connections between putrelle

[gil]

Hi.
hypothesized to have to design these types of connection,

how do you realize the carving of the wings of the putrella keeping in mind that between the two must remain space for tolerances?

inventor has the notch command, but this seems not to allow to set a crack between the two putrelles.
How should we proceed? Thank you.

 

[Tarkus]

Surely you don't do it with fg, which just makes a boolean subtraction.
If they're not many carvings, you'd better get them to cuff one at a time.:frown:


p.s.
What is the notch command?

 

[gil]

Thanks tarkus.


p.
means carving, other software calls that function.

 

[GiGa]

Surely you don't do it with fg, which just makes a boolean subtraction.

probably by customizing the profile of the fg with a suitable "cutting profile", it solves... It should serve just this...
But I never tried. . .

 

[braunfish]

cos'e' i command notch?

if it has an English version is the name in inventor of the intaglio command of the fg

 

[arzigogolo]

Hi.
hypothesized to have to design these types of connection,

how do you realize the carving of the wings of the putrella keeping in mind that between the two must remain space for tolerances?

inventor has the notch command, but this seems not to allow to set a crack between the two putrelles.
How should we proceed? Thank you.

Hey, gil,

I found this video in English that seems to me very illustrious just what you want to do.
as rightly says giga, starts all from posting an appropriate custom profile with a board over the profile itself (which represents the tolerance space that rightly has to remain between one beam and the other) which, once placed the members of the frame, will serve as a limit to the command "tide" to leave the space oppressive between one member and the other.

practically from what I understand, you do everything through an offset sketch of the size corresponding to the space you have to leave between one carving and the other and all the rest should do the fg automatically after you followed the procedure to publish your customized profile.

I personally find it a little too... "arzigogular":biggrin: but in the end it should be the result you want to get.

this is the page with the video:
http://blogs.rand.com/manufacturing...ricks-structural-shape-authoring-notches.html

 

[diegus]

probably by customizing the profile of the fg with a suitable "cutting profile", it solves... It should serve just this...
But I never tried. . .

true, the video posted actually shows how to create a profile with a default cutting area around the profile. does not say, however, that this is true for what we publish ex novo, the profiles in the library do not have it.
you should reprint with the respective cutting area..... .

 

[arzigogolo]

true, the video posted actually shows how to create a profile with a default cutting area around the profile. does not say, however, that this is true for what we publish ex novo, the profiles in the library do not have it.
you should reprint with the respective cutting area..... .

It's true. It's a serious inventor shortage.
even the profiles already at the library should have the respective cutting area, instead in reality if you send a design so without tolerances in the workshop, they pull it behind you as a minimum!
in the end this lack also vanifies all the other comfortable features of the fg because with the simple Boolean subtraction that does the command, the profiles made so are unassembled.

It would also be an option in the fg that would automatically leave a cutting space, which would already solve a large percentage of the limitations.
this proves once more that if those of the autodesk do not improve the appropriate module for the frames, it will hardly be really useful for the carpentry.
and then the user will have to address for force to specific programs like tekla or advance steel which however are only for autocad!:frown:

 

[gil]

thanks for the explanation

 

[re_solidworks]

It's true. It's a serious inventor shortage.
even the profiles already at the library should have the respective cutting area, instead in reality if you send a design so without tolerances in the workshop, they pull it behind you as a minimum!
in the end this lack also vanifies all the other comfortable features of the fg because with the simple Boolean subtraction that does the command, the profiles made so are unassembled.

It would also be an option in the fg that would automatically leave a cutting space, which would already solve a large percentage of the limitations.
this proves once more that if those of the autodesk do not improve the appropriate module for the frames, it will hardly be really useful for the carpentry.
and then the user will have to address for force to specific programs like tekla or advance steel which however are only for autocad!:frown:

tekla has owner motor, with autocad has nothing to do.

 

[>Iceman<]

It's true. It's a serious inventor shortage.
even the profiles already at the library should have the respective cutting area, instead in reality if you send a design so without tolerances in the workshop, they pull it behind you as a minimum!
in the end this lack also vanifies all the other comfortable features of the fg because with the simple Boolean subtraction that does the command, the profiles made so are unassembled.

It would also be an option in the fg that would automatically leave a cutting space, which would already solve a large percentage of the limitations.
this proves once more that if those of the autodesk do not improve the appropriate module for the frames, it will hardly be really useful for the carpentry.
and then the user will have to address for force to specific programs like tekla or advance steel which however are only for autocad!:frown:

Hello, everyone.
also advance has the owner motor.

 

[braunfish]

tekla I don't think she ever needed autocad.... .

 

[>Iceman<]

tekla I don't think she ever needed autocad.... .

...need? advance was an application, but what does that mean?

 

[braunfish]

I mean, tekla's not for autocad like you said