stefanobruno
Guest
Unfortunately not.
windreef
Guest
the only way is to act upstream of the problem, in the sense to use plans and axes, perhaps even of service to place the constraints, those will be updated despite the changes to the piece. but it is a longer job, to be assessed it is really worth it. Perhaps to be used for the pieces, for you standards that are mounted in different points, but for one piece according to me you do first to put two constraints, considering also the fact that it is not said there are changes.
Catafratto
Guest
I can tell you that you could bypass the problem by doing a revision of the bushing by creating a new file (box -> boccola_rev01), in the old assemblies do not touch it but the revised version is still ordered, in the new assemblies use the new file/revision and possibly go away by changing a little at a time the old assemblies that pass through your hands. of course the functionality of the procedure depends a lot on your working environment (pdm, management, excel... )
rust
Guest
the only way to maintain the constraints is to maintain the edges of the bevel creating the connection with a 0.99 revolution... it is not a "clean job and you remain of the double lines but you do not lose the constraints. .
francescodue
Guest
excuse my ignorance (I don't know inventor).
but if I have the perno-forum constraint I imagine that the other reference is the bar surface.
Why the bevels create problems? in the aid should not consider them.
but if I have the perno-forum constraint I imagine that the other reference is the bar surface.
Why the bevels create problems? in the aid should not consider them.
calzand
Guest
thanks rust, in the end I used your method and it works!
batleo
Guest
Hi.
other option, fittings and bevels run them as the last step after creating all the jobs you need.
other option, fittings and bevels run them as the last step after creating all the jobs you need.
windreef
Guest
In this way (correct) solves the problems of loss of sketch constraints (in part) but not of the constraints together, or is it not?
windreef
Guest
inventor to position the constraints considers faces and/or edges, passing from bevel to beam the face changes, it is not modified as in the case of changing the bevel value, but it is just another face and therefore loses the reference of the bond. Does creo work differently?
francescodue
Guest
I haven't used any more years. (I ask administrators if I have to correct the profile? )
Anyway, it was about what you wanted to do. you could certainly take the rays as references, if you need to keep a fixed distance between two details (always checking that the rays do not lead to interference).
I normally took the surface of support/parallelism and the center of the hole/extrusion. I avoided making him take rays and bevels as references, so I could change radius or plug it and move to bevel at any time without any problem. In some cases I would add a purely reference axis or create an ad hoc reference plan to make changes to the geometries of the parts without sending in the ball the couplings (I found it useful during development until it was clear how the axieme was supposed to be made).
Anyway, it was about what you wanted to do. you could certainly take the rays as references, if you need to keep a fixed distance between two details (always checking that the rays do not lead to interference).
I normally took the surface of support/parallelism and the center of the hole/extrusion. I avoided making him take rays and bevels as references, so I could change radius or plug it and move to bevel at any time without any problem. In some cases I would add a purely reference axis or create an ad hoc reference plan to make changes to the geometries of the parts without sending in the ball the couplings (I found it useful during development until it was clear how the axieme was supposed to be made).
DrBarde
Guest
the inventor's pin-hole does not work with the faces but with the edges.
batleo
Guest
in inventor the operation is the same as said by wind reef,. It is only necessary to have as a working approach, I mean personal method, not to use the edges of or fittings to bind in the assemblies, once taken as a habit it becomes simple to turn a bevel into a connection without losing the position.
Marco F inox
Guest
In the 1x1 bevel there is no radius 1, there is no material, at most you can get a radius of 1.7mm. with which you do not change the male-female coupling anyway.
Tarkus
Guest
At least for the future.
just stop using the hole pin constraints