p2000
Guest
Good morning to all, does anyone know whether there is a way or a command to have the average plan between two unparalleled floors?? ? ? ? ? ?
Fulvio Romano
Guest
I mean, the two-storey?
p2000
Guest
more precisely plan stew
p2000
Guest
Does anyone have any solutions??
gianni55
Guest
I don't understand what you need, but I would do this:
First I mix the angle between the two floors.
then with the command piano seleziono: angle/normal to a floor
when asks rotation axis, right-click in the field and creates an intersection (selections the two floors)
I choose the reference (one of the two floors)
angle: I put the angle measured before (divided 2)
Hi.
First I mix the angle between the two floors.
then with the command piano seleziono: angle/normal to a floor
when asks rotation axis, right-click in the field and creates an intersection (selections the two floors)
I choose the reference (one of the two floors)
angle: I put the angle measured before (divided 2)
Hi.
mariuss.r
Guest
creates 4 straights using as an initial and final point the corresponding corners of the floors
the intermediate plan passes between the 4 average points of such fees
Attachments
marcof
Guest
Maybe straight and related intermediate points are enough 3 to define a plan...
rather, if the entities are "planes" do not think you can hook lines to the corners, since there are no corners in a floor.
what you have shown are surfaces or rhino plans make them "against nature" :smile:
mariuss.r
Guest
They are surfaces... :redface: and the 4th point serves to dimension the intermediate surface.Maybe straight and related intermediate points are enough 3 to define a plan...
rather, if the entities are "planes" do not think you can hook lines to the corners, since there are no corners in a floor.
what you have shown are surfaces or rhino plans make them "against nature" :smile:
in rhino then selecting the surface with a specific command sets the working plan.
Of course, not being an associative cad you can throw everything that is served to define the cplane, without losing its setting.
catia is parametric but I don't know if it's also associative, if that's what I've indicated is not the best way to go, unless you keep all those features hiding them in a level.
marcof
Guest
baro! :smile:
Lettore espatriato
Guest
good evening p2000,
I'm new to the forum, so I don't want to say anything already said or nonsense. In case you do it and I don't notice it, I ask you to point it out.
I think it depends on the license you have. Anyway:
0) I hope I understand your question well;
1) the gianni55 method seems to me (but it is only a personal impression) the simplest and most effective;
2) to add something more like "automation", within the corner value, dx key, you could set a formula where the cad reads the value of the corner between the two floors;
3) within the "multi-icon" of the plans and series, there should be a "plane between" command, where you can set a set of floors between 2 floors, parallel or not. if they are not parallel, automatically you create intersection. you have to choose the direction, because it could do it in the complementary corner (it is called so no?).
4) I hope I haven't made too much confusion.
I'm new to the forum, so I don't want to say anything already said or nonsense. In case you do it and I don't notice it, I ask you to point it out.
I think it depends on the license you have. Anyway:
0) I hope I understand your question well;
1) the gianni55 method seems to me (but it is only a personal impression) the simplest and most effective;
2) to add something more like "automation", within the corner value, dx key, you could set a formula where the cad reads the value of the corner between the two floors;
3) within the "multi-icon" of the plans and series, there should be a "plane between" command, where you can set a set of floors between 2 floors, parallel or not. if they are not parallel, automatically you create intersection. you have to choose the direction, because it could do it in the complementary corner (it is called so no?).
4) I hope I haven't made too much confusion.
gianni55
Guest
and good expat reader (I hope you find yourself well).
your method is definitely the fastest and decreases error possibilities.
then summarized: Generative module shape design inserts/advanced repeating tools/repetition plans
instead to automate my solution, I am somewhat rusty on the syntax of formulas, if they select measures and angle (plan, plane)
it writes angle(,) but then it tells me not valid syntax.. .
when you can thank
Hi.
years ago
your method is definitely the fastest and decreases error possibilities.
then summarized: Generative module shape design inserts/advanced repeating tools/repetition plans
instead to automate my solution, I am somewhat rusty on the syntax of formulas, if they select measures and angle (plan, plane)
it writes angle(,) but then it tells me not valid syntax.. .
when you can thank
Hi.
years ago
Lettore espatriato
Guest
Good morning.
0) I hope I understand the problem you have exposed me well;
1) when you go to "compose" these formulas, in the selection you will generally indicate which types of entities you must then select. In this case, when you have angle (,) means you have to go with the cursor before the comma, double click on the first floor geometries tree, cursor after the comma, double click on the other floor. at this point the formula should be complete and, crossed fingers, function. If the measure is complementary, you should try to reverse the selection order.
in these formulas, sometimes you have default, for example, plane (point,point,point) and when you open the formula you find plane(,,).
2) I hope I haven't made too much confusion
0) I hope I understand the problem you have exposed me well;
1) when you go to "compose" these formulas, in the selection you will generally indicate which types of entities you must then select. In this case, when you have angle (,) means you have to go with the cursor before the comma, double click on the first floor geometries tree, cursor after the comma, double click on the other floor. at this point the formula should be complete and, crossed fingers, function. If the measure is complementary, you should try to reverse the selection order.
in these formulas, sometimes you have default, for example, plane (point,point,point) and when you open the formula you find plane(,,).
2) I hope I haven't made too much confusion
gianni55
Guest
No, no, all very clear, the formula works!
but how do you store it to be able to reuse it even when opening a new part?
Thank you.
but how do you store it to be able to reuse it even when opening a new part?
Thank you.
mcbramby
Guest
you have the command to make the plan between 2 floors ................ "Raptition of plans" is already automatically the bisector between 2 floors, or you can divide the angle between 2 floors into more equal angles ................................................ I think it is cmq the point 3 of expatriate reader,
Lettore espatriato
Guest
Happy birthday,
0) I do not know if I understood your question well;
1) as is the formula makes sense only if it is within that part, because it refers to specific geometric planes and elements of that part.
2) I do not know if you have already modified it, however always verify that, within options/knolewdge/ the possibility of displaying formulas and parameters is activated.
3) you can "export" the formula and entities linked to it in multiple ways: with the power copy and with the "copy past as specified" for example. the conceptually simpler copy is the copy past as specified, especially if your geometry construction is at the beginning (then with few connected elements). otherwise if, for example, you have all a previous construction to the plans of which you have to do the bisettrice, it is the power copy, but it is a little complex to explain and, probably, it exulates a bit from this post.
4) you could also create a "template" part, such as normal, with all the operations related to the plans and following, and then, whenever you open one, go only to "rempiazzare" the origin geometries.
5) I've definitely made some confusion.
gianni55
Guest
1) certainly it is so, but for a moment I thought (hopefully) there was a way to memorize the formula as a sort of macro that remained within the command.. .
2) you are active thanks
3) in fact these are the solutions to be applied (however power copy for something more complex)
4) Yes, I often use it when I have to do repetitive operations, e.g. to create complements with the bottom of holes, sunshades or compartments (simple) in a sheet, I carry out a multiple extraction, an extrusion, another extraction and its filling, this series of operations clones them several times, and then replace, the initial extraction with the new geometry, is the game done.
5) I would say no...
Thank you.
Hi.
years ago
2) you are active thanks
3) in fact these are the solutions to be applied (however power copy for something more complex)
4) Yes, I often use it when I have to do repetitive operations, e.g. to create complements with the bottom of holes, sunshades or compartments (simple) in a sheet, I carry out a multiple extraction, an extrusion, another extraction and its filling, this series of operations clones them several times, and then replace, the initial extraction with the new geometry, is the game done.
5) I would say no...
Thank you.
Hi.
years ago
Lettore espatriato
Guest
Hi, gianni,
1) you can also do that, surely. It just takes time and licenses.
2) sorry, it is that many times it happened to me.
4) In addition to what you said, if it is when it is possible (and if you do not have the breath on the neck for deliveries) I always try to avoid extractions by selecting the edges of a surface. He had spoken about it some time ago also matrix or nougoverall in section nx, talking about brep, i.e. video representations of geometric elements. this to prevent any regeneration, even when the geometry you have extracted moves a few mm, ask you to recheck the entities.
For example, the boundary extraction on the bottom of the "bugna" or imprint, I could get it from an intersection with the fixing plane. So if your bugna is made from 4 surfaces and 4 rays or from a single cone trunk, nothing changes to you, while if I had made the extraction, probably, the cad would have "hardened" , asking you to choose which side to extract.
Thank you.
1) you can also do that, surely. It just takes time and licenses.
2) sorry, it is that many times it happened to me.
4) In addition to what you said, if it is when it is possible (and if you do not have the breath on the neck for deliveries) I always try to avoid extractions by selecting the edges of a surface. He had spoken about it some time ago also matrix or nougoverall in section nx, talking about brep, i.e. video representations of geometric elements. this to prevent any regeneration, even when the geometry you have extracted moves a few mm, ask you to recheck the entities.
For example, the boundary extraction on the bottom of the "bugna" or imprint, I could get it from an intersection with the fixing plane. So if your bugna is made from 4 surfaces and 4 rays or from a single cone trunk, nothing changes to you, while if I had made the extraction, probably, the cad would have "hardened" , asking you to choose which side to extract.
Thank you.