Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
It'd be great if a frame generator part could read its Trim cuts and put the cut angle out to a partslist. There is always a Start plane, End plane and the 2 Work planes that are generated at the cut. The angle between the appropriate planes is the cut angle required. See attachment.
Currently if we notch an I-Beam placed on the centres of 2 other I-Beams of similar or deeper section the exact length of the model actually changes but the G_L Parameter does not. The only way to ensure the correct length parameter reflects the actual model length is to Trim first then Notch...a 2 step process which I am sure could be resolved with a smarter notch command.
Further to the above, a smarter notch could be extended to include a clearance value that provides notch opitons in accordance with normal structural practices.
I am setting this Idea as Dupliate to two other Idea posts that exist and explicitly detail each request (for I fear both of your FG requests are nested within one idea and might cause confusion as to which to cast a kudo for. As such, Item #1 Master Idea can be found here:
Thanks Paul, I have tried that workflow in the past but we typically don't have much in the way of mitered cuts in our frames. Take for example a truss bridge beam, you might have a few miter cuts but a much larger amount of trims on all the diagonal brace elements. I found it strange that there were settings for one end treatment and not the other, for a workflow to be acceptable it needs to work across a range of functions. The trim function returns a value of Cut without the angle.
It would be really helpful if the miter/trim/notch Frame Generator commands output ONLY the angles at each end of the stock shape in each of two specific columns, as opposed to creating "CutDetail1", "CutDetail2", etc. iProperties for each command.
So for instance, you place a FG part into your assembly and inside that FG part, Inventor automatically creates two iProperties... "Angle1" and "Angle2". Without any end treatments, the values for each of the iProperties would be "90.000 deg". Once you apply a Trim/Miter/Notch to one end, that angle will change accordingly. Now obviously the Notch command will have limits because of the myriad of shapes you can trim a member to, so maybe the Notch command can be left out.
The basic idea I'm trying to get across is that in every shop I've worked at, there is always a cut-list generated so that a person operating the saw can cut most of the parts required for the job without requiring a detail drawing, which saves time and money. The idea of Inventor and parametric part/assembly creation is so that you can export or reference specific values or properties and output them with ease. Once changes are made, those changes are automatically updated downstream. As it stands currently, I have to go through most all parts and verify the cut angle, which is the exact same thing I've had to do with AutoCAD and traditional 2D drafting. This takes tons of time and can be very prone to errors.
that we get the angle in iProperties is fine but it doesn't help as long as we don't get the Information wether the profil is cut for example on the 40 mm width side or on the 80 mm width side, see the following picture. As you see in the picture you need also the information how the second cut is rotated to the first. The green and blue profile have the same angles, but they are different. So please add this Information.
Good point Wolfgang raises. The main issue I find with the current solution is it is reporting the angle of the parts cut instead of whats being removed which is the way most saws are set up. This needs to be editable so the user can set it to match how the saw is configured. We have had a plugin built to report this angle currently as below pic shows and drop in a comment with a symbol to show how to cut the part. We still have to put in which face the cut is through in an RHS manually however.
Thank you for the additional feedback, both of your suggested improvements make perfect sense. May I ask that each of you author separate Ideas for each of your requests? Technically they are both extensions to what we have already delivered and they are both different from one another. Since they are good ideas, I do not want them to be buried within an idea that we already implemented. Thank you for your consideration.
