binding

[Disegnatore]

hello to everyone, it is definitely a banality, but being a neophyte of inventor professional 2011, I am losing a lot of my head to understand his philosophy! I would like to perfectly bind the rectangle placed on pdf, it is easy to bind geometries like this when creating a sketch starting from one point (e.g. the axle), the odds will start from a bound point and inserting the constrains the game is done! but if I create such a listed geometry and after the move with the move command in the "axle breast" point, there is no change of color that indicates the perfect binding! In this case what should I do if I have to respect those constrains and those odds? Thank you all! Hello!

 

[stefanobruno]

In this case what should I do if I have to respect those constrains and those odds?

the diagonal you have drawn is too much, a horizontal and vertical bond is enough between the point of origin and the median points of two of the four sides.

 

[Disegnatore]

I'll let you know now!

 

[Disegnatore]

I can't,it comes out is stuff, (see pdf)! Can you tell me step by step steps? Thank you so much!

 

[Disegnatore]

to prevent that the rectangle must be perfectly symmetrical compared to the other two floors and main axes!

 

[stefanobruno]

I can't,it comes out is stuff, (see pdf)! Can you tell me step by step steps? Thank you so much!

What are you still doing?
does not keep the orthogonal sides between them?
put them a bond of perpendicularity (I made invisible some constraints not to create confusion but I think that the purpose was not achieved)

 

[Disegnatore]

According to what the exercise asks me, I see the horizontal and vertical constraint constraints, nothing else! Let's say that various methods can be used to achieve the prefix purpose, but the question is if then it is okay with the request of the point to be executed? ! here I got the required result, applying two fixing constraints on two of the four sides (see pdf), but the only way to be sure if I did well, is to see how many options exist to achieve the intended purpose! your options are more than right, even the last one I applied gets the same result! I want to be sure! Thanks again!

 

[sampom]

... who believes in the "fantasms".............:wink:

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[stefanobruno]

applying two fixing constraints on two of the four sides

I bet if you change one of the two odds of signal error.
by default the best method to bind is what uses less constraints, this on simple geometries.
If geometries are complicated you have to proceed with the logic dictated by the need that the piece has according to the ease of change that you think you need in the future.
Moreover if you cover a particular, in theory you can bind as it says shiren, a capa.
If you plan and therefore the particular varies with the evolution of work, you must pay more attention.
this only to lose less time in phase of refinement of the pieces.
uses more geometric constraints or parameters than quotas, bevels, fittings and holes not in the sketch but in the processing.
If you have so many jobs that you want to control more easily in one shot, use sketch sharing.
helps more than half a day with someone who follows you that you do not read the manual, even good, without understanding a patch, you get used badly and your "archive" becomes then almost invaluable.

Bye.

 

[Disegnatore]

I bet if you change one of the two odds of signal error.
by default the best method to bind is what uses less constraints, this on simple geometries.
If geometries are complicated you have to proceed with the logic dictated by the need that the piece has according to the ease of change that you think you need in the future.
Moreover if you cover a particular, in theory you can bind as it says shiren, a capa.
If you plan and therefore the particular varies with the evolution of work, you must pay more attention.
this only to lose less time in phase of refinement of the pieces.
uses more geometric constraints or parameters than quotas, bevels, fittings and holes not in the sketch but in the processing.
If you have so many jobs that you want to control more easily in one shot, use sketch sharing.
helps more than half a day with someone who follows you that you do not read the manual, even good, without understanding a patch, you get used badly and your "archive" becomes then almost invaluable.

Bye.

Thank you so much for the advice, I will make it sweet!

 

[Tarkus]

quoto stefanobruno and I add a little advice about this passage:

"use more geometric constraints or parameters that quotas, bevel, pick up and hole not in the sketch but in the work.
If you have so many jobs that you want to control more easily in one shot, use sketch sharing. "

Keep in mind that the constraints are still more boring to change than the odds, so abounding in constraints that set you the geometry of the figure (parallelism, perpendicularity, tangence, etc.).
be more careful with bonds of equality, and coincidence with half-carry, which can be advantageously replaced by quotas and therefore easier to change. . .

 

[Disegnatore]

Zia!