winding on ball

[MARCOC]

shirokko, but my condition is that, and as you see the winding unleashed all positions, so even if I had to have the condition in which I center my basic sketch on the center of the ball, I still have no proper projection of the holes on the sphere

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

we say that I want to do thisI started from a different condition

 

[MARCOC]

But the plan in which angle you put it? ? ?
mail the file if it's not a problem

Did you do the sketch on another floor? ? ?

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I have the 2020 version, if I place the part anyway you could not open it.
My sketch plan2 is 45 degrees compared to your plane1, always tangent to the ball. But I think it would work the same way if it passed through the center of the sphere.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

but how do you control the position of the holes since on the sketch you can give it a linear quota that then on the spherical surface deforms? ?

is it not better to make holes with the creation wizard holes and place them with quotas?
in the annex I managed the lines of position with the angle quotas in the same sketch 3d of the points, but you can do a sketch apart if you find it more practical

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

Of course the deformation is there, for the reasons mentioned above. However, since the axis in an equatorial position the deformation on the position of the holes should be nothing. but on their form I would not bet

edit: I saw that between the axis of the first hole and the one of the last I have a different angle from the 90° anticipated. . .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

but the axis in an equatorial position the deformation on the position of the holes should be nothing

It would be a confrontation. I have put angular quotas, but of course you can quota the rope between the holes (with and you would get the linear quota of the winding sketch.
I change my model and if you can try to verify (in 2014 there is no wrap mode) the coincidence of the winding.

My observation was based mainly on the fact that such a drill is quoted and above all worked by angular quotas

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

comparison made. and also the length of the axis, which was set with a formula 80*pi/4, such as to subtain a corner of 90°, as I said above it does not come out of luxury.. .

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I didn't understand anything.

comparison made.

So the envelope of the sketch 5 matches the existing holes?

and also the length of the axis, which was set with a formula 80*pi/4

What axis are you talking about? I have not used any formula; also my ball is r100

so that an angle of 90° can be reduced

???

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I didn't understand anything.

So the envelope of the sketch 5 matches the existing holes?

What axis are you talking about? I have not used any formula; also my ball is r100

? ? ?

Forgive me, I made comparisons on the part of @marcoc Not on yours.

 

[MARCOC]

I don't have to make holes but balls that come out of the surface of the ball... but I'm going to make your solution at the moment and the only one that can be used, make a 3d sketch and then work on that

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Why don't you immediately clear the real problem so as to reason about that and not about similar things on which different approaches are made?
it passed from a ring, to the holes, to the spheres.
Maybe you don't realize that behind the advice you received there's commitment.

if you have to do balls do a sketch repetition that so much the spheres have no orientation

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

I don't have to make holes but balls that come out of the surface of the ball... but I'm going to make your solution at the moment and the only one that can be used, make a 3d sketch and then work on that

or create one of the protruding spheres and then the cop by turning it around the axis of the main sphere.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

but if the rotation has no constant step becomes difficult.
the change of step in repetitions was introduced in 2019.

but then, also wanting to wrap the sketch of the post #22 how do you turn it into spheres?

 

[MARCOC]

what is meant to me and that if I wrap something on a spherical surface, the projection is correct, that are points lines etc. etc., is for what I started from the rectangle that was the simplest form
and from them I realized that and then asked for confirmation, that the command on the spheres does not work well
all I have

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

However you were told that in 2019 it works perfectly. I have no way to try in 2018.

what interests me and that if I wrap something on a spherical surface, the projection is correct,

really in post #18 you wrote that you would post what you needed that command (which then wasn't exactly so), so you didn't specify that for you it was a matter of principle that it should work, but a precise need; need, holes or spheres that are, which is feasible in another way without however making a model with dozens of sketches, plans and functions.

I close, then I stop breaking the bales, which would not be bad if I thought I'd thank the one who promises to help you. In this context, in the discussion of tangency, you have spent your head doing it.

 

[LaboratorioDieci]

but if the rotation has no constant step becomes difficult.
the change of step in repetitions was introduced in 2019.

but then, also wanting to wrap the sketch of the post #22 how do you turn it into spheres?

I do not speak of a series, but of n distinct features of moving body.