if that's enough, I will.
 
stefanobruno said:
the day you can easily do, all those using solidworks will pass to inventor.

the fast solution must be found with careful management of the assemblies and details.
I prefer to move the processes that make the piece symmetrical rather than use the function of derivation of the details (or worse of the overalls ), at the cost of working the double in case of changes.
the table always has a considerable cost compared to the modeling.

there is also who puts the label [ 1 pezzo dx + 1 pezzo sx ]Sometimes that's enough, and if that's enough, I will.
Click to expand...
True. the problem of writing a dx piece and a sx from encoding problem to whom, as in my company, must supply the spare parts with spcifiche.
However, we hope that this aspect will also be deepened.
 
Putting the word a dx piece and a sx is a shortcut but it's a cabbage in my opinion!
the design must be read by everyone not interpreted!
 
PIETRO2002 said:
Putting the word a dx piece and a sx is a shortcut but it's a cabbage in my opinion!
the design must be read by everyone not interpreted!
Click to expand...
I agree, neither did I appreciate this system but ...comau, in the past years (now I no longer work for them ), had also codified this system : draw the right and give it a number, then take an empty format, give it another number and, in the format put a label saying : " symmetric piece to ...... "
However I assure you that there are so many who work so hard and so many ask me, so much less.
then the clerk to the m.u. or the pieces to retouch.
 
is working since 2018, for 2017 I don't know. you draw the right part, you make a copy of the drawing (the part should not be touched), you select the main view (only that) and you decide how to mirror it. in fact is a graphic change and nothing more
 
It's not worth it.
If I make a symmetrical piece where I add or remove work, like the holes for a flanged motor?
I have seen that there is also in the help of the version sw 2017, now I see if in inv. 2020 they copied.
In any case it is a cosmetic function, so much it is worth mirroring a table of autocad, at least do not enlighten you that it is associated with the model.

in 2020 I would say that there is not, and I don't mind.
 
Last edited:
If I make a symmetrical piece where I add or remove work, like the holes for a flanged motor?
Click to expand...
In that case it is no longer a specular piece. and you wouldn't put the label [ 1 pezzo dx + 1 pezzo sx ]
so much it is worth mirroring a table of autocad, at least do not enlighten you that it is associated with the model.
Click to expand...
same objection made above; if a piece is speculating and I change the right version, I also change the other. if I do not want to make this mold in pdf and with acrobat mirror the portions of image that I need without needing autocad.

I am not selling anything, I do not want to convince anyone, I just say that it is possible to do it as you can, if you want, passing by autocad, acrobat, gimp or writing over the cartiglio a piece drawing and a specular. nothing less
 
MassiVonWeizen said:
In that case it is no longer a specular piece. and you wouldn't put the label [ 1 pezzo dx + 1 pezzo sx ]
Click to expand...
you are right, at this point it is taxive to remake the table of the symmetric piece and slightly different, with great rupture of zebedei, or to find alternatives from pelandroni.Esempio pezzo quasi simmetrico.webp
 
I would never do one thing. in my personal opinion it seems to me a way to mess up the worker who must work with two drawings mentally translating information from one to another. If I was wrong, I wouldn't feel like accusing him of anything. but if this method is used you see it works
 
I only do it when I know who will do it, contacting it and agreeing with the workshop the type of document to provide.
that of the example is a unique object, easily traceable, part of an automatic testing equipment (a machine and never more)
if I do something higher quality or with important numbers or for potentially dangerous environments (laminators ) or where if you stop something you are dead ( Automotive ), I would never leave the execution of a symmetric piece to a label.
 
Hello everyone
I personally think that the wording (follow 1pz dx and 1 pz sx) is "dangerous".
some customers asked me this thing thinking about doing it first but, often they came from the carpenter 2 pcs equal!

in time I "mediate" in this way:
particular of dx all beautiful listed and then the sx board only with isometric view to avoid interpreting the fold "specchiata" and addition of a word as from photo.
I also made an ilogic control where the writing is created automatically as it is able to withdraw the file name (code) from the dx source file of the derived part
dx - sx.webp
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 37 (members: 0, guests: 37)
Back
Top