shared symmetry

[cacciatorino]

I understand now, thank you! :finger:

with proes (and I believe with swx) is very simple (if I don't remember badly). let's go, let's go.

even with it, of course. It's a trivial thing with all the parameters, but I don't think of reasons why it should be harder for contextuals, maybe it's an intrinsic limit of osd.

 

[Matteo]

even with it, of course. It's a trivial thing with all the parameters, but I don't think of reasons why it should be harder for contextuals, maybe it's an intrinsic limit of osd.

Yeah, I forgot about myself, but I took it out.

it is not only a limit of osd: with sc I managed to solve the problem only "half" with a couple of unclean tricks. I have to understand whether it is an explicit programming limit (maybe they do not point on these aspects by choice) or if it is a "intrinsic" limit.

 

[Er Presidente]

even with it, of course. It's a trivial thing with all the parameters, but I don't think of reasons why it should be harder for contextuals, maybe it's an intrinsic limit of osd.

It'll also be trivial, but having two different pieces with the same id is a contradiction in terms.

a context does not manage the work and does not "build" the piece every time it loads it, so it must save the piece in its entirety, if they are equal (shared) saves one and can only be identical, only alternative and give it two different ids, but then it would save two that could not share anything.

p.s.: I personally didn't miss it, even because the distinct ones with a code and with the word "one dx and one sx", they always had fun at giving me a spare.

 

[cacciatorino]

Also because the distinct ones with a code and with the word "one dx and one sx", they always had fun at the time of giving a spare.

In fact it was the solution suggested by the cocreated demonstrator to the demo I was talking about at the beginning, at the face of iso9000 and beautiful company.

sometimes still have two mirrored parts (which I repeat, have id and different code, that is, they are two anagramally different parts, that share only a geometric bond), is very useful in design: for example we think of a hand of a robot with the two mirrored griffes. If I have to make a change on my hands, I don't have to remind myself to change the other one, and not even waste time doing it.

I therefore understand that it is not possible even to have two linked copies not symmetirche: for example a baked rough and then worked at m.u. that descends from this, so that if I change the pantograph (for example I add a protuberance to a hair I forgot) then the work is automatically modified.

 

[Andy-manager]

It'll also be trivial, but having two different pieces with the same id is a contradiction in terms.

a context does not manage the work and does not "build" the piece every time it loads it, so it must save the piece in its entirety, if they are equal (shared) saves one and can only be identical, only alternative and give it two different ids, but then it would save two that could not share anything.

p.s.: I personally didn't miss it, even because the distinct ones with a code and with the word "one dx and one sx", they always had fun at giving me a spare.

That's right!

the answer to this post is very simple.
in a parametric you manage parameters, in the specific case what you go to do with whether, sw or pro-e is nothing but a mirror of the features (not a bodie) than a plan. modeling and space claim not being parametric do not manage the entityù feture and therefore do not allow the mirroring of the feature on two similar parts but with different codes.

 

[cacciatorino]

a context does not manage the work and does not "build" the piece every time it loads it, so it must save the piece in its entirety, if they are equal (shared) saves one and can only be identical, only alternative and give it two different ids, but then it would save two that could not share anything.

I don't understand this, who forbids me to say that id1001 can only be a simple reflection of id1000? At the end it is a question of exchange the coordinate x of each summit with the symmetrical -x.... I will have an id1001 file that will be done like this:

♪ /bin/bash
"take the geometry of the \\server\progetti\commessa\id1000" file
for i=
xi_1001 = - (xi_100o)
end

or am I doing it too easy?

 

[cacciatorino]

That's right!

the answer to this post is very simple.
in a parameter you manage parameters, in the specific case what you go to do with if, sw or pro-e is nothing but a mirror of the features (not a bodie)

wrong, at least with solid edge: the copied part is the mirror of the body, not the features, in fact if you stop the connection you find a solid "stupid".

 

[Er Presidente]

I don't understand this, who forbids me to say that id1001 can only be a simple reflection of id1000? At the end it is a question of exchange the coordinate x of each summit with the symmetrical -x.... I will have an id1001 file that will be done like this:

♪ /bin/bash
"take the geometry of the \\server\progetti\commessa\id1000" file
for i=
xi_1001 = - (xi_100o)
end

or am I doing it too easy?

And the reverse?
Who's in charge?
How can you fix the loop?

the problem is that with a parametric "featured based" you can "propagate" the processes (all or in part) from one model to another (build a hierarchy "father-son") in osd no, the only hierarchy is between twin brothers without any possibility of limiting the identity between the parties that are or shared (gemelle) or not.

 

[cacciatorino]

And the reverse?
Who's in charge?
How can you fix the loop?

I don't know how the other cads work, but in solid edge the association is unidirectional, i.e. it only works in the father- > son sense.

the son I can change it, but the changes on it do not propagate to the father.

the problem is that with a parametric "featured based" you can "propagate" the processes (all or in part) from one model to another (build a hierarchy "father-son") in osd no, the only hierarchy is between twin brothers without any possibility of limiting the identity between the parties that are or shared (gemelle) or not.

I don't know how other cads work, but in solid edge the son inherited from the father only pure and simple geometry and little more (filettatures, series of holes, etc.). the solid "son" does not have the tree shadow of the work on which I can act to change it. All I can do is change the father and then update the son, or add new jobs on the son that will never exist on the father.

Maybe the contextual problem is that he wouldn't know how to handle a refurbishment of the filth after his father's modification, the moment his son was modified before his father's modification, How the hell does the work I've done on my son in the meantime after the user changed my father because he forgot his eyepiece before, since I have no idea what a processing is? Perhaps it would only work by taking care of freezing the child, i.e. once created the symmetrical part to prevent the user from making us even the slightest bevel.

or perhaps osd for its limits does not allow that within a certain id co is a link to another id.

but by curiosity, in osd how you handle the welded_o_pantographed vs worked? for example in case logistics requires two different designs for each other?

 

[Er Presidente]

I don't know how the other cads work, but in solid edge the association is unidirectional, i.e. it only works in the father- > son sense.

the son I can change it, but the changes on it do not propagate to the father.



I don't know how other cads work, but in solid edge the son inherited from the father only pure and simple geometry and little more (filettatures, series of holes, etc.). the solid "son" does not have the tree shadow of the work on which I can act to change it. All I can do is change the father and then update the son, or add new jobs on the son that will never exist on the father.

Maybe the contextual problem is that he wouldn't know how to handle a refurbishment of the filth after his father's modification, the moment his son was modified before his father's modification, How the hell does the work I've done on my son in the meantime after the user changed my father because he forgot his eyepiece before, since I have no idea what a processing is? Perhaps it would only work by taking care of freezing the child, i.e. once created the symmetrical part to prevent the user from making us even the slightest bevel.

or perhaps osd for its limits does not allow that within a certain id co is a link to another id.

but by curiosity, in osd how you handle the welded_o_pantographed vs worked? for example in case logistics requires two different designs for each other?

in osd there are no fathers and children, I repeat, only brothers (different) or equal twins.
semi-finished products are handled with "containers", but since there is no "history" you can't enter the processing according to a sequence.

 

[Er Presidente]

wrong, at least with solid edge: the copied part is the mirror of the body, not the features, in fact if you stop the connection you find a solid "stupid".

It's not really like that, but the son (depending on his father for every "form") doesn't contain the work, just undergoes them.
at the moment when you stop the connection the son has nothing but the (stupid) model that the works have created.

 

[cobra]

In fact it was the solution suggested by the cocreated demonstrator to the demo I was talking about at the beginning, at the face of iso9000 and beautiful company.

sometimes still have two mirrored parts (which I repeat, have id and different code, that is, they are two anagramally different parts, that share only a geometric bond), is very useful in design: for example we think of a hand of a robot with the two mirrored griffes. If I have to make a change on my hands, I don't have to remind myself to change the other one, and not even waste time doing it.

I therefore understand that it is not possible even to have two linked copies not symmetirche: for example a baked rough and then worked at m.u. that descends from this, so that if I change the pantograph (for example I add a protuberance to a hair I forgot) then the work is automatically modified.

the hand of a robot I think is a group, well there is the copy command at a level that allows you to have two different groups (hand dx and hand sx) but inside the parts are shared... .
I always do the example between a red and black pen...the two are different code, they will have the different cap, different ink, but identical body, identical tip...so the two groups will be different coding, but with parts inside shared. . .
the same speech for the hands of a robot! different coding (because I have dx and sx) but inside I will have parts with the same id see the griffe

 

[Kaji]

personally it seems to me a counterproductive thing, that is in stock then two different details are kept with the same code? ? ?
Is that particular right xy55 and left xy55???
it seems to me things of the last century when drawing by hand and having to make from scratch a design (or a view, the others were recalculated) only for a symmetrical processing could be boring.
I think that with selective instances and deformations something can be obtained, but sincerely I do not see the advantages, at this point I would find more advantageous to consider equal pieces in which only the length varies.
However if the thing is indispensable and you want to proceed a little 'from pigs' just to invent that the piece is a group, mirror it and use configurations or selective instances

 

[cacciatorino]

the hand of a robot I think is a group, well there is the copy command at a level that allows you to have two different groups (hand dx and hand sx) but inside the parts are shared... .

No, because you have to send a drawing to the right hand and a drawing to the left hand.
the fact that you have the mirrored copy of the association allows you to make only a drawing, because then you think the cad to make the second drawing, but for sure the miller and the logistics you have to send two drawings. the advantage is only for the modeler/projectist who during the change to the handles must remember to change only one because then the second is automatically modified.

see example attached.

 

[lakers]

Hi.
two symmetrical details are conceptually different (exceptions due to simple objects), this is not true for groups. for this if you use the symmetry command of the menu parts and groups, indicating a group, you will get the children of the group as shared (where possible) while the group itself will be new. if in the group there are objects that are different in symmetrical position, they will not be shared but only copied. be careful that the command in the 3d change menu is different. all this is available only from the 2007 version onwards, first there was only the command in the menu always changes with different objects. selective instances in this case do not serve anything, or however very little.

 

[fabiovello]

Unfortunately, what is very simple and automatic, almost discounted, for most cad 3d, for cocreate becomes "un indispensable superfluous", who like me is passed by autocad 2d--->inventor 11--->solid edge v20--->cocrete one space modeling 16.50... is with in hand a cad that is finally slender and allows you to work in great assemblies with great ease,

all in all, but you can do all the only sin and that those who do not use cad 3d like those mentioned by me say that it is not necessary to have this good symmetry that they dare to call shared and it is for me this a nice leap "in the age of the stone"

Perhaps my company instead of inventing hot water passing from if to osm would have made the golden eggs passing to if st he had in the house making us do a nice course of update to the new functions... sin I had waited so long this st and now I am using bat and chisel!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

we hope that in the prox version implement some prehistoric command by doing it from some other competitor.

Hi.
fabio

 

[Er Presidente]

Unfortunately, what is very simple and automatic, almost discounted, for most cad 3d, for cocreate becomes "un indispensable superflu"

in fact, we are "beyond"

who like me has passed by autocad 2d--->inventor 11---solid> edge v20--->cocrete one space modeling 16.50... is holding a cad that is finally slender and allows you to work in big assemblies with great ease, but that at the same time puts many obstacles for those who are accustomed to modifying features and have a story of creation of the piece.

We do it on purpose to keep the sick away

all in all, but you can do all the only sin and that those who do not use cad 3d like those mentioned by me say that it is not necessary to have this good symmetry that they dare to call shared and it is for me this a nice leap "in the age of the stone"

"friend," I'll give you a good jump in the stone age, but look at it on the wrong side of a clava!

Perhaps my company instead of inventing hot water passing from if to osm would have made golden eggs passing to if st we had in the house making us do a nice course of updating to the new functions... sin I had waited so long this st and now I am using bat and chisel!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

and you have to see when we start using the club!

we hope that in the prox version implement some prehistoric command by doing it from some other competitor.

You forget it!
:biggrin:

p.s.: symmetry is not that they don't want to do it, a while ago!
as if to save in an older version, absolutely normal for osd
:smile:

 

[lakers]

Of course judging a cad just because it does not preview a function, however wrong, it is just a smart thing !!! compliments !!! I want to see you work with st that after 20 seconds demonstrates all its limits ... good, and you should thank the company for which you work that has passed to modeling! However if you can console cdm made me preview the version 2010 (not filmed but demo true) and it is spectacular, other than solidedge and various brothers ...

 

[Shaba]

st thing sarebbe?

 

[cacciatorino]

st thing sarebbe?

synchronous technology, practically they have implemented also in solid edge the mode of modifying the models of the type "stira 3d" and the like that exists in modeling, no longer keeping the list of previous processes.

I think it's more like the cases where it's harmful than useful, but anyway, to each one's own!