top down

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

Sorry for the rush but I have a problem: I'm building a top down set and I want to add a new sheet metal part on a floor created parallel to the vertical one at 50mm. I do it but to the file with "coupling "on the place" the component remains underdefinite. Does the sketch have direct connections with various parts of the axieme clearly....I am rusty or have I lost myself on the street?

Thank you for your help.. .

 

[eboss]

It's a very strange thing unfortunately I have the 2012 version but memory ki never happened when I had 2011. better if you place the file, I still give an eye and maybe someone else who has 2011 can verify the composure.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

It's a very strange thing unfortunately I have the 2012 version but memory ki never happened when I had 2011. better if you place the file, I still give an eye and maybe someone else who has 2011 can verify the composure.

I remedy putting all constraints as if it were a piece added at a later time and then I take off "on the spot" to avoid conflict but this seems to me a solution not too Orthodox.. .

 

[marcof]

Sorry for the rush but I have a problem: I'm building a top down set and I want to add a new sheet metal part on a floor created parallel to the vertical one at 50mm. I do it but to the file with "coupling "on the place" the component remains underdefinite. Does the sketch have direct connections with various parts of the axieme clearly....I am rusty or have I lost myself on the street?

Thank you for your help.. .

look not to have accidentally clicked in the "no external reference" command.http://help.solidworks.com/2011/ita...ntrolling_creation_of_external_references.htmin this case even if apparently models with the constraints captured then when you go out of change part, this goes to you for the asses.
check in system/advanced options that you do not have between disabled notice you are working without external references.
When it happened to me to click on the icon by mistake I put two hours to understand what loop was happening...:redface:

 

[Mike1967]

I remedy putting all constraints as if it were a piece added at a later time and then I take off "on the spot" to avoid conflict but this seems to me a solution not too Orthodox.. .

I know so much that it is circular references, "in place" and contemporary constraints.. or as Marx says no external reference.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

look not to have accidentally clicked in the "no external reference" command.http://help.solidworks.com/2011/ita...ntrolling_creation_of_external_references.htmin this case even if apparently models with the constraints captured then when you go out of change part, this goes to you for the asses.
check in system/advanced options that you do not have between disabled notice you are working without external references.
When it happened to me to click on the icon by mistake I put two hours to understand what loop was happening...:redface:

I was hoping that's not what it is! when I move the component moves then click ctrl q and the component returns to the place where I created it...but it is subdefined. I'm gonna go to dinner and then I'm gonna study it a little over it!

 

[marcof]

I was hoping that's not what it is! when I move the component moves then click ctrl q and the component returns to the place where I created it...but it is subdefined. I'm gonna go to dinner and then I'm gonna study it a little over it!

If you have created a new component inside the axieme then you have erased the coupling "on the place" then it is normal that the component goes around but when you regenerate it returns in place because the sketch keeps the relationships regarding geometry but the part has nothing fixed than the axieme. you must bind the three main plans of the part with those of the assieme or (but I do not like) make it "fixed"

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

If you have created a new component inside the axieme then you have erased the coupling "on the place" then it is normal that the component goes around but when you regenerate it returns in place because the sketch keeps the relationships regarding geometry but the part has nothing fixed than the axieme. you must bind the three main plans of the part with those of the assieme or (but I do not like) make it "fixed"

no, even with mating on the activated place does the usual joke....now I make another test even if I have not yet understood the real problem!

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

That's what I meant. I think I'm wrong. ...

 

[marcof]

That's what I meant. I think I'm wrong. ...

I have no idea why, but everything you create on floor1, the one on the holes axis, is then underdefinited.

if I go "to feeling" I think it depends on the fact that the plan leans on geometry of a part in sheet metal

 

[Mike1967]

That's what I meant. I think I'm wrong. ...

the problem is the plan1.

if you insert a part and the "agganci" to a plan created by references to gemotrie of other parts, you have that problem.
In practice it is as if the plan1 can translate into the other two dimensions. You should always use the default plans that, in fact, are
placed above any processing/object or reference gemoetry.
to overcome, from the missing relationships (Upper floor e Right. Dela pos "c") so that the pos c can not move, you will also avoid running into problems at the time of the table where you could
find the pos c rotated compared to the orthogonality of the standard views.
bye...:smile:

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

the problem is the plan1.

if you insert a part and the "agganci" to a plan created by references to gemotrie of other parts, you have that problem.
In practice it is as if the plan1 can translate into the other two dimensions. You should always use the default plans that, in fact, are
placed above any processing/object or reference gemoetry.
to overcome, from the missing relationships (Upper floor e Right. Dela pos "c") so that the pos c can not move, you will also avoid running into problems at the time of the table where you could
find the pos c rotated compared to the orthogonality of the standard views.
bye...:smile:

I'm sorry I just arrived and I didn't understand well... would you say to fix the new part (c) and then move to the limit the plans of the "c" part to the height of the cylinder axes? If so I understand, otherwise I am lost!


....I just tried how I wrote just above and until it works! In fact, it's a cabbage, but I've never seen anything like that before... .
also place the correct file, maybe it could serve someone. . .

 

[Er Presidente]

I'm sorry I just arrived and I didn't understand well... would you say to fix the new part (c) and then move to the limit the plans of the "c" part to the height of the cylinder axes? If so I understand, otherwise I am lost!

You don't have to understand, it's like a faith, you have to let go, you have to empty your mind and let yourself be transported.

p.s.: It's like someone takes some "substance," you wait a bit and then "acts" and everything that seemed confused before, then, "crash."
:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

I'm sorry I just arrived and I didn't understand well... would you say to fix the new part (c) and then move to the limit the plans of the "c" part to the height of the cylinder axes? If so I understand, otherwise I am lost!

Leave the boards and dances alone!Pretend you're positioning part c and until now you only gave the mating with plan1Here, put the other couple with the remaining plans.
I hope you understand... I'll tell you better tomorrow.

You don't have to understand, it's like a faith, you have to let go, you have to empty your mind and let yourself be transported.

p.s.: It's like someone takes some "substance," you wait a bit and then "acts" and everything that seemed confused before, then, "crash."
:smile:

When I enrolled in this forum, reading your posts... I didn't understand... now I see the light... :biggrin:
:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

I'm sorry I just arrived and I didn't understand well... would you say to fix the new part (c) and then move to the limit the plans of the "c" part to the height of the cylinder axes? If so I understand, otherwise I am lost!


....I just tried how I wrote just above and until it works! In fact, it's a cabbage, but I've never seen anything like that before... .
also place the correct file, maybe it could serve someone. . .

Okay, look at the file.
you modified the pos c, my suggestion was to avoid that.
however the final result is what counts.
night.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

Leave the boards and dances alone!Pretend you're positioning part c and until now you only gave the mating with plan1Here, put the other couplings with the remaining plans....
:

I get it now. It's like I coupled the detail only for 1/3 of the total. I in the new file replaced "c" with the "d" and did so: new part on the front of the axieme. without drawing I closed the sketch. I translated the upper plane of the particular "d" on the provisional axis of the cylinder (particular b) and drew the profile above. with sheet options I created the particular that this time is completely defined.

......after all day, the dinner, a little rest and the digestion ended I arrived at therefore! (thanks to the help of the forum!!!!! ! ! )

Hello, thank you.

p.s. thanks to "el president" who opened my eyes!!!!!!! :biggrin::finger:

 

[Er Presidente]

p.s. thanks to "el president" who opened my eyes!!!!!!! :biggrin::finger:

I'm "de roma" not South American!
:biggrin: