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
Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by johnsonshiue. Go to Solution.
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
Interesting observation, Gary. I could reproduce it.
Walter
Walter Holzwarth
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!
Wow
With that being said, I will just have to use a different method of removing that much stock instead of ripping.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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!
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!