quote diametri

[aerox]

Hello everyone, I'm learning how to use the 2009 version, and I got stuck on something. I am drawing a profile on the profile 2d which later for extrusion of revolution will create a flange. is it possible to quote the distance from the axis as if they were diameters? I can do it.

this question is related to the subsequent table (which I still have to see): Does this lead to any diameter or tolerances inserted in the profile 2d quotas? or do I have to manually requote everything?

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Rac]

It seems to me to understand that you are interested in having the diameter share on the relative table derived from the 3d. therefore simply quota the distance between axis and profile line 2d. when you make the table you will have the diameter of the listed flange (always if you have enabled the automatic quotation).
I personally work with automatic quotation not enabled, with all pros and cons.
Hi.

 

[aerox]

as I am evaluating the capabilities between sw, proe and think I wanted to understand if I could quote "diameters" in profiles (so in the side file) that will be extruded by revolution.

Hi.

 

[aerox]

someone suggested to me the solution: select the line, then a axis summit to quote, dx key and select "semilinea" from the context menu and I have the diameter
if you select the 2 lines does not appear in the context menu this option.

Hi.

 

[aerox]

edit: the exact command is "semivista" and not semilinea.
Hi.

 

[Rac]

your explanation is correct and interesting
Although I think the things that can make you choose between sw, proe and think are others.
Hi.

 

[aerox]

Hello, rac, I'd like to know your point of view about this, what would you look at in particular?

Hello

 

[Rac]

I only had a small overview of the functions of sw and proes and, too little to judge the quality of the product,
in the company where I work, 4 years ago, was purchased think for commercial agreements.
I must say that the product is valid for the operation of the sheet module, of the surfaces, but it is not stable and often "lock" for internal problems.
in your place I would try to evaluate more widely the products,
paying attention to the simplicity of use.
Hi.

 

[aerox]

I agree on the stability of think that is not outstanding compared to the other 2 programs.
for now I'm looking at how drawing 3d behaves, and I have to say that I can do the same things on all 3 programs, although actually the geometries to be realized are simple and do not include free surfaces or strange things, so the clash could move on the added values of product (pdm or analysis) or on the price (what costs less)
Hi.