3D sketch (or curve)? 2

[pkelecy]

Again, I'm working through a SW tutorial where a rack is made by drawing a 3D curve and then sweeping a profile (circle in this case) along it (the rack is basically a rod with some bends in it). This is something Cobalt could do very easily also. I'm sure SE can as well (it's such a common case) but it's not clear to me how to draw the 3D path for the sweep. SW actually has a 3D sketch tool, but I don't see anything comparable in SE. So how is this done?

Thanks again for the help.

Pat

 

[beachcomber]

Curve by points, curve by table, or this case using frames command.
Alternatively a set of 2d sketches for the sweep paths.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[pkelecy]

bc, thanks for the suggestions. I tried the frame design environment (the sketching there was similar to the 3D sketching in SW) but struggled to figure out how to actually use this to sweep a profile along the path. I'm not sure this is the right tool for this part. The curve by points doesn't seem right either though, as the rack I'm trying to model is essentially composed of straight segments with rounded bends (see attached). I would think the curve by points would be used for something more free-form.

So how do I do this? SW made it pretty easy (of course, having their step-by-step tutorial helped ;^).

Thanks for any hints.

Pat

 

[Gemnoc]

I've read on the UGS forums that the 3D curve tool, like SolidWorks has, has been a long-standing request from SE users. It is one thing where SW has the edge. Since it's not something we'd use at my company, it was not factored in in our decision.

As far as your current exemple, the process can be accomplished easily with the following process (assuming one radius for all bends):

- on front plane, make sketch of "z-profile" without radiuses (3 straight lines) with the long horizontal segment colinear to the top plane
- copy the sketch on a parallel plane (I believe the tool would be called "Detach sketch", at least that's what it translates to from French)
- make a 3rd sketch on top plane for the rear cross member, touching sketches 1 and 2
- in the Frames environment, join sketches 1 & 2 at the front with a 3D line
- in Frames tool, in the Options dialog box, choose Apply Radius for the corner treatment options, enter a radius
- select elements from sketch 1 & 2 plus the 3D line, choose the section type, apply; the radiuses will be applied automatically
- create a second frame component with smaller section for the rear crossbar.

Of course, one other way to do it would be to bypass the sketch copy, make the crossbars half of their desired length, and do a symmetry of the frame, that would be even faster.

Hope I've been clear, if not give a shout.

 

[beachcomber]

This made with frames in less than 5 min.
What you need to do is create a part for each section - I used 6mm and 3mm dia - you can just do a sketch or create an protrusion of any length.
Then the frame is made in an assembly.


bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[beachcomber]

Just re-read Gemnoc's post.
Sound complicated to me.
All I did was
Create the 2 part files.
Create an assembly file.
In the assembly - Applications > Frame design.
Do ONE 3d sketch of the frame paths. Hitting the Z key will toggle the direction between the X,Y and Z axes. Hitting the X key will toggle between XY, XZ and YZ planes.
Create one frame for the main wire, a second frame for the small wire.
I will try to attach all 3 files.

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...aec4-4df6-af25-b75cdbe14923&file=3mm_Wire.par

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...b887-457b-98ef-86e265c6b15e&file=6mm_Wire.par

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=b3dcaf0e-88ab-466d-8a2a-974834a0e4c0&file=Rack.asm

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[Gemnoc]

BC

I thought of that, but it's actually a pain for me to use the 3D sketch with the toggling thingy. It's a hassle, for me it's faster to do it the way I did (the first sketch takes no time at all), but that's just me. ;-)

 

[beachcomber]

I must admit I found the frames commands a little difficult at first, but having stuck with it and used it whenever it seemed appropriate it's got a lot easier.
And the practice helps when you come to use XpressRoute.
Occasionally I've used frames as a replacement for ExpressRoute. All you need to do is create the tube sections as parts.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[pkelecy]

Thanks for the help with this.

Gemnoc, -I tried your approach first, but got stuck on the sketch copy step. Couldn't figure out how to copy to a parallel plane.


bc - I got your approach to work, and now that I know how to do it, it is pretty straight-forward. However, there were a few things that threw me at first. One is that I didn't realize the frame cross section was based on a part. I guess I was expecting to sketch that. One side note on that. When selecting the part file (which I had saved in My Documents) for some reason the "My Documents" folder was not a predefined selection (I had to actually browse to it from the C: root). I've run across this a few times with SE, and it's not very convenient.

The other thing that threw me is that once done, the Folder Options window reappears. Again, I thought maybe I had to define the frame properties again. Also, the first few times I tried this, the frame didn't appear, even though the operation finished without any errors. Not sure why (perhaps some other selections I had inadvertently made).

What I'm finding with SE vs SW, is that SE is not necessarily any harder to use, but I do think it's harder to learn. One reason I think is that some of the tools works differently than what is common or expected (this one being a case in point). A second reason is that the documentation doesnt' do a very good job of explaining things (at least for a beginner). Maybe it's good reference once you know the application. I don't know. I do know the times I've tried to figure something out using it I've ended up more confused.

Anyway, thanks again for the help.

Pat

 

[Gemnoc]

Yeah it's not always clear what input the system expects from you. The status bar helps. By default on V20 it's on top of the screen, below the menu bar; but since it can be partly hidden by a drop down menu, I've put it at the bottom of the screen.

Since you're on SEwST, I don't know if it is unchanged. I've seen screenshots and what was the SmartStep ribbon bar is now placed on the left "à la SolidWorks", over the PathFinder...

I didn't feel that SE was harder to learn than SW. I liked SE better because of its less "cluttered" interface. I mean the toolbars you see are only the ones useful for the task at hand. In SW, you saw all the toolbars, all the time. Although this argument must be invalid now, since SW 2008 and now SewST both share the MS Ribbon interface that replaced the toolbars...

 

[Gemnoc]

pklecy,

about that copy sketch fonction:

First activate the Detach sketch tool (still not sure of the english name). It's the icon just below the Sketch icon, under a drop down toolbar.

Next, you have to select or create a plane on which to copy the sketch to. I used a parallel plane to the Front plane. Then, you select the sketch elements you want to copy.

 

[Gemnoc]

One thing about the Detach sketch though: the copied sketch is not associative. If you modify sketch 1, the copied sketch doesn't update.

 

[beachcomber]

I think the command you are referring to is 'Tear Off Sketch' and it can be associative to the original, so when you modify the original the copy will update.
When you start the command click the options icon and you will get 3 choices - Copy Associative, Copy Non-Associative and Move.
I suppose this could be slightly different on SEwST.
As for the browse location, SE is looking at the default location for the Frames part files - this can be changed.
In an Assembly file go to Tools > Options > File Locations.
Then click on Frames Local Library Folder.
Now click Modify, then browse to the folder where you are storing your Frames part files and OK.
Now it should find your frame sections without having to browse every time.
I totally agree with Gemnoc about SW 'cluttered' interface.
I hated seeing all the sketches, planes etc for every part in the assembly tree.
In Catia V5 it's even worse - you can also see every line, curve and point in the sketch.
Something else that bugged me in SW assembly (it may be different now) was that the side bar in an assembly showed the assembly tree, but when you started a command it was replaced by the command tools, and the tree was shifted over and overlayed onto the model window. I then had to start expanding it again to find what I wanted.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[Gemnoc]

Thanks for the info on the Tear off sketch options, BC, I didn't notice that. I have still much to learn.

I was disappointed to learn that with SEwST, they replaced the SmartStep ribbon bar with a side panel that overlays the Pathfinder (or on top of it, I'm not sure). With the Fluent interface (MS ribbon bar), you lose so much screen space... Oh well. Can't understand why SW and UGS had to comply with an interface designed for a business suite!

On a side note, I plan on installing SEwST soon, and since we haven't received the french box yet (we bought 2 licences, one french and one english), I'm gonna install the english one, so there will be no more guessing on actual command names. ;-)

 

[karmoh]

"Oh well. Can't understand why SW and UGS had to comply with an interface designed for a business suite."

Unfortunately, MS has crept in to all our lives whether we like it or not. I suspect but cannot be sure, that MS offer operating system support for development of software, allowing organizations like Siemens access to MS technology for seamless integration in to Cad or whatever software is being developed. Although this seems like bowing to Microsoft corporate pressure it does alleviate compatibility issues.

Bill Gates is one of the most successful gangsters of our time. ;-)

Anyway that all for another thread on another day

 

[beachcomber]

The problem with Microsoft is that they keep changing their 'standard' interface !!
SE has had the same interface from the start, 10 years ago, with a few tweaks and additions along the way.
It won't be long (next releae of Windows or Office probably) before the 'new' SE style is out of date.
There is enough to learn on a CAD system without having to contend with interface changes along the way.

bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.

 

[Gemnoc]

karmoh, problem is, as far as I know, CAD software like SW, SE and Autocad (possibly Inventor too?) are the ONLY ones that have made the switch.

I've read that MS licences it for free, provided you follow some strict guidelines. Like a NON-customizable ribbon bar.

And of course, SE is heavily based on Microsoft's .NET programming platform. But it doesn't mean they had no choice but to use Fluent...

Look for any other field - you won't find ANY new software with this Fluent interface. Adobe has recently released Adobe Creative Suite 4. Did they adopt the Fluent interface? Nope!

So why did CAD companies choose to use it? It doesn't make any sense. Solidworks was the first, or possibly SpaceClaim, and all the others had to do it... It is maddening.

 

[bogdanganea]

Ok, I have found a way, that involves surfaces. Just create 2 sketches, one that is perpendicular to the other. After that, using the <b>Intersection Curve</b> command you will get the 3D sketch you need. Then, it's simple. I used SE V20, but now, I think, SE ST has this capability.
Hope it's useful information.


_____________________________________
You live your life as if it's real.

 

[kjoiner]

Hello,

I use the cross curve command to generate an intersecting curve without making the surfaces. It saves a step or two with the same result. The only downside to an intersecting curve is when you have radii and the cross curve or intersecting curve will make a new radius based on the combination of the two curve so you really don't have direct control over the radius in a 3D curve.

Kyle

 

[donyoung]

here is an example of CrossCurve (V20)

dy