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: 

Rip not centered

11 REPLIES 11
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 12
GarySchmitz3154
447 Views, 11 Replies

Rip not centered

I am ripping a sheet metal ring and the rip is not centered on the plane that I used for the cutting plane. it is not consistantly off center. The off-centeredness is progressive to the width of the rip. The wider the rip the further off center. I wish to rip the ring with a width 7' 8 1/4" centered on the xz plane. I use the rip feature alot and this is the first I discovered this. Attached is the file. the question is am I doing anything wrong or is normal

 

Best Regards

Gary

Best Regards
Gary Schmitz
Dell Precision M3800
Core I7, 2.3GHZ, 16G Ram, Quadro K1100M 24In Monitor
Product Design Suite Premium 2016
3D Connexions Wireless
ProNest 2015
11 REPLIES 11
Message 2 of 12

HI!

 

In my case, i opened the file,  all seems cetered...

 

Did you find this reply helpful ? If so, use the  Mark Solutions!  Accept as Solution or Give Kudos!Kudos - Thank you!



Regards.
CCarreiras
Message 3 of 12

when I measure rom the point on the outer surface to the xz plane the left side reads 37.729 ant the corresponding right side point measures 34.445

 

Best Regards
Gary Schmitz
Dell Precision M3800
Core I7, 2.3GHZ, 16G Ram, Quadro K1100M 24In Monitor
Product Design Suite Premium 2016
3D Connexions Wireless
ProNest 2015
Message 4 of 12

Interesting observation, Gary. I could reproduce it.

Walter

Walter Holzwarth

EESignature

Message 5 of 12

Gary,

 

This is a great catch! There is something wrong here. It seems there is a floating tolerance corresponding to the model size. When the part gets bigger, the tolerance becomes bigger, which is wrong. For this particular model, the difference starts becoming noticeable when the gap exceeds 1in. I am forwarding it to development for further review.

Many thanks!

 



Johnson Shiue (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com)
Software Test Engineer
Message 6 of 12

Wow

With that being said, I will just have to use a different method of removing that much stock instead of ripping.

Best Regards
Gary Schmitz
Dell Precision M3800
Core I7, 2.3GHZ, 16G Ram, Quadro K1100M 24In Monitor
Product Design Suite Premium 2016
3D Connexions Wireless
ProNest 2015
Message 7 of 12
IgorMir
in reply to: johnsonshiue

Hi Johnson,

Here is a part in IV2018 format which exhibits exactly the same behavior. The only way to combat it is to not use a symmetrical rip. And be very mindful which side of the rip to use as a stationary reference. It has been four years since that '"great catch"...

Cheers,

Igor.

 


@johnsonshiue wrote:

Gary,

 

This is a great catch! There is something wrong here. It seems there is a floating tolerance corresponding to the model size. When the part gets bigger, the tolerance becomes bigger, which is wrong. For this particular model, the difference starts becoming noticeable when the gap exceeds 1in. I am forwarding it to development for further review.

Many thanks!

Web: www.meqc.com.au
Message 8 of 12
johnsonshiue
in reply to: IgorMir

Hi Guys,

 

Indeed, the issue has not yet been resolved. I need to work with the team and see what we can do. It does look like a tolerance issue. Somehow the tolerance is not used persistently on both sides. This is wrong.

Many thanks!

 



Johnson Shiue (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com)
Software Test Engineer
Message 9 of 12
IgorMir
in reply to: johnsonshiue

Hi Johnson,

There might be different meanings in terminology but to may understanding it is not  a tolerance one. The part itself is still measured correctly - not Plus/Minus something. However, the positioning of the part in space changes. Due to the conflict between Origin geometry of the part and the selected Stationary reference. I wonder if it is possible to make an Origin geometry a reference one for the Rip tool? After all - the sketch is fully defined. The only variable which affects the Stationary reference is the width of the Rip itself.  Your thoughts, please.

Cheers,

Igor.

 


@johnsonshiue wrote:

Hi Guys,

 

Indeed, the issue has not yet been resolved. I need to work with the team and see what we can do. It does look like a tolerance issue. Somehow the tolerance is not used persistently on both sides. This is wrong.

Many thanks!

Web: www.meqc.com.au
Message 10 of 12
IgorMir
in reply to: IgorMir

Hello again, Johnson!

My previous post needs some clarifications. When writing it I was thinking about the Unfold command. That's why the references to the Stationary Reference. That reference doesn't exist in the Rip DB. The Rip itself doesn't change the orientation of the part in space. The follow up Unfold one does. Hence was my question if it is possible to use Origin Geometry for Stationary reference in Unfold/Refold commands rather that the face of a ripped part.

Thanks,

Igor.

Web: www.meqc.com.au
Message 11 of 12
johnsonshiue
in reply to: IgorMir

Hi Igor,

 

Rip command was designed in a way, not considering the origin folders. It is because, not all models are designed around origin. Also, the symmetric plane may not be at one of the origin planes. The slightly off tolerance does not look right to me. I have forwarded these cases to the project team for further investigation.

Many thanks!



Johnson Shiue (johnson.shiue@autodesk.com)
Software Test Engineer
Message 12 of 12
IgorMir
in reply to: johnsonshiue

Hi Johnson,

I think we need to change the title of the post. It is about Unfold/Refold shifting the part in space. The Rip tool doesn't do that, since it doesn't need a Stationary geometry for references. But because Rip and Unfold quite often go hand in hand it is easy to get confused about what's going on. In my last post I talked about it.  I hope - your team will look into it.

Thanks,

Igor.

 


@johnsonshiue wrote:

Hi Igor,

 

Rip command was designed in a way, not considering the origin folders. It is because, not all models are designed around origin. Also, the symmetric plane may not be at one of the origin planes. The slightly off tolerance does not look right to me. I have forwarded these cases to the project team for further investigation.

Many thanks!

Web: www.meqc.com.au

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report