stamps uno sketch?

[TonyEsp]

Hello, I ask a question for you probably banal but I have no idea how to do it.
I have a 3d planar sketch, I would like to print it in a 1:1 scale a4 sheet as you do?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

sketch 3D planners

e' un ossimoro.

I would like to print it in a 1:1 scale a4 sheet as you do?

opening a drawing, inserting a 1:1 scale view, displaying the sketch, printing

 

[TonyEsp]

no no, it is not an oxymoron, if a curve (sketch) lies on a plane is planar. However now I see why yesterday had not succeeded me as you said, the sketch is not aligned with the basics and I must therefore first turn it. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

the oxymoron and write sketch 3d and plan.
if lying on a floor doesn't make sense to make a sketch 3d

 

[TonyEsp]

the situation is similar to this, I had to extract the section, so I did sketch3d->convert entities, is there a faster way?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

It is not a fast way or not, but that on a floor it makes no sense to make a 3d sketch.
3d sketch should be done when it develops on three dimensions.
If you write a sketch 3d planare you are giving conflicting information because, without image, you do not understand what you are talking about considering that you start from the assumption that logical sketch 3d and on 3 dimensions.
If you have made a 3d sketch to make a planar convert entity you have used a system, which as far as the result returns, is wrong.
if you understand it in time the next time you build up from scratch a sketch on a plane, with constraints and quotas, you will make it 2d and you will not go mad to fully bind entities that otherwise in the case of 3d sketch would require many more relationships

 

[TonyEsp]

" 3d sketch should be done when it develops on three dimensions " seems a dogmatic reasoning, do you have sources to quote in this regard? sincerely I think I didn't communicate well what I did, there's a "cut" part and I need to have the development on that part I didn't do a sketch from scratch.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

" 3d sketch should be done when it develops on three dimensions " seems a dogmatic reasoning, do you have sources to quote in this regard?

to me it seems quite logical:
on a 2d sketch plan
on 3 sizes 3d sketch.
There is no rule that establishes it, but the simple common sense of sketch management.
banal example: a square on a 2d sketch requires in addition to the size the bond of a point; on a 3d sketch requires in addition to the size, also these require greater attention than in the 2d, and to the bond of the point also the bond of the lines in the space. Then you have with a simple square increased constraints.
is the same concept that passes between making a cube with a sketch and an extrusion and making it build 6 surfaces on 6 floors and then transform it into solid; Is there a source that says you can't do that? No, that's common sense.
that you are using it only to make a convert entity, even if it works, is conceptually wrong.

I need to have the development on the level of that part I didn't do a sketch from scratch.

I understood this, with the speech of the sketch from scratch I mean that if you consider the two methods, sketch 3d and 2d, interchangeable you may have bad surprises if to draw something more complex than a square you will lose in the constraints.

so much for curiosity, take a complex flat figure, for example a plate full of holes or excavations, and make the convert entity both in 3d sketch mode and in 2d and do the performance statistics of both and then report the results, Monday will do the same verification and I am curious to see if only equivalent or not

 

[TonyEsp]

ok understood what you mean, even if I disagree on the "conceptually wrong", if I am masochistic I build the entities as it turns me but it is not that they are conceptually wrong methods only more tortuous, regarding my idea on the equivalence of the 2d and 3d obviously at the moment I limited myself to the problem of the convert entity. It might be interesting to see the question of the performance you say but here we talk about how ds optimized the code that handles the thing not that it is theoretically wrong in geometric sense.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

even if I do not agree on the "conceptually wrong", if I am masochistic I build the entities as I turn but it is not that they are wrong methods conceptually only more tortuous,

as I wrote you can also build a cube with 80 functions if it pleases, but if those 80 functions do not have a valid motivation for me remain conceptually wrong. It is not about freedom or not to do what you want, but to use the functions of the program for what were created. can you use the guided drilling to make a spherical hole? absolutely yes, but the guided hole does not serve that and multiply time and effort to do something feasible with a simple cut of revolution.

It might be interesting to see the question of the performance you say but here we talk about how ds optimized the code that handles the thing not that it is theoretically wrong in geometric sense.

bhé considering that all you do has a value in terms of performance the theoretically wrong It's important.
But I don't insist on it, my point of view I have cleared it, you yours, happy everyone.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

In defintive, looking at the image of the example you put normal on the plane on which the sketch is made and in the drawing when you enter the view you put the tick to Current model view

 

[TonyEsp]

In defintive, looking at the image of the example you put normal on the plane on which the sketch is made and in the drawing when you enter the view you put the tick to Current model view

perfetto! thanks

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

could be interesting to see the issue of the performance you say

by curiosity I tried to make a somewhat extreme test to see if there is actually difference; a situation like that reproduced will hardly happen to have to do it, but it was still clarifying.
I made a plate with about 450 holes and then, after exporting it to step and reimported, so that the repetition function did not weigh on the result, I made a 2d sketch and a 3d.
the result is that the 2d sketch has a reconstruction time of 1.55 seconds while the 3d sketch has a time of 3.69 seconds.
as said this is an extreme case to highlight the difference, but you can also notice it on a trivial surface with few holes where obviously in that case the difference will be almost nonexistent, but present.

 

[TonyEsp]

cool! cabbage! an experimental test is always beautiful to see! thank you!!! ! ! ! ! !