simple mirror (with error)

[reggio]

hi, I've been changing the constraints and quotas of the sketch attached for a while. . .
in practice does not allow me to mirror the sketch to the side (the one to which I then applied a hole only to recognize it) also on the other side:
despite being a completely defined sketch, as soon as I confirm the swx mirroring says it is unresolvable. . .

Would you like to take a look at it and tell me where I'm wrong?

 

[giging]

hi reggio did not understand well than what plan/face you have to mirror the model...however I did 2 tests on the flight. compared to the pf(frontal), the other than the face "back" the hole you did.
maybe in the pm of the mirror you put the model inside the box functions to repeat instead of bodies to be repeated.

 

[reggio]

hello and thank you, but I wanted to mirror the sx sketch around the axis of the sketch, I don't want to mirror the central part on itself only to mirror the side. . .

and then above all I was interested in understanding why swx is imputed to give me error that should not... :

 

[sampom]

hello and thank you, but I wanted to mirror the sx sketch around the axis of the sketch, I don't want to mirror the central part on itself only to mirror the side. . .

and then above all I was interested in understanding why swx is imputed to give me error that should not... :

Hello _reggio_
Sorry if I allow myself but in fact your explanation is not the happiest:smile:
you have got un solo sketch you want to mirror a part, so you're working inside the same sketch.. Am I wrong?
and already here I do not understand your way of working; because if you have more bodies, you model them from a single sketch like a unique body? and how do you manage them? rather use the multibody inside the same part, making a single sketch for each profile (if you just don't want to pass from the assieme.. but why?). And then shouldn't those be lamiere or similar?
then you do not have a "side sketch" to which you applied a hole; The sketch is unique and the hole you did on the part. .

Anyway,
in that sketch, you put everything on the edge of overdefinition. what comes up as soon as you mirror. in fact the system tells you that it is unresolved not because he can't do it, but because he is "ultrasovrasuperdefinito" (you have all yellow and red lines, don't you?). but the mirror made it. then you go ahead, correct the overlapping constraints/quotes (cominciates by analyzing the lines and quotas in red. You could let them do it automatically by clicking on the warning at the bottom right, but with the casino you made it puts a life:biggrin. erase all the superfluous and you will return your mirrored sketch all black, just like this:Maybe I didn't understand anything, but then explain yourself better.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[reggio]

hi marco my question was only about the sketch command and not about the rest, because "I can't stand" when it gives error "no reason", cmq below I try to give my explanations hoping they can be useful also to posters;p

Hello _reggio_
Sorry if I allow myself but in fact your explanation is not the happiest

...:redface:

hai un solo sketch you want to mirror a part, so you're working inside the same sketch.. Am I wrong?

exact

and already here I do not understand your way of working; because if you have more bodies, you model them from a single sketch like a unique body? and how do you manage them? rather use the multibody inside the same part, making a single sketch for each profile (if you just don't want to pass from the assieme.. but why?). And then shouldn't those be lamiere or similar?
then you do not have a "side sketch" to which you applied a hole; The sketch is unique and the hole you did on the part. .

In this case I started from a single sketch because it is faster, it is a presentation "to lose", so not to manage further, the multibody is ok (even if I prefer the individual parts) but it forces to re-establish another 2 sketches on the same plane, which, in this case I wanted to "sprive". . .

And then shouldn't those be lamiere or similar?
then you do not have a "side sketch" to which you applied a hole; The sketch is unique and the hole you did on the part. .

Yes they are, indeed they would be lamiere, but
1) Sheets do not have multibody (only case I would use multibody)
2) made in sheet metal I should have built the 2 parts and then make the assemblies and assemble. . . too long;-p

yes I have a single sketch and I applied a hole only to better understand what was the part of sketch to mirror to which I referred.

Anyway,
in that sketch, you put everything on the edge of overdefinition.

Oh let's get to the point: it will also be at the limit but it does not exceed it, that is a sketch perfect because completely definedWhy do you say "hot"? Did you find unnecessary things I could avoid? (you also realize that I started with lines, then offset, then fittings... Maybe I could avoid the sketch fittings and get them on the side... )

in fact the system tells you that it is unresolved not because he can't do it, but because he is "ultrasovrasuperdefinito" (you have all yellow and red lines, don't you?). but the mirror made it.

...but that's not the point, the point is, se swx tells me that the sketch is "ok" because just mirror " complains" and shoots me 1000 yellow and red? It's always the same sketch...
Yes the mirroring has done it, but the experience teaches that building other things on a part with a similar sketch, to 99%, after little swx will make you regret bitterly. . .

then you go ahead, correct the overlapping constraints/quotes (cominciates by analyzing the lines and quotas in red. You could let them do it automatically by clicking on the warning at the bottom right, but with the casino you made it takes a life. erase all the superfluous and you will return your mirrored sketch all black.

Uhmmm :frown: I didn't really go ahead but I first sketched the other part of the sketch (I designed it instead of mirroring it), but so we lose sight of the usefulness of the mirror command: you have a profile "with casino" and instead of doing it, use the mirror command (oh attention.. that must not invent anything, but only copy one thing already done..) otherwise if mirror served only for sketches with 2 lines would be useless. . .
Do you understand why I was hurt?

ps I tried to erase qlc but I found myself with a blue-black sketch and so I first drew the other part of sketch, maybe Monday I try again

Thanks for everything and soon.

ps want to take a look at this post?http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showpost.php?p=130141&postcount=11http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showpost.php?p=134508&postcount=13

 

[marcof]

hi marco my question was only about the clear command and not about the rest, because "I can't stand" when it gives error "no reason"

I don't think the restraint solutor has it with you personally, as much as you may have insulted him: So I assume that the reason to report the error is there, here I am.

I have not yet installed 2009 so I can't open your file, but I think sampom has made the mirror by simplifying your shizzo.
So if you can...

Hi.

Mar

p.s. if you do sketches always so complicated and detailed, I think you'll have hard life. I in your case would have sketched with a thin line/extrusion/ring/lamiera etc. if you do all the geometry of your part in the sketch then so muchval use autocad

 

[reggio]

I don't think the restraint solutor has it with you personally, as much as you may have insulted him: So I assume that the reason to report the error is there, here I am.

Hey, Marcof, I think I didn't target myself.
However, as I said, before launching "specchia" the sketch is defined and without errors, immediately after it finds a sea of errors... does not make sense (for me)

I have not yet installed the 2009 so I can't open your file

..whether

but it seems to me that sampom has realized the mirror simplifying your shizzo.
So if you can...

Of course, on Monday I will try to understand, we must see how much time it took to "repair" everything;-)

p.s. if you do sketches always so complicated and detailed, I think you'll have hard life. I in your case would have sketched with a thin line/extrusion/ring/lamiera etc. if you do all the geometry of your part in the sketch then so muchval use autocad

...from the sketch he saw it even if only from image.. It's not very complicated. . .

I in your case would have sketched with a thin line/extrusion/ring/lamiera etc. if you do all the geometry of your part in the sketch then so muchval use autocad

...? I mean, you say with a subtle function? but also the fs does not allow to have more open profiles seems to me... You better explain to me that I care?

I also ask you another thing: now I would need a plan that goes halfway between the void I left between the central figure and the right one (or sx is equal to mè), I would like to put it in the middle without quotas - equidistant or symmetric type, so that if I change measure the plan remains always centered.. Could you give me a suggestion?

ps: Do you also have modena? What are you doing?

 

[CIARLY]

Of course, on Monday I will try to understand, we must see how much time it took to "repair" everything;-)

Hello
You should try to do something that doesn't make any sense, but it worked for me.
In practice I mirrored the profile by removing the copy flag and this was mirrored correctly on the opposite side then at this point by making the mirror with the selected copy can do so without probblems.
only in crisis the puncture because he misses the support plan what easily solves by selecting it again.

for curious evidence and let me know this would comferm the fact that they are certain constraints that make mess.
mirroring without copying these are removed and the copy succeeds in the second attempt

 

[pose63]

Hello, Reggio,
I tried to remove all the elements right of the symmetry axis and the sketch becomes unresolvable. if you check the constraints that give error you will find that there are some that are useless, like those of intersection and constraints of hillside and horizontality on the same line that although not in conflict they do not permet to solve the sketch.