• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

you're reading medians, formulas.

  • Thread starter Thread starter x11start
  • Start date Start date

x11start

Guest
Drawing the armor of reinforced concrete elements, I must give the ferraioli the size of the iron brackets. for a pillar 50 x 50 cm, the inner bracket will be 45 x 45 cm; this because in the ordinary armor it takes 2,5 cm per part of cover.
sometimes an armor with a 4 cm headgear is required, in case a fire resistance is required (the above bracket would become 42 x 42 cm).
I currently draw the armor in scale and quot the iron that I designed, however when I have to go to the fire-resistant armor, I must necessarily "draw" all the quotas.... with the danger of forgetting some!
I wonder: is there the possibility of "binding" the text that indicates the type of spacer (2.5 or 4 cm) to the armor texts? i.e. it is possible (maybe with the "data field"), to indicate a type formula: larg.pilastro - spacer x 2.
This would allow me to change all measures that have this formula .... simply by changing the number regarding the spacer.

Thank you in advance.
 
the parametric design of autocad does what you ask: you can tie between them the size also according to user parameters, but it is a long speech to deal with.
 
Thank you.
I need to get a little deeper into the parametric speech: I confess that I only saw it marginally... that's why I thought it would only make two lines equal or parallel... I didn't think you could put in some formulas.

to answer gp:
not just the pillars... but all my "prototype drawings" would benefit not little of such an instrument.

I made the example of the pillar as this morning the ferraiole swept me under the nose, the design of a pillar that made "following faithfully the design", without using the grey matter placed (usually) between the two ears... and that would allow him to make himself a doubt!
 
x11start said:
without using the grey matter (usually) between the two ears.... and that would allow him to make a doubt!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to bother you, but that's exactly what he had to do.
The burden of armor size is yours. because a bracket is 42 or 45 on the side, it is yours, that you know the final use of the piece that he has to build.
Otherwise it happens that you draw them 42 and he makes them 45 "with his gray matter". That wouldn't be the case, would it?
 
Cristallo said:
I'm sorry to bother you, but that's exactly what he had to do.
The burden of armor size is yours. because a bracket is 42 or 45 on the side, it is yours, that you know the final use of the piece that he has to build.
Otherwise it happens that you draw them 42 and he makes them 45 "with his gray matter". That wouldn't be the case, would it?
Click to expand...
so I come back to thank those who gave me the point of trying with the parametric design (I will try to "googleare" on this) and I also thank crystal.
 
in all cases I think it is more complicated to use the parametric design than to fix "hand" 3-4 types of irons.

you would like something like this: I have a "trave x" if I change the cover from 2.5 to 4, all the design updates automatically. . .
I don't think revit structure comes to this, let alone do it with acad's parametric.
Maybe it's easier to do it with dynamic blocks, maybe with visibility parameters... In short, the speech is very long.
 
If in that block you also put on the brackets, you did everything. with two grips you have chorec bracket and maybe even a code length for l tot
 
Cristallo said:
If in that block you also put on the brackets, you did everything. with two grips you have chorec bracket and maybe even a code length for l tot
Click to expand...
in fact is what I do already....

what I never do is use membership fees: I tried them for a while... but maybe I never "assimilate" them properly: they stretched here and there... so I finally dissociated them.
I must always find the right compromise between "automatism" and "simplicity", as I am not the only one who puts hands on the drawings.

with the grips instead I go great.... but they are always looking for improvements.. . .
 
You're amazing!

However the post, I had opened it to understand how you could get numbers using formulas... regardless of the specific element (pilastro) and the nature of the number (size of the armor).
For example, it could adapt to the automatic calculation of the weight of the element (depending on the size and specific weight).

everything would be easier if (as in solid works..... correct me if I'm wrong!) you could associate a text to a single cell excel.... bidirectionally!
patience: we wait for autocad 2020!
 
x11start said:
everything would be easier if (as in solid works..... correct me if I'm wrong!) you could associate a text to a single cell excel.... bidirectionally!
Click to expand...
even in inventor you can do...mode the xls file even to unbooted application, then throw it and you find everything modified. That's cool.
 
gelyparis said:
Crystal, I invite you to see my video, even if incomplete, so you get an idea about the autocad parametrichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbuwb_fmmeq
Click to expand...
gely, hi.
an account is to know how the parametric (which is already known), another is to apply it to the working reality.
If you have 2 minutes, take a look at the pdf that I attach to you, and please indicate the parametric way to replace the current 40mm table cover at (home) 70mm.
it becomes much easier to remake the whole armor, than to put one table with the parametric.
if we consider that this is part of a set of over 120 tables, with which this must be synchronized... We're fried.
in this type of reality, the dynamic blocks are not even proficient, but a good dose of time spent creating ad hoc lisp, avoiding expensive liver operations :biggrin:
 

Attachments

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top