3d perperdicular bitches circle

[MassiVonWeizen]

You're partly right. dragging the circle to test the constraints did not rotate it on the axis given by the line. instead of pointing out this rotation is possible.
But there is no need to create any plan; two additional construction lines are enough
alego the sketch completely defined

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

Your point is very interesting, but I fear it is effective only because the starting arc is on the horizontal plane. How about a change like that?

Anyway, the plan I used is inside the sketch.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

It seems to be on the horizontal plane, but if you see the relationships there is nothing that binds the arc in a direction. I made it fixed for convenience, but it is dragable to pleasure. the relationships that bind the plans are those indicated by along the x (or other axis)The sketch you've done is my stuff.
explains how you made a plan inside the sketch, which in your image you don't see

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I believe that your construction is basically correct, but by putting two lines that do not intersect if not in projection, it could be a source of inaccuracies if the system, having the basic arc on an arbitrary plane, interpret this projection in an unforeseen way. for this I have proposed my interpretation by creating the line of rope rather than between the ends of the arc, between an end of the arc and the center of the circle.

regarding my building plan in sketch 3d allego video

 

[MARCOC]

massive, I managed to recreate your situation, but as shirokko says, the circle is not perperdicular to the allco, which and what I was trying to realize, in that way I have the circles bound to the path and I took 2 degrees of rotation, but the perpendicularity to the path there is no

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

see also the following post

 

[drake]

and how do you restrict the plan that passes through the center and perpendicular to the curve?

the bond with appropriate reference geometry as you indicated at the beginning of discussion. Sometimes it is better to manage the reference geometries not drawing everything inside a single sketch, especially inside a single 3d sketch. the case in question according to me is one of these and is much more manageable with sketches on different plans suitably created

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Okay, but what do you refer to creating the plan?

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I would like to see the context in which it can be useful.
In principle, I am of the idea that construction must be solid and flexible.
in this perspective having sketches or reference geometries in more, or even bodies to be used as a building entity and then to be erased, it does not seem a bad thing to me.

 

[drake]

You could do so... if it's a simple flat curve already I would draw you on a plan. I think that was a circle arch, so it's on a plane. Then I would draw the reference of the point on which the perpendicular circle must pass, with a passing line to the center and to the point of interest. Then I would create a perpendicular plan on the plane of the passing curve for that line. At this point I would have a plan on which to draw the circle. I x experience have seen that it is better to divide sketches, because sometimes to properly bind lines in 3d is more complicated.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

regarding my building plan in sketch 3d allego video

and is present since 2012. never used and if I ever knew it fell into the forgotten, where it will probably return to us

In principle, I am of the idea that construction must be solid and flexible.
in this perspective having sketches or reference geometries in more, or even bodies to be used as a building entity and then to be erased, it does not seem a bad thing to me.

Agreed, not much on the bodies as already said, but it does not seem like such a complex and unmanageable sketch.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

now marcoc has more than one method to make its circle parallel to the arc

 

[Utente cancellato 70856]

...............................................................................................

 

[welcome to the machine]

I wonder maybe a little out of topic: I use a non- parametric cad, relatively simple but very fast and very intuitive: to make the circle you talk about in this post it takes me no more than 15 seconds. one of the guys working with me uses sw and every time I ask him some changes on a somewhat complex set.... white in his face.
the "my" cad" (I call it mine because I use it from '84, I betrayed it with unigraphics in unix, with the very first pro-e, then with think 3, but I always came back there), surely it goes in trouble on total with many parts, does not manage the distinct in automatic etc etc., but starting from a white sheet is absolutely immediate.
The question is: was there in a recent past, in this community, a post where parametric cads and direct cads compare? five or maybe six years ago one of my, very good, went to follow one of the first courses with creo, who promised to unite the advantages of both one and the other system, but did not return convinced.
If I read separately cad reviews of one or another system I can't quite grasp the comparative differences directly. I have to assess whether to change the company and I certainly do not want to ask the seller of one or another, but I would like to try to get an idea. updated with the help of someone as much as possible objective. Thank you.

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I wonder maybe a little out of topic: I use a non- parametric cad, relatively simple but very fast and very intuitive: to make the circle you talk about in this post it takes me no more than 15 seconds. one of the guys working with me uses sw and every time I ask him some changes on a somewhat complex set.... white in his face.
the "my" cad" (I call it mine because I use it from '84, I betrayed it with unigraphics in unix, with the very first pro-e, then with think 3, but I always came back there), surely it goes in trouble on total with many parts, does not manage the distinct in automatic etc etc., but starting from a white sheet is absolutely immediate.
The question is: was there in a recent past, in this community, a post where parametric cads and direct cads compare? five or maybe six years ago one of my, very good, went to follow one of the first courses with creo, who promised to unite the advantages of both one and the other system, but did not return convinced.
If I read separately cad reviews of one or another system I can't quite grasp the comparative differences directly. I have to assess whether to change the company and I certainly do not want to ask the seller of one or another, but I would like to try to get an idea. updated with the help of someone as much as possible objective. Thank you.

about other forum topics I don't know (I'm young, here), but for my experience I would say that the difference between systems is (nice discovery...) in the operator. if an operator thinks and acts neatly, then a parametric solid tool makes sense, otherwise it is a useless complication.
I agree with you when you say that geometric construction in this conversation can be done smoothly without so many complications of plans, constraints and other (in rhino there is the "circle around curve" command), but you need to see the context in which this construction is used.
I like to say that drawing with a parametric moderator is like drawing with the time machine, and establishing an exact chronology is essential to make it efficiently.

 

[drake]

Then I say mine on this last aspect... the complication of one procedure compared to another is absolutely subjective. From my point of view, I think it is essential to separate references to the maximum. I worked both ways and so, with my experience, I saw that I prefer to separate them. It is obvious that everything we do within a cad, whether it is parametric or not, is dictated by the rules of geometry. said this, whether it is appropriate or not to use a parametric cad depends on what one has to do. if it is necessary to have a history of modeling operations it is indispensable a parametric cad, otherwise not. If it is essential to have the possibility to change the model with few operations, as the client asks us, it is essential to have a parametric cad otherwise not. I conclude by saying that having a parametric cad entails knowing how to use it in a really productive way, properly shaping the objects so as not "to make casino" in the phase of modification.

 

[ceschi1959]

I wonder maybe a little out of topic: I use a non- parametric cad, relatively simple but very fast and very intuitive: to make the circle you talk about in this post it takes me no more than 15 seconds.

post your solution so you understand how your cad works

The question is: was there in a recent past, in this community, a post where parametric cads and direct cads compare?

ask the question about 'mechanical cads in comparison', I would like to intervene.

in the video that I attach two nx solutions, the first should also be in sw: creating a perpendicular plan on the plane of the arch and passing by the line; the second is the possibility to directly create a 'on path' sketch with a normal reference system to any path.
I didn't have the chance to test it on sw because I don't have the license anymore.

Hi.

 

[welcome to the machine]

Unfortunately, I always write from home and here I don't have a cad, but tomorrow I look at us. cad is called key creator or kubotech today. I always called him cadkey. in America is quite widespread and appreciated, but here I feel...rarara avis

 

[Utente cancellato 70856]

I wonder maybe a little out of topic: I use a non- parametric cad, relatively simple but very fast and very intuitive: to make the circle you talk about in this post it takes me no more than 15 seconds. one of the boys working with me uses sw and every time I ask him some changes on a somewhat complex set .... white in his face................................... .

I have put eight of them in my circles
if you work with impediments

The question is: was there in a recent past, in this community, a post where parametric cads and direct cads compare?

there were so many 10 years ago
when it seemed that the direct way was the future,it is because so much development for direct instruments in the parametric, then it is over that they have lost the direct

five or maybe six years ago one of my, very good, went to follow one of the first courses with creo, who promised to unite the advantages of both one and the other system, but did not return convinced.

creo has the parametric way and the direct way with creo direct, which resembles very spaceclaim

 

[welcome to the machine]

Then I say mine on this last aspect... the complication of one procedure compared to another is absolutely subjective. From my point of view, I think it is essential to separate references to the maximum. I worked both ways and so, with my experience, I saw that I prefer to separate them. It is obvious that everything we do within a cad, whether it is parametric or not, is dictated by the rules of geometry. said this, whether it is appropriate or not to use a parametric cad depends on what one has to do. if it is necessary to have a history of modeling operations it is indispensable a parametric cad, otherwise not. If it is essential to have the possibility to change the model with few operations, as the client asks us, it is essential to have a parametric cad otherwise not. I conclude by saying that having a parametric cad entails knowing how to use it in a really productive way, properly shaping the objects so as not "to make casino" in the phase of modification.

I totally agree. the advantages of parametric are obvious, but in some cases they are themselves disadvantages.
It is precisely the need to know already in the setting of the design what will be the parametric constraints "to avoid messing up" which is difficult for me. I try to design automation systems and start with depicting me in the head how to solve the problem, the relative movements of the various parts, possibly taking into account the 3 dimensions of the space and at least 1 of the time, then if it succeeds me ragiono on the accelerations and I begin to put data in an excell sheet. to this point only hand sketches. only from here on I pass to the cad, but I still know too little of what will be the final solution to be able to correctly set the parameters. So I leave with my easy cad, where to draw you steal very few. ..ssinapsi and if I design half a car and then decide to stretch it one meter in any direction, with one command I iron all and he does not ask me questions!
but it is not me, on machines with 1500 - 5000 between parts and components, excluding the minuteries, to make the distinct, the puts in the table, the auditing indexes and what else, so I quickly say that the parametric would waste my time....but I am aware that I leave a lot of trouble to those who then work with me. That's why I'm afraid I'm gonna have to switch to a parametric. we hope to still have some synapses to spend to learn to use it