Fully constrained and not fully constrained - identical rectangles?

[drew]

Screencast included so you folks can see what I mean in relation to my question.

Basic question is two parts:

1) How can you compare the constraints on two or more 'elements' (lines, rectangles, etc)? All I can do at the moment is visually inspect the onscreen 'marks' in the sketch.

2) What is *different* between the two rectangles discussed in the screencast? I cannot tell!

Thanks!

[davebYYPCU]

no screencast here, yet.  It hasn't come through in the Library yet.

When selecting a scast, there is an insert button lower down, catches most of us out,

How ever I have the fame file here,

1, checking the icons, and the colours of the lines, blue are still not constrained enough, and enough is when they turn black.

2, waiting for the scast to come up.

Later

[TheCADWhisperer]

Can you File>Export your *.f3d file to your local drive and then Attach it here to a Reply?

[drew]

Here's the f3d file of the stairs.

Thanks for looking into this!

[davebYYPCU]

The one thing I forgot to mention,

if you click and drag the blue line/s they will move in space, the black ones won't.

I clicked one of the blue treads on the left, and basically the whole sketch moved.

might help...

[TheCADWhisperer]

I think I would use Feature Pattern rather than a complicated sketch.

I am rather certain I would use Equal (=) constraints rather than repeated dimensions.

[drew]

Can anyone respond to the two questions in the OP?

I do understand that I didn't do this like others would do, or as I "should have" done... Perhaps next time I can try those things.

But it is already created, I'm not doing it over because unlike experienced users this takes me a lot of time, and I don't have MORE time to keep re-doing this (this version, BTW, is my FOURTH time drawing the same set of stairs - I had different issues each time, ***finally*** I got it so everything moves properly when I change the centre section length variable - I am not going to throw away all of that time and start over).

I am seeking help in understanding how I can tell the difference between the discussed rectangles!

Please see questions 1 and 2 in the OP.

[Anonymous]

I asked a similar question a couple of weeks ago.

I was referred to this post:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/design-validate-document/notice-feedback-request-sketch-constraint-st...

Maybe it will help you more than it helped me. 

[JamieGilchrist · Accepted solution]

Hi drew,

so in this case you're missing a primary constraint on the construction line at the bottom of your stairs, which is a base reference for all the subsequent risers and treads.  I've added a coincident constraint to the end point of the horizontal construction line and the vertical construction line/center line of your stairs and the entire sketch shows as fully constrained.

If you want to get an inventory of applied constraints we can do this today by turning off the constraints in the sketch palette then select the sketch geometry in the canvas and any applied constraints on the selected geometry will be visible while selected. 

As a general rule when doing repeated shapes like this I would use either a pattern (favoring solid over sketch geometry)  or create multiple rectangles with driving custom parameters, making sure that the first sketch elements are fully constrained.  I'll post a video in a subsequent response here.

[drew]

Thanks for linking to that thread, but yeah - not useful for me either. 

[drew]

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for doing that screencast - I now see that it was a series of relationships between other lines that led to the risers and treads not being fully constrained.

I would never have thought to look at that bottom construction line as the source of the problem! 

In case it is useful:

I viewed it as already being fully constrained by what I had entered as constraints and dimensions. The controlling dimensions PLUS the colinear/vertical/distance/etc constraints *seemed to me* to add up to the exact same effect as binding that construction line to the centre construction line. Obviously those dimensions didn't do that job - but it's important for you guys to realise the slightly different way of thinking I have on it - I can't imagine it is unique.

Builders like me view a 'called' dimension (set by manual entry or by parameter) as a *binding* one. So, the height dimension with the length dimension 'bound' the "top of balcony floor" and "backside of riser" locations. Then the dimensions plus constraints on each tread and riser just didn't logically allow for anything to be other than where it was (thanks for catching that missing nosing overhang)!

Anyway, thanks again - I see the 'what' now and will try to get my head around the 'why'.

[drew]

Oh - about patterning and not making my sketch hold so much detail:

Patterning:

I have not been able to pattern anything other than sketch lines with any success. And that only in VERY basic ways.

The challenge is my inability to understand how to locate each one of the copies without closing the current sketch, measuring the distance I need to move something and an angle and maybe some other things, taking PAPER notes of all these measurements, switching back to the 3d environment, and then trying to figure out how to tell the software in X,Y,Z what I just measured along an angle.... I just have yet to figure out how to make patterning faster than copy/paste.

Yep, great at building things.... Crap at using the software.

Detail in that one sketch:

I made this stair sketch at the top level of the whole design, and will use it inside other components as a background - inside the "CommonRiser" component I will trace a full height riser out of this big sketch, extrude my body, and then be able to replicate that component by copying one at a time as I go up the steps. I'll do the same for all the other actual parts. But that main sketch at the top level is how I will be able to keep any grasp of what the heck I am working on, and what shape it needs to be.

And yes, I am aware that I can somehow 'project' lines from one sketch to another. But THAT only gets me massively confused because I can never tell what the point I select is actually ON, or where I am working. 

Actually - feature request:

Instead of just five instances of the phrase "Sketch Point" in the dropdown list when you select/hold a point, maybe have it say "Sketch Point outside this sketch" or "Sketch Point (Projected)"

The existing feature that highlights any line connected to the point is awesome - but you're left guessing if the point isn't attached to a line.

[davebYYPCU]

You answered my question while I was typing, But not read what your saying about the pattern yet,  

[drew]

If I 'bit' someone I didn't mean to!

Just went back through my posts and worriedly looked for ways I was rude - was it my post trying to redirect to the OP questions? It wasn't trying to be rude, really!

And I'm sorry even if I don't know what I did to seem like I was "biting". I sure as hell don't want to alienate you and the others who help us newbies out.

In any event the critical answer came in the screencast Jamie made - he said that the colour difference between the rectangles I indicated in my screencast is probably an issue in the new feature, and then he went on to find the reason *all* of them were not fully constrained.

[davebYYPCU]

Disregard Drew, I came in half way, while you were addressing Jamies reply, I did not know you were still typing more replies, post edited when I saw that you had answered the question.

As you use the software you will develope the understanding of what can and doesn't work.

Have a look at the measure tool, it will measure point to point, will give delta measurments, and you can copy one at a time to clipboard, any answer in that dialogue box,

an example, to pattern your Riser/Tread, you only need the dimension one step to the next, and a constuction line to point what angle the pattern is to take.

A lot of people don't realise that rect patterns don't have to be horizontal / vertical.

for now,

[JamieGilchrist]

HI Drew,

no worries on the screencast, I'm glad it was helpful.  One thing to keep in mind, all sketch entities have to tie back to the origin reference of your sketch plane. i.e. if you sketch on the x-y plane and the origin of the sketch is at 0-0-0, all your sketch geometry needs to tie back to the origin, either through dimensions or constraints to calculate as fully constrained. So if a sketch isn't showing fully constrained follow the chain to the origin (that's how I figured out your sketch, one constraint added and it was fully constrained, so you were really close)

As far as the selection list, we've already got some backlog issues show the constraint name in concert with cross highlighting, I like your idea of showing inside of or projected reference of the current sketch. will bring this to the team and see if this is something we can work into our backlog.