relationed part in asemblies

[Cazdebain]

i' m learning SE v19. i've created a simple shaft (part1 protrusion) and inserted it in an assembly. Now i'm trying to create another part (part2) at the end of part1, within the assembly (using create in place), and i want part2 to move as i will change the part1 protrusion lenght...

i've tried "by graphic input" option.. didn't work
i've tried "offset by assembly by keypoint" didn't work
i've used the "include" command for my frofile...the profile changes as i change the part1 dimension but his position doesn't change...

how can i do this?

Thx

 

[KENAT]

I must be misunderstanding.

As part 1 moves you want part 2 to follow it.

What assembly constraints are you using. If you have a face in part 2 constrained to a face in part 1, normal to direction of travel, it should work.

When in Edit mode, modifying a part, you may not see the changes flow up to the assy. I can't remember if there's a setting to change this.

However when you return to the assy, it should have moved.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[donyoung]

[...]
you may not see the changes flow up to the assy
[...]

use ALT+U that should update

But when usind 'Create in Place' before starting your
Profile use MainToolBar --> Insert --> Interpart Copy
and select a face from Part1. On That face you may then
draw your profile as usual. Now it should stick to that
face.
Also take note: a part that is created in place will
have a 'Grounded' relation applied to it by default.


dy

 

[donyoung]

/Edit

downside of the method with 'Interpart copy' is that the
part is associated with the asm and a failing Interpart
connection is hard to repair

Another approach is:

- open a new part
- Insert part1 as Construction
- now design part 2
Back in assembly insert and constrain Part2 as usual. Downside
Part2 depends on Part1.

or do just what you've done before but without interpart copy
when your part2 is finished.

- delete the 'Ground' Relationship
- constrain Part2 to Part1 the usual way
When no inclusions made from Part1's geometry Part2 is totally
independend (I think that was the intention Part2 should just
follow Part1)


dy

 

[Cazdebain]

KENAT

the only constraint that i have is the one when i created the part2 ;"by graphic input"

DONYONG

The ALT_U (update all links) option didn't work either.


The "inter-part copy" option worked fine but i still have imported a face from part1 that i don't really need...exept that i use this new face to start a new profile on. And this way the part2 moves as i change the lengh of protrusion of part1...besides the fact that i have an extra suface that i don't need..it's ok...but there must be a way to do so without importing that surface...

 

[Cazdebain]

thanks for your comments guys!!!

another quick one.... is there a way to smart-dim a line from the perimeter of a circle? without adding a point.... or does tangent/offset exist?

 

[KENAT]

My suggestion is to go into the assembly and redefine your assembly constraints for part 2, to match the real world assy constraint.

As for your quick one, I'll assume you're in the sketcher. Dimension to the line first then to the circle. May need to change dimensions from horizontal vertical, maybe play around with intellisketch.

Out of interest, have you done the tutorials?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[donyoung]

Hi,
[...]
but there must be a way to do so without importing that surface...
[...]

yes, design your part by 'Create in Place' just as you
would do without the assembly.
Upon 'Return' delete the Ground RelationShip and position
your part by the available Relationships.

[...]
smart-dim a line from the perimeter of a circle? without adding a point
[...]
yes, check the SmartStep (RibbonBar) when SmartDim is active

dy

 

[donyoung]

[...]
Out of interest, have you done the tutorials?
[...]

obviously not ...

dy

 

[Cazdebain]

yes i went through the tutorials ... i probably miss some details since i thought SE was as easy as solid works...

sorry to bother you with those questions!

 

[KENAT]

Cazdebain "i thought SE was as easy as solid works" please don't go there.

See thread562-206155 & thread562-208631 & FAQ562-1410

For my 2C it is easy to learn, I learnt it without doing most of the tutorials, without training and with just help from a couple of users in my department.

It is different though, so if you're stuck trying to do things the same way as SW you may have trouble. If however you're willing to just think about what the end result is and how you can get there with SE you'll be happier.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[Cazdebain]

i probably write the wrong way ..i speak french so my english is not as meanful as my english... thakx for the links and tips.... and yes i want to learn SE the good way but yes i still try some things in the SW way... i'll get use to it..

thx everybody

i'll probably be back with some different problems later..

 

[KENAT]

Tres bien, bon chance!

(I'm a bit rusty, hope I didn't buther your language too badly.)

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[KENAT]

make that butcher

(Wow if I can't manage my native tongue...)

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[PatCouture]

Cazdebain

Bienvenu dans le monde de Solid Edge! Un peu comme les autres ont dit, SE va être en mesure d'accomplir la majorité de ce que SW peut faire mais évidement il n'emprunte pas les mêmes méthodes. Soit attentif à la "ribbon bar" et n'hésite pas à poser tes questions sur ce site.

Patrick

 

[KENAT]

Ok, I get the first sentence, I get the last sentance but my French is too poor to fully comprehend the middle one.

However, this is off topic now, au revoir. (Pretty sure I got even that wrong)

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[Gemnoc]

Cazdebain, avec un tel surnom, c'est certain que tu es québécois. ;-)

Bonne chance sur Solid Edge.

Kenat, you actually got it correct. Pat's second sentence goes something like, «as the others said, SE can accomplish most of what SW does, but of course not through the same methods».

At work, since I was the one who signed the purchase order for 2 licences of SE, I ordered the French version. My collegue who's been assigned to this new software with me was not thrilled! Few companies here choose the french versions. I have to confess that for the technical field, French is not as efficient a language as English. For example, the "protrusion" tool in French SE translates to "ajout de matière par extrusion". Cutout is "enlèvement de matière par extrusion". 5 words for one... LOL.

You know, this is one thing SW has over SE: there's only one version, multilingual, of SW. You install English plus your choice of language, among 10 or so. Then, you can switch to English or the other language in the preferences menu. You just need to start the software again to apply the change.

 

[PatCouture]

I agree with you Gemnoc on the fact that it's easier to stick with English in the technical field instead of using French, and I'm pretty sure that it's because we are so much influenced by the English Canadian or the Americans in our day to day job that it becomes a habit. I'm not sure if it's the same for French people in France though.

Cheers

Patrick