Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Angle Measurement

18 REPLIES 18
Reply
Message 1 of 19
Anonymous
736 Views, 18 Replies

Angle Measurement

I have a part with 2 faces that measure 90 deg in the part file, and in an
assembly file they measure slightly more see below. This is a big problem.
--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
18 REPLIES 18
Message 2 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

How will you measure the 90.0000000000013 angle in real life to see if it is
actually 90.0000000000013 and not 90.0000000000000?

Stephen R.


"Cory McConnell" wrote in message
news:70FEF14CC118CA6B5BA0497DD2D4635F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> I have a part with 2 faces that measure 90 deg in the part file, and in an
> assembly file they measure slightly more see below. This is a big
problem.
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Message 3 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I have made a part in the context of the assembly, based on those 2 faces
assuming they are 90 deg. Certain extrusions in this part leave remnants
because the angles between the plains are not 90 deg in the assembly, even
though they are drawn that way in the part.

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 4 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I see your point and I do agree that you most likely modeled everything
perfect. But nothing in this world is exactly 90 degrees. You have to
decide what is an acceptable approximation to 90 degrees to have it pass or
fail acceptance criteria. If you were working on the molecular level, I
could see .00000000000013 being a concern. But working on a typical shop
floor using clips for assembly, I don't see .00000000000013 being a concern.

Stephen R.


"Cory McConnell" wrote in message
news:4D9E09924BB64516D1D562730494B2AC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I have made a part in the context of the assembly, based on those 2 faces
> assuming they are 90 deg. Certain extrusions in this part leave remnants
> because the angles between the plains are not 90 deg in the assembly, even
> though they are drawn that way in the part.
>
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>
Message 5 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I realize all that. The following screen shot shows what happens with my
extrusion when my part is based off those 2 planes....

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 6 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

The bigger problem is that your constraints will not work. In my situation
what usually happens is that someone forgets to convert imperial to metric
using IV (which maintaining all the decimals) and instead uses a calculator
(rounding) - a big No-No.

Vadim

"stephen r" wrote in message
news:36197619E28490F4E9440B55FF34BF4D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I see your point and I do agree that you most likely modeled everything
> perfect. But nothing in this world is exactly 90 degrees. You have to
> decide what is an acceptable approximation to 90 degrees to have it pass
or
> fail acceptance criteria. If you were working on the molecular level, I
> could see .00000000000013 being a concern. But working on a typical shop
> floor using clips for assembly, I don't see .00000000000013 being a
concern.
>
> Stephen R.
>
>
> "Cory McConnell" wrote in message
> news:4D9E09924BB64516D1D562730494B2AC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I have made a part in the context of the assembly, based on those 2
faces
> > assuming they are 90 deg. Certain extrusions in this part leave
remnants
> > because the angles between the plains are not 90 deg in the assembly,
even
> > though they are drawn that way in the part.
> >
> > --
> > Cory McConnell
> > BJ pipeline Inspection
> >
> >
>
>
Message 7 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Cory, are you sure the decimal place precision is set to the same in both
files? Maybe they are both the same but one measurement is rounding it off?

Now that I think of it, how are you getting so many decimal places in the
measurement? My setting only allows up to 5 places in the dialog.

"Cory McConnell" wrote in message
news:70FEF14CC118CA6B5BA0497DD2D4635F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
>
> I have a part with 2 faces that measure 90 deg in the part file, and in an
> assembly file they measure slightly more see below. This is a big
problem.
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
Message 8 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I see this every day. I thought it was just Inventor & no one thought it was
a big deal.

--
Dave Hoder
Product Design Engineer
idX Seattle
www.idxcorporation.com
Message 9 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Do you have the same number of decimal places selected in both
measurements? I have only seen something similar when using user vs IV
conversion of metrics/imperial as Vadim suggested.

Cory McConnell wrote:

> I have a part with 2 faces that measure 90 deg in the part file, and in an
> assembly file they measure slightly more see below. This is a big problem.
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Hal Gwin
Mechanical Designer
Xenogen

W2K SP4
Dell Precision 650
Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon
1.5 GB DDR
Quadro4 900 XGL
nVidia 6.14.10.4403 w/registry update
Dell UltraSharp 19" LCD
Message 10 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

The precision is the same in both files. To get that many places, I clicked
the > and picked all decimals.

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 11 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Another thing - I just discovered that it comes up with a different angle
every time I measure in the assembly

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 12 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Click on the arrow in the measurement box, at the bottom select 'All
Decimals'. That will get out to 15 decimal places.

Ron Crain wrote:
> Now that I think of it, how are you getting so many decimal places in the
> measurement? My setting only allows up to 5 places in the dialog.
>

--
Hal Gwin
Mechanical Designer
Xenogen

W2K SP4
Dell Precision 650
Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon
1.5 GB DDR
Quadro4 900 XGL
nVidia 6.14.10.4403 w/registry update
Dell UltraSharp 19" LCD
Message 13 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Do you get the same measurement if you turn off the visibility of all
the other parts and then measure that part?

Cory McConnell wrote:

> Another thing - I just discovered that it comes up with a different angle
> every time I measure in the assembly
>
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>

--
Hal Gwin
Mechanical Designer
Xenogen

W2K SP4
Dell Precision 650
Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon
1.5 GB DDR
Quadro4 900 XGL
nVidia 6.14.10.4403 w/registry update
Dell UltraSharp 19" LCD
Message 14 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I deleted everything from the assembly, except for the part I have been
measuring. Doesn't seem to make any difference.

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 15 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Maybe it's depending form the part's
position relative to the assy's origin?
The total precision of the modeller is
"only" about 15 decimals!
--
Michael Puschner
www.scholle.de



"Cory McConnell" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0EA29FA10F50CDBE86C1FCEEC4FE66CC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I deleted everything from the assembly, except for the part I have been
> measuring. Doesn't seem to make any difference.
>
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>
Message 16 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I think this may be related to the problem I've been seeing with assembly constraints breaking at apparant random moments. This
also happened in MDT 4 and MDT 5 when using the ACADISO template to create parts - dimensions would change their value in the 6th
decimal place at random causing assembly failures.

John Bilton
Message 17 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Can you post the part and assembly to Customer Files? I would like to look
into it.

Loren Jahraus
Autodesk Inventor Workflow Team

"Cory McConnell" wrote in message
news:0EA29FA10F50CDBE86C1FCEEC4FE66CC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I deleted everything from the assembly, except for the part I have been
> measuring. Doesn't seem to make any difference.
>
> --
> Cory McConnell
> BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>
Message 18 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Turns out that it is working fine this morning. I will keep an eye on it.

--
Cory McConnell
BJ pipeline Inspection
Message 19 of 19
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Curious thing..... a few years ago I was doing some measurements on a
series of AutoCAD dwgs. I found that the measurements varied slightly
from machine to machine, AMD to Intel and from day to day on the same
system after reboots. Careful investigation led me to the floating point
processor in the CPU as being the probable culprit.

As precise as we want the measurements and software to be, we are
utterly dependent on the hardware and operating systems driving our CAD
software.

Keep in mind that the kernel accuracy in Shape Manager/ACIS is 10-6,
while most other kernels range from 10-2 to 10-3. AutoCAD (2D) is listed
at 10-16.

Dennis

Cory McConnell wrote:

>Turns out that it is working fine this morning. I will keep an eye on it.
>
>--
>Cory McConnell
>BJ pipeline Inspection
>
>
>
>

--
Dennis Jeffrey
Autodesk Product Consulting and Training
Center for Design Excellence
http://www.design-excellence.com
260-459-1311 ext 221 or 800-550-6070 ext 221

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report