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
As the title says: make it possible to flip the direction of a dimension in a sketch when you make the dimension negative. I used this feature a lot in SolidWorks in the past.
At first blush that seems like a pretty difficult issue for them to address.
Would this be solved instead by a new type of constraint, one that constrains relative positions, or "side" constraint? E.g. a line is constrained to a side of an axis projection. That constraint will be applied first within inventor's internal calculations when rebuilding sketches. That way the line can never flip to the other side of that axis.
(I still voted this up, it's an issue that should be addressed.)
I dunno about new constraint - hopefully not - as that would be another thing that they would implement as another potential failure point, which Inventor has a too many of those currently, in my opinion. I do know that other CAD packages seem to manage this a lot more consistently and reliably... Design is difficult - yet we are expected to do it - as their job should be the same... They have customers, us, and their job is to meet the needs of the market... hopefully they don't just implement some haphazard solution... but they should also try to resolve it in the interim with some forward thinking permanent fixes to come shortly afterwards.
I mean, ultimately what we're looking for is that sketches respect the sketcher's intent when updating. Right now it does not always do this. Whether the fix is an added explicit constraint or an internal change to the way shetches are calulated the end result should be consistent behaviour. you're right, the fix should be internal, the issue probably lies in the gap between the rules the sketch object model actually follows and how we expect them to function given the real world corollary of sketching.
I know this is possible and it works, however it is not fast. The functionality I am requesting is to be more productive and speed things up. Just put in a minus and a dimension in a sketch flips to the other side.
Flipo button AND negative dimension management would be a great enhancement for inventor (and inventor will be aligned with the rest of the cad world or slightly ahead)
The source of problem is that the Inventor constraint system, including the assembly system, seems to not understand that there are many possible solutions to the constraint problem.
The assembly constraints seems to allow us to add "directed" constraints to mitigate it, but the 2D sketch does not.
Even worse, it decides that "sketch is fully constrained and adding a dimension will over-constrain it" even if it perfectly knows that there is more than one solution and adding this additional constraint would just have removed some of them, but not all.
For an example if You have three lines, put in distances A, B and C of each other then those constraints may be solved either by placing lines in order line_A -> line_B -> line_C and in line_A->Line_C->line_B. Adding an additional constraint, ie. distance from line A to C would have ruled out one of solutions.
In other words to fully constrain a point on 2D plane using DISTANCES you need three of them. Using coordinates You need just two, but coordinates do have SIGN.
Inventor refuses to let You add a third dimension and refuses to accept sign.
in solidworks it exist, the button has 2 horizontal arrows pointing in opposite direction and the hover text say "Reverse" , these button popsup when you click on the dimension in the sketch together with other options.
This is a very handy feature, I hope it will arrive soon in inventor.
We really run into this problem al lot when modifying parts, especially when changing sizes. Dimensions can flip, so what used to be a positive dimension suddenly becomes a "negative" dimension. What means that lines are being offset to the other side. For example a Sketch with two rectangles that share the same midpoint, and have an offset dimension between them, it does happen quite a lot that when changing the dimension of one of them triggers the other rectangle to be offset to the other side. So lets say I have created a rectangular plate with a rectangular "hole" in it. After changing the length of the rectangle, id does happy quite often that the dimension switches with the effect that de boundary line of the hole gets flipped to the outside perimeter of that rectangle, so the cut will be larger then the rectangle itself.
I think this could be a benefit to have "directional" dimensions.
I have seen this problem first hand. Some dimensions may go to a value of 0 for an offset. Later, when the value is made a positive value, the dimension may "flip" sides as you say.
My solution has been to use work planes, which are directional.
The workplane is projected into the sketch and the other geometry is constrained to it.
Now if the workplane changes from positive to zero and back to positive, the other geometry moves as desired. No more flipping sides.
Thanks for your reply, I am sorry I didn't reply sooner. But there where some circumstances going on that took priority. The thing is, our parts have a really large amount of features as we make complex polyester parts. The sheer amount of work features needed to solve this issue will make it near on impossible to understand for anyone to modify the part at a later stage.
It would be of great help if we could order work features into folders to keep the model browser more organized. But in a nutshell, this flipping dimensions is a core problem in the software.
