pin connection and skeleton

[MBT]

mand
Suppose we have a set composed of various elements that can be moved, coupled one to another.
to carry out movement I have, correct me if I'm wrong, two methods:
or I bind all components to a skeleton and, commanding the skeleton quotas, I move the elements
or I don't use the skeleton but I put the pieces between them with the pin bond (or similar)

the first system allows to use "exact" odds and position the pieces precisely, but it is slow and slender
the second allows to "draw" the pieces until they get the desired position quickly, but it is unpredictable

if I wanted both solutions?
I mean... have a skeleton that I can enable or disable. If disabled, I can drag the components. if enabled, change the parameters in the skeleton
or the possibility to see and control the positioning quotas of the pins...

is it possible? ?

Thank you very much

 

[calacc]

Hello mbt, this request makes me light in the head motion skeleton. But I don't think it makes sense to disable him because to move the pieces just move the skeleton below. to make a comparison is a bit like you have to move your leg, leaving the femur fixed... It would make sense

 

[MBT]

motion skeleton... .
I don't know him in depth
I study and try.

Thank you.

 

[320i S]

I save you a concept problem where I came across motion skeleton (so I pulled not a few blasphemies to myself): if you need the skeleton to function as a layout for the positioning of non-mechanical pieces, add a specific one, and not inside the motion skeleton (which will be a skeleton set), otherwise circular references are created, impossible to remove.

 

[mambo1988]

mand
Suppose we have a set composed of various elements that can be moved, coupled one to another.
to carry out movement I have, correct me if I'm wrong, two methods:
or I bind all components to a skeleton and, commanding the skeleton quotas, I move the elements
or I don't use the skeleton but I put the pieces between them with the pin bond (or similar)

the first system allows to use "exact" odds and position the pieces precisely, but it is slow and slender
the second allows to "draw" the pieces until they get the desired position quickly, but it is unpredictable

if I wanted both solutions?
I mean... have a skeleton that I can enable or disable. If disabled, I can drag the components. if enabled, change the parameters in the skeleton
or the possibility to see and control the positioning quotas of the pins...

is it possible? ?

Thank you very much

Good morning.

I am also struggling with skeletons and cinematism.
skeleton built to go to define lengths, lever reports,etc.. .
At this point I can't kinematically bind the components on the skeleton (let's say about the geometry copies of the skeleton). The only solution I see once the design is finished, to carry out a cinematic analysis, is to reconstruct a new set, binding itself to the parts of a higher set.

motion skeleton, what function does it have?

 

[320i S]

Good morning.

I am also struggling with skeletons and cinematism.
skeleton built to go to define lengths, lever reports,etc.. .
At this point I can't kinematically bind the components on the skeleton (let's say about the geometry copies of the skeleton). The only solution I see once the design is finished, to carry out a cinematic analysis, is to reconstruct a new set, binding itself to the parts of a higher set.

motion skeleton, what function does it have?

the motion skeleton is to all effects, a skeleton set and serves precisely to study the movement of the mechanism and model the parts, following the top-down path.

the difference is that while the simple skeleton, you have only one skeleton present and you use it to assemble/win the parts/assiemi, but fixed (a mechanism you do not clamming on the skeleton), the motion skeleton allows you to create a set of more skeleton with fixed or cinematic constraints and then model the parts, the advantage is that you study the mechanism in a very simplified manner, without having to worry about the geometries of modeling, then extremely lightening the system.

It is essential to enable the option to have more skeletons in the same set, otherwise it is blocked to use only one and the skeleton, being a set, then does not allow you to assemble others within it.

as mentioned above, I recommend making a main skeleton of classic layout, then insert a motion skeleton, I don't know with the latest releases, but with wildfires, motion skeleton mal lent itself to be used also as a skeleton of layout for the whole set, although inside it was inserted a skeleton of layout.

 

[mambo1988]

the motion skeleton is to all effects, a skeleton set and serves precisely to study the movement of the mechanism and model the parts, following the top-down path.

the difference is that while the simple skeleton, you have only one skeleton present and you use it to assemble/win the parts/assiemi, but fixed (a mechanism you do not clamming on the skeleton), the motion skeleton allows you to create a set of more skeleton with fixed or cinematic constraints and then model the parts, the advantage is that you study the mechanism in a very simplified manner, without having to worry about the geometries of modeling, then extremely lightening the system.

It is essential to enable the option to have more skeletons in the same set, otherwise it is blocked to use only one and the skeleton, being a set, then does not allow you to assemble others within it.

as mentioned above, I recommend making a main skeleton of classic layout, then insert a motion skeleton, I don't know with the latest releases, but with wildfires, motion skeleton mal lent itself to be used also as a skeleton of layout for the whole set, although inside it was inserted a skeleton of layout.

thanks for clarification [MENTION=69538]320i s[/MENTION]!for the moment I always use classic skeleton, on motion I have to practice.

Now I have the following problem, let's say I modeled my set starting from a simple skeleton, made by copying geometry and sketches for modeling parts.
Now that I would like to do a cinematic analysis, I can't bind the components (by means of cylinder and pin constraints) on the skeleton itself.
How can I solve this problem?

 

[320i S]

thanks for clarification [MENTION=69538]320i s[/MENTION]!for the moment I always use classic skeleton, on motion I have to practice.

Now I have the following problem, let's say I modeled my set starting from a simple skeleton, made by copying geometry and sketches for modeling parts.
Now that I would like to do a cinematic analysis, I can't bind the components (by means of cylinder and pin constraints) on the skeleton itself.
How can I solve this problem?

I'm a little lacking with film analysis, but anyway, what's the problem with the constraints?

 

[mambo1988]

I'm a little lacking with film analysis, but anyway, what's the problem with the constraints?

when I try to bind the component on the skeleton with cylinder constraint the following voice comes out:
""impossible to convert bond into connection since its references are internal to the body itself"
this (presumption) because, the component has been modeled starting from some copies geometry present also in the skeleton.

 

[mambo1988]

@320i solved the problem by changing the geometry copy within the modeled component.
I practically modified the "update control" of the copy geometry from automatic to manual, so I can insert constraints of type cinematic.

Anyway thank you for the suggestions you gave me.

 

[320i S]

attention to copygeomtry, should not exceed 1 level of association, already 2 levels it is better to put the manual update and for complex mechanisms, it is almost obligatory, not because it does not work, but because if the mechanism is stopped manually in an intermediate position, copygeometry risk not to respect the initial positioning anymore.