Autodesk - Please fix Equal constraint in Sketches

[Anonymous]

This is ridiculous. We need a service pack very soon.

[Anonymous]

JJ,

I've seen other messages concerning this issue, but I have used the Equal
constraint quite often in IV7 and have yet to have any problems. As a
general rule, I tend to apply constraints before I add dimensions. I think
I remember another thread where someone suggested that they only had
problems if they tried to apply the Equal constraint after dimensioning the
sketch. However, I just tried drawing a box in a new sketch, dimensioning 2
sides of the box, then applying the Equal constraint to the opposing sides
of the box, and it worked just fine.

Blane

[Anonymous]

It seems to depend on what autoconstraints are in place. The bug is not a
sure thing, but it is there. Using paralell/perp autoconstraints appears to
increase the liklihood of getting bit. the bug does not normally show up on
very simple sketches.

Regardless, you can't always apply constraints first, then dims. In
practice, I get denied about a third of the time I try to apply the
constraint. I'm with JJ. It needs fixing.

Walt

"BTBeilke" wrote in message
news:7838F0EEAEFD702B6D3AAA28F0837EA6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> JJ,
>
> I've seen other messages concerning this issue, but I have used the Equal
> constraint quite often in IV7 and have yet to have any problems. As a
> general rule, I tend to apply constraints before I add dimensions. I
think
> I remember another thread where someone suggested that they only had
> problems if they tried to apply the Equal constraint after dimensioning
the
> sketch. However, I just tried drawing a box in a new sketch, dimensioning
2
> sides of the box, then applying the Equal constraint to the opposing sides
> of the box, and it worked just fine.
>
> Blane
>
>

[Anonymous]

It's other constraints, perp and paral (possibly others) that cause the
problem, which you must not have had or you wouldn't have had to add the equ
constraints with two sides dimensioned. Try drawing a line between two
projected points, a line perp to one end of it and adding an equal len
constraint.

There is also an annoying change in driven dim behavior that I'd like to see
fixed: project two points, place work points on one or both. Try to dim. 6
dropped a driven dim, 7 gives an error message. (While they're at it I think
you should be able to dim without adding the work points and I do have apply
driven dim checked.)

=====================

"BTBeilke" wrote in message
news:7838F0EEAEFD702B6D3AAA28F0837EA6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
JJ,

I've seen other messages concerning this issue, but I have used the Equal
constraint quite often in IV7 and have yet to have any problems. As a
general rule, I tend to apply constraints before I add dimensions. I think
I remember another thread where someone suggested that they only had
problems if they tried to apply the Equal constraint after dimensioning the
sketch. However, I just tried drawing a box in a new sketch, dimensioning 2
sides of the box, then applying the Equal constraint to the opposing sides
of the box, and it worked just fine.

Blane

[Anonymous]

I've seen this bug as well. Usually shows up when I am trying to do =
constraints. But have encountered it with Parallel and Perpendicular
constraints as well. It is annoying, but can be worked around. Would like to
see it fixed tho.


Jeff Morovich
Dry Air Technology
jeff@dryairtech.com


"BTBeilke" wrote in message
news:7838F0EEAEFD702B6D3AAA28F0837EA6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> JJ,
>
> I've seen other messages concerning this issue, but I have used the Equal
> constraint quite often in IV7 and have yet to have any problems. As a
> general rule, I tend to apply constraints before I add dimensions. I
think
> I remember another thread where someone suggested that they only had
> problems if they tried to apply the Equal constraint after dimensioning
the
> sketch. However, I just tried drawing a box in a new sketch, dimensioning
2
> sides of the box, then applying the Equal constraint to the opposing sides
> of the box, and it worked just fine.
>
> Blane
>
>

[Anonymous]

Along the same lines...has anyone seen the bug where if you apply an angle
constraint somewhere on a sketch, some of the line become UNSELECTABLE. I can't
dimension to them or constrain them or even drag them. I can select the end
points, but not the line itself. Thankfully, closing the model and reopening
does the trick, but it can get annoying.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer

[Anonymous]

Yup, been there. The geometry can be selected if I change the view from a
plan view of the sketch (rotate the view a bit). Haven't really associated
this with angle dimensions, but it could be the case. I thought it might be
a graphics driver issue (will update today).

Neil


"Dave J" wrote in message
news:25B1B13BB62627F9C02C292C0402ACDC@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Along the same lines...has anyone seen the bug where if you apply an angle
> constraint somewhere on a sketch, some of the line become UNSELECTABLE. I
can't
> dimension to them or constrain them or even drag them. I can select the
end
> points, but not the line itself. Thankfully, closing the model and
reopening
> does the trick, but it can get annoying.
>
> --
> Dave Jacquemotte
> Automation Designer
>
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

I don't know what I am doing "wrong", but I can't find a way to get an error
with the Equal constraint. I know it is a simple sketch, but I did the
rectangle example again by (1) drawing 4 individual lines and (2) using the
2 point rectangle option. In both cases, Perpendicular, Parallel, and
Coincident contraints where automatically applied. The rectangle also had 1
line with a Horizontal constraint. I then dimensioned 2 sides and applied
the Equal contraint to the opposing sides without any problem. (However,
like Jeff said, you wouldn't think that the equal constraints would be
necessary with the Perp/Paral contraints applied.)

[Anonymous]

For the most part if you can remember to add all of your equal constraints
first you will be ok. I have ran into a couple of instances where I have
had this problem before any dimensions were placed. It is amazing to me
that each release of this software becomes worse and worse. Especially with
this release in which nothing has changed except the functionality with
Acad2004. If this is the only release this year we have thrown money out the
window.

[Anonymous]

95% of the bugs can be "worked around". That's not the point, we need
problems which effect everyday productivity fixed sooner than later. I know
everyone hates to hear this, but... This is the reason SW releases many
service packs per release instead of Autodesk's 2 or 3. I know all the
arguments about there being a greater likelihood of something else breaking
as a result of so many updates, so spare me.

[Anonymous]

SMACK! ...
Wait! Hold on here! ... I already know you can smack me back in my nose so
spare me!
~Larry

wrote in message
news:0BFF8B3588B16DA3B30CC7F45785D5F6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> 95% of the bugs can be "worked around". That's not the point, we need
> problems which effect everyday productivity fixed sooner than later. I
know
> everyone hates to hear this, but... This is the reason SW releases many
> service packs per release instead of Autodesk's 2 or 3. I know all the
> arguments about there being a greater likelihood of something else
breaking
> as a result of so many updates, so spare me.
>
>

[Anonymous]

JJ,
I consider the fact the we only get 2 or 3 SPs a year a PRO as opposed to a CON.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile we're sitting here with a pile of bugs. I can see where that is a
plus.

[Anonymous]

OK

[Anonymous]

"a pile?" Yep, this software is just one big pile of useless
bugs...

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote in message news:f161cb0.11@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Meanwhile we're sitting here with a pile of bugs. I can see where that is
a
> plus.
>
>

[Anonymous]

Maybe you should see an entomologist.
~Larry

wrote in message news:f161cb0.11@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Meanwhile we're sitting here with a pile of bugs. I can see where that is
a
> plus.
>
>