La sugerencia automática le ayuda a obtener, de forma rápida, resultados precisos de su búsqueda al sugerirle posibles coincidencias mientras escribe.
Mostrando los resultados de
Mostrar solo
|
Buscar en lugar de
Quiere decir:
Esta página se tradujo para tu conveniencia mediante un servicio de traducción automática. No es una traducción oficial, y puede contener errores o traducciones imprecisas. Autodesk no garantiza, ni expresa ni implícitamente, la precisión, la confiabilidad ni la exhaustividad de la información traducida por el servicio de traducción automática y no será responsable por los daños o las pérdidas que se produzcan como consecuencia de la confianza depositada en dicho servicio.Traducir
Is it possible to add this behavior to the round elbows? We have the ability with a rectangular elbow like CID1. This functionality also worked in CADmep. Most sheet metal shops will build these items this way to minimize shop and field labor.
@cpoompan - With rectangular elbows as per your example, these are flanged, and mate together. With round elbows.. once stretched together, what would you expect to happen? The insertion of a coupling? Or adjusting one of the fittings in some way to allow for M-F connection? If the later, how should it be determined which end is M and which end is F?
@Martin__Schmid CADmep brought up a mismatch dialogue where you could set it. Although, ideally in most cases, the elbow should be set to male where the next item has a female connection. However, there are situations such as a dust collector or non-welded system with moisture that you would want to see the m-f follow airflow.
Well most cases but not necessarily. Say you had a stub of pipe between two elbows (el. 1 - Crimp, Pipe - raw/raw and el. 2.- crimp), once you stretch the end to eliminate the pipe I would need the end of one of the elbows to go to a raw connection to maintain connectivity else I would have back to back crimps.
Makes sense. I guess I've never tried to eliminate "all" pipe...just a short so didn't think you could do that.
Seems as though this could use the "connector matching" that was added to help facilitate dropping a grooved coupling on a buttweld system. A connector essentially is configured to indicate it's "mating" connector. In this case, if the part you were stretching to would have it's connector match configured and that would be applied. May still be some holes in cases where there's multiple possibilities to "match". The question then is...do you change the connector of what you're stretching or the one you're stretching to in a fitting to fitting case. None the less, seems like it could help reduce the number of cases where you're having to manually touch it.
Same as you not trying to eliminate all pipe just stubs. I think with the connector matching feature it will only modify the connection of the pipe not the fitting. I had posted this as a suggestion a while back. Since in most cases the pipe is stock or cut in the field its a lot easier to apply a crimp in the shop then the field so we would want to change the end treatment of the elbow or fitting in almost all cases.
You are also right sometimes there's a few options for matching. So it would probably best if the mismatch dialogue came up and then even better filtered to only the mating connectors available.