| Author |
Message |
dakeb
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject:
pattern table dimensions |
|
|
Is there any way I can change a pattern table so the dimensions come from a
different face? Please don't sayt have to delete it, and all the ref
patterns, and start again!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
David Janes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject:
Re: pattern table dimensions |
|
|
: "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: Is there any way I can change a pattern table so the dimensions come from a
: different face? Please don't sayt have to delete it, and all the ref
: patterns, and start again!
:
A 'different' face! How different? A parallel face would still use the same datum
references for pattern locations and just switch the starting face of the lead
pattern reference. I don't think the table would be involved or would care, if you
could get the lead element rerouted. But rerouting the start surface AND two datum
references could be an awful lot trickier, possibly causing funny relationships
with red/yellow (positive/negative) sides of datums which means your numbers could
get flipped off the part. Sounds like it could get hairy enough that you'd end up
wishing you'd started from scratch. But maybe rerouting the first feature of the
reference pattern will work okay, always hard to predict with Proe.
David Janes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dakeb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:48 pm Post subject:
Re: pattern table dimensions |
|
|
"David Janes" <djanes@cox.net.invallud> wrote in message
news:slokd.98550$cJ3.29362@fed1read06...
| Quote: | : "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: Is there any way I can change a pattern table so the dimensions come
from a
: different face? Please don't sayt have to delete it, and all the ref
: patterns, and start again!
:
A 'different' face! How different? A parallel face would still use the
same datum
references for pattern locations and just switch the starting face of the
lead
pattern reference. I don't think the table would be involved or would
care, if you
could get the lead element rerouted. But rerouting the start surface AND
two datum
references could be an awful lot trickier, possibly causing funny
relationships
with red/yellow (positive/negative) sides of datums which means your
numbers could
get flipped off the part. Sounds like it could get hairy enough that you'd
end up
wishing you'd started from scratch. But maybe rerouting the first feature
of the
reference pattern will work okay, always hard to predict with Proe.
|
I want to dimension from the lhs instead of the rhs, whilst keeping the
bottom face and placement plane as is. Basically I'm asking proe to
recalculate the dimensions in the pattern table to the values they would be
if taken from the lhs, and then reference the first feature from the lhs.
I tried reroutiong the first feature to the lhs, and this worked, but then
my pattern kept the correct orientation and appeared outside the model to
the lhs. So I changed the dimension of the lead feature to negative. This
placed the pattern inside the model, but mirrored it, not an effect I want
as the pattern is assymetrical.
I don't think it can be done.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Janes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:30 am Post subject:
Re: pattern table dimensions |
|
|
: "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: > "David Janes" <djanes@cox.net.invallud> wrote
: > : "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: > : Is there any way I can change a pattern table so the dimensions come
: from a
: > : different face? Please don't sayt have to delete it, and all the ref
: > : patterns, and start again!
: > :
: > A 'different' face! How different? A parallel face would still use the
: same datum
: > references for pattern locations and just switch the starting face of the
: lead
: > pattern reference. I don't think the table would be involved or would
: care, if you
: > could get the lead element rerouted. But rerouting the start surface AND
: two datum
: > references could be an awful lot trickier, possibly causing funny
: relationships
: > with red/yellow (positive/negative) sides of datums which means your
: numbers could
: > get flipped off the part. Sounds like it could get hairy enough that you'd
: end up
: > wishing you'd started from scratch. But maybe rerouting the first feature
: of the
: > reference pattern will work okay, always hard to predict with Proe.
: >
:
: I want to dimension from the lhs instead of the rhs, whilst keeping the
: bottom face and placement plane as is. Basically I'm asking proe to
: recalculate the dimensions in the pattern table to the values they would be
: if taken from the lhs, and then reference the first feature from the lhs.
:
Well, yes and no. On a ten cm block, your eight holes measured from the left
reference are Cartesian plus for the first feature and plus for the pattern
increment. From the right, assuming plus/minus (red/yellow) sides of datum are the
same, your positive numbers just moved to the right of the datum (or off the
part). Maybe if you just redefined the new datum on the right of the part so that
positive pointed into the part instead of away from it, you wouldn't have to
positive numbers negative.
The problem then becomes that the feature at 1cm now becomes 9cm. So, to pattern
in a rightward direction with the reference to the right, the pattern increment
needs to be negative so that incrementing moves rightward or lower, from 9 down to
1. There will be no mirroring in that case. Don't know if the table can be made to
reflect this, but, if this were a linear pattern, the above would accomplish what
you want (and possibly make its way into a table).
David Janes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dakeb
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:40 pm Post subject:
Re: pattern table dimensions |
|
|
"David Janes" <djanes@cox.net.invorrid> wrote in message
news:DnAkd.98755$cJ3.24651@fed1read06...
| Quote: | : "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: > "David Janes" <djanes@cox.net.invallud> wrote
: > : "dakeb" <david.bower@uk.thalesssssssspamgroup.com> wrote
: > : Is there any way I can change a pattern table so the dimensions come
: from a
: > : different face? Please don't sayt have to delete it, and all the ref
: > : patterns, and start again!
: > :
: > A 'different' face! How different? A parallel face would still use the
: same datum
: > references for pattern locations and just switch the starting face of
the
: lead
: > pattern reference. I don't think the table would be involved or would
: care, if you
: > could get the lead element rerouted. But rerouting the start surface
AND
: two datum
: > references could be an awful lot trickier, possibly causing funny
: relationships
: > with red/yellow (positive/negative) sides of datums which means your
: numbers could
: > get flipped off the part. Sounds like it could get hairy enough that
you'd
: end up
: > wishing you'd started from scratch. But maybe rerouting the first
feature
: of the
: > reference pattern will work okay, always hard to predict with Proe.
:
:
: I want to dimension from the lhs instead of the rhs, whilst keeping the
: bottom face and placement plane as is. Basically I'm asking proe to
: recalculate the dimensions in the pattern table to the values they would
be
: if taken from the lhs, and then reference the first feature from the
lhs.
:
Well, yes and no. On a ten cm block, your eight holes measured from the
left
reference are Cartesian plus for the first feature and plus for the
pattern
increment. From the right, assuming plus/minus (red/yellow) sides of datum
are the
same, your positive numbers just moved to the right of the datum (or off
the
part). Maybe if you just redefined the new datum on the right of the part
so that
positive pointed into the part instead of away from it, you wouldn't have
to
positive numbers negative.
The problem then becomes that the feature at 1cm now becomes 9cm. So, to
pattern
in a rightward direction with the reference to the right, the pattern
increment
needs to be negative so that incrementing moves rightward or lower, from 9
down to
1. There will be no mirroring in that case. Don't know if the table can be
made to
reflect this, but, if this were a linear pattern, the above would
accomplish what
you want (and possibly make its way into a table).
David Janes
|
The first feature is an axis referencing a placement plane and two edges. A
Proe limitation of axis redefinition means I cannot redefine the first
feature to reference two planes instead of two edges. This means I don't
have red and yellow sides of the reference planes. So I guess I'm snookered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in