sheet metal sheet

[MarcoAtk]

Hi.

how is it possible to extend the gap beyond the fold?you can not use the drag because it blocks before the end of the fold, you can not cut from above or below because it does not remain sheet metal, etc. it seems strange to me there is no specific function.

Blue.

I also noticed that the couplings and, say, what concerns simulations, movements etc. are not very powerful. Right?

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Hello, Marco.

1) try with "suspend sheet" and then try to drag. otherwise send me the file I try and give you instructions

2) type which couplings and/or simulations would you like?
I have a splinter of mechanisms ready to send you... the only ones that cannot be done are those with elastic elements, ropes and static effects. only mechanical couplings.

 

[MarcoAtk]

Bye-bye.
Yes, I had tried to cut with a corner from below that it went over fold and it worked. as I did with sw.
Now I'm doing an equal one, and I'm trying to suspend the sheet.

Thank you.

for constraints and couplings, I find it particularly difficult to recognize the overdefined or incorrect ones, because they are indicated in each component and those components are not highlighted. then they are defined in an unclear way (with a yellow segnet).
in sw, then, I could drag any bound component to display the movement. I have to find the free subcomponent that drives everyone else... If you have many, it is not convenient.
other thing to see in the tree of the structure the component you are working on you must always go through the tast dx menu and find in the tree.

But I really like it... I sent you a message on your website. Did you see that?

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

for the constraints I understand, even if they are actually visible if you click on the bond the bound elements (for example the two cylinders aligned).
I don't think you have to find the free component... if the movement is possible any element affects others... I can recommend some examples if you tell me what type you need.
to locate the component on which you are working "individual in the structure tree" is the best choice, explosive components and subcomponents in which it is nested, in otherrnative "open component" opens it to you in a new tab. Otherwise you should see the lighting elements of yellow in the tree structure. How did you do that?

 

[MarcoAtk]

ciao,

for the constraints I understand, even if they are actually visible if you click on the bond the bound elements (for example the two cylinders aligned).

Yes, but I never know which ones are "wrong" at a glance, because they are not reported.

I don't think you have to find the free component... if the movement is possible any element affects others... I can recommend some examples if you tell me what type you need.

see the animation below and click on:

to locate the component on which you are working "individual in the structure tree" is the best choice, explosive components and subcomponents in which it is nested, in otherrnative "open component" opens it to you in a new tab. Otherwise you should see the lighting elements of yellow in the tree structure. How did you do that?

Yes, yes. Just that you have to switch from the dx key. if you step on the component, it highlights it in yellow yes... but only if it has few components and they are all in the structure tree window... otherwise you do not see that evidence.
in sw, when selecting a component, the structure tree (in a set) or features (in one part) flows until you find the component.

Hi.
Thank you.
Mar

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

you probably create too many unnecessary constraints, not always it is necessary to bind everything!
I for example here in this example me the cable with 2 holes alignment constraints (but I could click on rigid and it was fine the same).
View attachment cinematica.zipif you send me in private message the file I try to explain better.

 

[MarcoAtk]

I saw.
Then it can be.
as I did with sw I bound everything inside the subaxieme so as to lock everything in place. This is not how we work.
so you use move, wheel etc to put the pieces in place, then it blocks everything with rigid; in the upper axieme you use the two necessary constraints and end... Right?
How do you do that?
work with basic tools and use constraints only where necessary?

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Well... :
Yes, use moves for everything, and constraints only to make the movement (which in this case is very trivial). .
In more complex cases it is necessary to create a nice system of constraints, but not in this case :d

 

[MarcoAtk]

Then I try with your way of working.

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Then I try with your way of working.

Thank you.
Hi.

You will see it is easier!

 

[MarcoAtk]

Bye-bye.

still on the cinema.
should all be flattened a single set or constraints in the subaxis remain such also in the higher axis?
I have a door and a zipper. in the door there are no constraints except the rigid that blocks them all in place between them. the hinge is a subaxieme with the rotation bond (align the axes) on the two lips.
if I move the free lip, the door opens, if I drag the door instead not.

Thank you.
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Bye-bye.

still on the cinema.
should all be flattened a single set or constraints in the subaxis remain such also in the higher axis?
I have a door and a zipper. in the door there are no constraints except the rigid that blocks them all in place between them. the hinge is a subaxieme with the rotation bond (align the axes) on the two lips.
if I move the free lip, the door opens, if I drag the door instead not.

Thank you.
Hi.

In theory no matter how you divided into components, constraints are always valid.. .
send me the file (also simplified with what you would just understand) and take a look so I understand better.

 

[MarcoAtk]

Bye-bye.
I send it to you in private because it is a new model that you will then see in all of Italy and I cannot share it.

See you tomorrow.
Thank you very much.
Hi.

 

[MarcoAtk]

Bye-bye.

Here's the file.
It actually looks like I say, but it's obvious that if it doesn't work as I expect, I did something wrong.
It's not the file I wrote to you, but I did one on purpose that still acts the same way. if I move the mobile part of the zipper, everything works perfectly; if I move the door also moves the hinge while being a part of it anchored.

the sc method still escapes me.:angry:

Thank you.
Hi.View attachment Prova cerniera.zip

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

There are problems in the subdivision of components. better 3 distinct or grouped components together.
too many constraints, it only needs 3!file modificato

 

[MarcoAtk]

Andrea,

in the file that I unload there is a bang of stuff but not the scdoc file.

Hi.
Thank you.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Andrea,

in the file that I unload there is a bang of stuff but not the scdoc file.

Hi.
Thank you.

I confirm that there is only 1 scdoc file...https: / / dl.dropboxusercontent.com / u / 44169049 / temp / prova% 20cerniera.scdoc

 

[MarcoAtk]

Yes, I saw that the next day there was the scdoc file... But I can't open it because I imagine you'll have a more recent service pack.

Hi.

 

[MarcoAtk]

Hi.

I found another system that does not force me to use constraints and does not remove flexibility: groups... Just that I think they exist in the file where they were created and they don't carry themselves in different subaxis, right?
little bad, though if you could use even in the assemblies that contain the files in question would be perfect!

Hi.
Mar

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

groups are selection systems of multiple elements and possibly (with drag or move) a measuring/modification system.
however, they are different from constraints (which only serve for cinematism).