Circle at a plane

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 1 of 19

 Circle at a plane
22-08-2006 03:15 . pm | View his/her posts only
I am new to VX, but have many years experience on other 3D CAD/CAM systems. I am finding that many simple tasks need more steps in VX than are required for the actual solution. I realize that as a sketch this is no problem, but as 3D geometry I see no solution "without creating additional geometry". In my attached file are a point and a curve in 3D space. I want to create a 1/2" radius circle using the point as the center and the curve as the normal of the plane on which the curve will reside.

Rank: 1

Steve

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-10-9

Message 2 of 19

22-08-2006 04:35 . pm | View his/her posts only
You don't have to create and extra geometry to do what you want to do...
I've attached a simple solution to your example adding only one operation. Sometimes, yes, you have to create "extra" geometry to accomplish a goal. But I honestly don't see it as *MUCH* different than any other mainstream mcad app. And the VX benefits outweigh the differences

The solution to your problem is simple.

go to the insert menu, wireframe=> Circle==> Radius, Center.

1st point: Choose anwhere along the line
2nd point: Choose anywhere else along the line.
Center: Choose your point.
Enter the radius value. And Voila'!!


Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 3 of 19

23-08-2006 06:30 . am | View his/her posts only
Hi bottlecad

To produce a circle (or several circles at the same time) where your line is normal to the plane of the circle, you do need to create a plane first, but no extra geometry is required. The attached flash movie shows how (double-click to run in Internet Explorer).

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 4 of 19

23-08-2006 08:43 . am | View his/her posts only
Chris,
Thanks for your input. My point with this example is that the user must create the actual plane rather than using a plane on the fly with geometry already available on the screen. Many of the geometry features would benefit from the ability to do so, along with less entities in the history tree. I can appreciate the extra benefits with VX. In ProE you are forced into these extra entities, but with Strim, Catia and Icem you just can just use the existing geometry. Of course the user can create the planes, it just isn't necessary. In this example I really see no necessity or value of creating the plane, although the ability to do so is appreciated. In Steve's solution the circle is planer, but needs to be rotated 90 degrees for the proper solution. Less steps is less errors.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 5 of 19

23-08-2006 10:17 . am | View his/her posts only
As an additional note. Accepting that the plane is necessary in VX. When creating a square or an ellipse the first input is Plane, no view orietation required. For the arc and circle that method is not available.

Rank: 1

Doc

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 6 of 19

23-08-2006 11:53 . am | View his/her posts only
Hi,
This is Doc. Part of the code I oversee is the 3D wireframe geometry. Could you send me a movie of your steps in Catia or Strim performing this operation? I tried playing in Catia this morning. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at it.
Thanks,
Doc

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 7 of 19

23-08-2006 02:07 . pm | View his/her posts only
Here is a WebEx showing how it is done in Catia. In the rectangle and ellipse creation, when asked for a plane an option would be to shift-click for point/vector or three points options to avoid the need to actually create the plane. Of course the on a plane option would need added to the list of arc and circle creation options.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 8 of 19

23-08-2006 02:20 . pm | View his/her posts only
Yes, I do like the on-the-fly functionality (you will find this in other VX commands). However, there is value in a plane being created and added to the history - you can easily modify the position and or orientation of the plane later should the need arise. Indeed, for maximum flexibility, on-the-fly definition of the plane when creating a Sketch would be good - since a Sketch is an object, VX treats it as such, so if you defined your circle in a Sketch and produced an extrude from it, then later needed to change from a circle to, say, a square, you can delete the circle from the Sketch, place a square and the subsequent extrude will still work. So, a little more in the history list can later prove to be more expedient.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 9 of 19

23-08-2006 02:46 . pm | View his/her posts only
Chris,
The biggest problem we have is just creating an arc or circle. It doesn't seem logical that the square and ellipse command are more user friendly with respect to using a plane. Without orienting the view to the created plane you can't just click and create an arc or circle, but you can with the square/ellipse. It would also be no more difficult to redefine the plane attached to the circle than an extra plane. We have 10 users on ProE that just hate the fact that everything they create requires a datum plane and stand in awe as I create on the fly. I can create the planes if I prefer, it just isn't a requirement.

Rank: 1

Doc

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 10 of 19

29-08-2006 01:25 . pm | View his/her posts only
Thanks so much for the movie. I showed it to an Application Engineer today. I don't know if I'm comfortable putting that many submenus together, but I get the idea and it's the Application Engineers call anyway. Revamping the 3D wireframe is scheduled, and I'll certainly take the movie with me when we discuss it.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 11 of 19

29-08-2006 03:43 . pm | View his/her posts only
I beleive it has more to do with less geometry and less mouse clicks. I think the planes are very valuable for sketches. You know where and at what orientation the sketch will be when the screen changes. But in the 3D world you should not be forced to enter more information than is required to create a three point arc, a circle on a plane, or anything else. While the software is sold for it's freedom of design, constrained or not, unfortunately it does a better job using only sketches. The real stength with VX is the hope for change to the software and I think the 3D world could use some improvement. I am a firm believer in less clicks less mistakes.

Rank: 1

Randy

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2006-5-18

Message 12 of 19

01-09-2006 05:30 . pm | View his/her posts only
While we're discussing 3D wireframe construction I'd like to ask if Local Coordinates in VX could be enhanced to work in a way similar to Unigraphic's Work Coordinate System (WCS) for working in the 3D environment? This would facilitate constructing wireframe on the XYplane of any "active" coordinate without having to orient to the view or create a sketch. Having the system recognize the local coordinate as the working coordinate for this and such things as rotating objects would be very convenient.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 13 of 19

01-09-2006 07:31 . pm | View his/her posts only
Hi Wassmer1

VX already respects the local axis of a User defined plane for rotating (and moving) objects, and you don't even have to switch to local coordinates to do it, just RMC and select the plane axis option. What I don't understand (and I speak from the position of having used most of the CAD out there, from the early times when 3D CAD actually became useful) is the "anti Sketch" theme to this thread. My message is, don't under estimate the value of using Sketches for even the most simple geometry. They are easier to modify (dramatically if necessary, see my other notes) and easier to manage in History. What do they cost you, compared to raw 3D wireframe? A couple of selection clicks, that's all. Their advantages heavily outweigh any disadvantage, especially if there is a ReadySketch that fits your requirement.

Rank: 1

Randy

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2006-5-18

Message 14 of 19

05-09-2006 04:05 . pm | View his/her posts only
No need to get defensive about the use of sketcher. I think we all would agree it's a very useful tool. But like it or not there are times when creating 3D geometry without having to use sketcher can be a big time saver. I like to think I have enough forethought to know whether or not a sketch will be useful in the long run. Having that option because the functionality is available is one of those things that set the big boys apart from the rest. You may disagree but I for one don't think there is any harm in adding more functionality to 3D wireframe construction.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 15 of 19

06-09-2006 04:32 . pm | View his/her posts only
Wassmer1,
I could not agree more with your statement.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 16 of 19

06-09-2006 06:04 . pm | View his/her posts only
Hello again Wassmer1 and bottlecad

It is important to make your case for new functionality. There is an endless number of things that we could add to VX, but there isn't an endless amount of development time to address every request. My point is that in most cases, it is the Sketcher that delivers the time savings and really it should be considered as being part of 3D wireframe construction. I think if there is to be extra effort invested in 3D wireframe, then the focus should be on non-planar curves rather than planar shapes that can already be easily created.

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 17 of 19

07-09-2006 09:08 . am | View his/her posts only
I agree with Chris in than non planar curves need more input. The critical thing is that regardless of sketch or not, there always needs to be rock solid associativity with the downstream operations. That is where I would like to see VX development go.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 18 of 19

07-09-2006 09:13 . am | View his/her posts only
Chris,
This really isn't new functionality. The functions are there, they just need improved. In VX it is easier to make a square or oval on a plane than a three point arc or circle, that is sad! Same as right click for a axis, why not be able to pick the X, Y or Z axis on the global coordinate system, or pick the center of a line for direction.

Rank: 1

John

Newbie

posts: 22

Registered: 2005-12-14

Message 19 of 19

07-09-2006 09:36 . am | View his/her posts only
3Dmonkey,
ProE has rock solid associativity, so solid that sometimes you can't escape. If you read my first thread it is about reducing the amount of information and mouse clicks to perform a simple task. Take a look at the number of things you need to do to trim a face by a point. Applying the K.I.S.S. principal to VX could actually reduce the number of menus, their depth and save all of us a lot of time.
See also