Anuncios

The Autodesk Community Forums has a new look. Read more about what's changed on the Community Announcements board.

Challenge: Draw box add chamfer and fillet with SOLIDHIST on without going mad

Anonymous

Challenge: Draw box add chamfer and fillet with SOLIDHIST on without going mad

Anonymous
No aplicable

This is the desired object:
Capture01.PNG
This is drawn with BOX (100,20,2), CHAMFEREDGE (2) on the four corners, followed by FILLETEDGE (1) on all edges on the top (8 edges because of the chamfer).

The above was drawn with SOLIDHIST=0, no problem.

The challenge is to do it with SOLIDHIST=1. In my hands it is pure agony. I wanted to detail the problems here, but they are so numerous it would take too much time.

Of course SOLIDHIST is nice because later I may want to change the size of the box, or the radius of the fillet, and the size of the chamfer.

For comparison, in another CAD package I did this same drawing (with solid history), with no problem, and in fact the drawing steps are absolutely unaltered by the presence of the retained history. This other product allows you to clearly see a selected solid and its history, and trivially make the changes to the solid and solid operation parameters.

Here is the example of this interface to solid history in the other CAD package:
Capture02.PNG
You can see at a glance what operations make up the solid, and it is easy to change the parameters. In this example, in the drawing, because edge 3 is selected here, edge 3 is highlighted as well, so the chamfer offets for this edge are easily updated.

In summary, two questions:

 

  1. Can someone skilled in ACAD indicate how this simple drawing can be done in ACAD 2017 with SOLIDHIST=1?
  2. Why does ACAD not have an explicit view of the solid history of a selected solid. It is really tedious to have to click in the drawing to get the properties of a solid operation to show up in the PROPERTIES panel.
0 Me gusta
Responder
775 Vistas
14 Respuestas
Respuestas (14)

john.vellek
Alumni
Alumni

Hi @Anonymous,

 

At your request, I created this solid with history turned on. I created the box, chamfered the corners, and then filleted the top edges. At each step I verified that SOLIDHIST was set to 1 (turned on) I also had the history set to display. Performing these steps on the simple solid was quick and easy soI am not sure I am understanding your difficulties in doing this.

 

As far as a hierarchical display of the history, that would be a nice feature but it is not part of AutoCAD at present.

 

Capture.PNG

 

So, please tell me what i am missing in your post? Do you have a question or are you merely requesting a different feature?

 

I am here to assist but I think I missed something. Please give me more detail.


John Vellek


Join the Autodesk Customer Council - Interact with developers, provide feedback on current and future software releases, and beta test the latest software!

Autodesk Knowledge Network | Autodesk Account | Product Feedback
0 Me gusta

Anonymous
No aplicable

One thing I learned is turning selection cycling off makes it easier, but all is not good for me.

Eg01.PNG

Above I am picking the top edge of the chamfer, but a bunch of edges get highlighted so it is confusing. These edge highlights remain after the operation and can only be cleared by selecting the object and ESC.

 

With selection cycling off, the selection of a box edge is clear:

Eg03.PNG

But when the chamfer edge on the right is being picked the feedback is just simply wrong (an edge on the box nowhere near the pick point is highlighted):

Eg04.PNG

 

But in fact it appears the correct edge was selected (not again the spurious edge highlighting):

Eg06.PNG

 

The rest of the edges are selected, but in the end, lo and behold, that second edge does not get the fillet:

Eg07.PNG

 

I have repeated this a few times, and missing fillet edge is not always reproducible, but in many cases an edge that shows up filleted in the preview (with an orbit to make sure that all edges are rounded) does not end up in the final accepted result (and maybe it is 2 edges, but so far always it is an edge created by the chamfer).

 

To me is seems clear that operations on a solid with history (say with history view off) should appear to the user exactly like on the same solid without history. If you want to go back and change history, it should take an additional step to access the history. This is exactly how the competing product works, and to me there is no contest at all which is better!

0 Me gusta

Anonymous
No aplicable

To illustrate the variable nature of the problem the process was repeated 3 times with SOLIDHIST=0, and 3 times with SOLIDHIST=1. In each case before accepting the FILLETEDGE it as confirmed that all 8 top edges where showing the fillet. In the screen below, the left side is no history, and there are no errors.

 

In contrast, with history on not one of these is correct. The edges were selected in the same order, the edges missing the fillet seem to be random, with one case having one missing, and the other two have two edges missing.

 

So there is a problem independent of the erroneous edge selection highlighting feedback detailed in my previous post.

Eg08.PNG

0 Me gusta

john.vellek
Alumni
Alumni

HI @Anonymous,

 

Yes, I have found that turning off the selection cycling does improve the experience. This is true whether I have the history turned on or off.


John Vellek


Join the Autodesk Customer Council - Interact with developers, provide feedback on current and future software releases, and beta test the latest software!

Autodesk Knowledge Network | Autodesk Account | Product Feedback
0 Me gusta

dgorsman
Consultant
Consultant

That "competing product" probably isn't, so there isn't an apples-apples comparison.  Looks like a mechanical design program, which are designed from the ground-up for operations on 3D objects (history, constraints, etc.).  Like AutoCAD and Inventor there are different requirements so they have different capabilities, some better and some not so much.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


JDMather
Consultant
Consultant

@Anonymous wrote:

...This is exactly how the competing product works, and to me there is no contest at all which is better!


Name names.

Exactly what competing product are you referring to?

 

How much does this "competing" product cost vs AutoCAD?

 

Are you familiar with Autodesk Inventor?

Are you familiar with Autodesk Fusion 360?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


0 Me gusta

Anonymous
No aplicable

I did not include the actual product name because I am not clear on the "rules" of the forum, and am certainly not advertising on behalf of some other company.

 

The "competitor" costs a lot less than ACAD and it works pretty well. It is definitely not in general more capable in the 3D world than ACAD, and I would say it positions itself merely as a more affordable and maybe easier to learn (debatable) alternative. In most respects I prefer ACAD.

 

In fact the only thing I really find superior so far is how having or not having solid history has absolutely no impact on working with the solid object in it's present state, and transforming it into a new state. The only time history comes to bear is if you want to (drum roll ...), change historical operations.

 

I also like the tree view of selected objects (which is available independent of solid history). It simply makes the properties of the selected objects all accessible at the same time. On the other hand, being able to set the "*VARIES*" value of a set to one thing in one step is nice as well. 

 

Have not looked at Inventor or Fusion 360 -- was keeping focused on AutoAD until I reach a level of competence to legitimately have an opinion as to whether or not it works for me. But definitely the only 2D I think about are in Layouts. Any pointers to a high level explanation of the overlaps and differences of these tools welcomed.

 

In summary, no agenda here other than:

  1. Is the current solid history behavior by design, or is it flaw, or just a bug introduced in v 2017 (I have no experience with earlier versions). If so, maybe it can get fixed or improved. Confess that I find the current behavior incredibly poor.
  2. It would be great if AutoDesk could adopt and improve on an idea or feature of a knock off,  rather than the flow always going the other way!
  3. Learn from the experience of others who have done a whole lot more drawing than I have. It is amazing how much time you can waste because you are not doing things the right way. 
0 Me gusta

JDMather
Consultant
Consultant

@Anonymous wrote:

...

  1. Learn from the experience of others who have done a whole lot more drawing than I have. It is amazing how much time you can waste because you are not doing things the right way. 

What field of design are you interested focusing?

 

If mechanical - then I would take a look at Autodesk Inventor.  

Inventor builds robust - fully parametric history-based 3D models.

I have not used AutoCAD for nearly 10 yrs.

 

Students can get Autodesk products for free from http://www.autodesk.com/edcommunity


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


Anonymous
No aplicable

Thanks for the insight. Maybe I have been hiking down the wrong path.

 

I did see ACAD allows VIEWBASE to load an Inventor file instead of getting it from model space, which made me a bit concerned that one really needs both products -- Inventor for the design, and ACAD to make the drawings for the workshop.

 

Is it correct to think that adding 3D to ACAD was almost a mistake (hence the lack of major improvements over releases), or is that going too far? 

0 Me gusta

JDMather
Consultant
Consultant

Inventor has much better 3D-to-2D technical drawing tools than AutoCAD.

 

My opinion to follow, others mileage may very.....

 

AutoCAD is basically a 2D replacement of the drafting board left over from the last century with some 3D capability tacked on.

 

Inventor was developed ground up as a 3D Modeling tool with very good 3D-to-2D technical drawing tools.

 

Given that we are now 16 yrs into the 21st century, if it was my time, and my interest was in mechanical vs architectural or civil - I think I would invest my valuable time in learning Inventor.

 

Having said that, Autodesk is heavily pushing Fusion 360 as the next big thing after Inventor, but it is still several years of development away from seeing the inside of my (professional level) classes. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


dgorsman
Consultant
Consultant

Think of Inventor as a scalpel, and AutoCAD as a Swiss Army knife.  They both have their place.  Doing mechanical design, yeah - do everything in Inventor, including the shop drawings.  Its very, very good at that one field.  Need to do a little of everything?  AutoCAD is your tool of choice - a single program can (with a little configuration) do :

 

  • piping and instrument/process flow diagram schematics
  • electrical schematics/ladder design
  • topographic maps
  • 3D models
  • drawing production from 3D models

 

Granted, AutoCAD isn't as capable as a dedicated program in any one of those single areas.  But 3D in AutoCAD can be quite good - chances are the fuel in your vehicle, the natural gas used to heat your home, was processed in a facility designed using 3D in AutoCAD with some level of customization.  You just need to recognize the limitations of the different programs and pick the right one for the jobs at hand.

----------------------------------
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.
"I don't know" is the beginning of knowledge, not the end.


Anonymous
No aplicable
Profuse thanks to the 2 experts who have added nice clarity to the landscape. These bytes are crossing the wire at the same time Inventor downloads...
0 Me gusta

JDMather
Consultant
Consultant

@Anonymous wrote:
.... at the same time Inventor downloads...

I recommend that you download via the Autodesk Virtual Agent rather than from the student community (but take note of your personal Serial Number on the community).

Be sure to get all 3 files.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autodesk Inventor 2019 Certified Professional
Autodesk AutoCAD 2013 Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional


0 Me gusta

Anonymous
No aplicable

@Anonymous wrote:

I recommend that you download via the Autodesk Virtual Agent rather than from the student community (but take note of your personal Serial Number on the community).

Be sure to get all 3 files.


Since I already installed before reading this, but now seem not to have the local content center, could you please give me some insight into how the method you outline is different? Should I remove and reinstall? I'm sorry to say in general I find AutoDesk documentation as clear as mud -- sometimes I wonder if is is actually encrypted, yet still looks like English!

 

Thanks...

0 Me gusta