So I ran the code and the code works fine. Ignore the sketch in the image below, but I have 4 entities in there. "Main Body" and then a "Main Body Extract" which is obviously an extract of the "Main Body"
Then I have a "Mirrored Parent" with a "Mirrored Body Extract".
When your code gets to...
My selection process is below. so when I click on the exported geometry in the tree and run this, it will store it in the "Items" Array as a Nxopen.Features.Feature. Then get the tag of the selected extracted geometry using cv.tag and then that is passed to the code i have above.
The funny...
Below is the relevant portion of my code. I have another sub within this module that opens up a selection box where I click on the extracted body in the tree. It then gets the tag of that extracted body and passes it to the code below as "Feature Tag". Then there is a .getparents to get the...
Hi Everybody
Looking for some help with an NXOPEN problem that I cant seem to get around.
The problem: I have bunch of mirrored entities in my part created using the "Mirror Geometry" command. All of these "Mirrored Geometry" entities have custom names assigned to them in the NX tree. From...
Hi everybody
I am relatively new with NXOPEN and am having some trouble particularly with NX bodies. Hoping somebody can help me
I made a code that allows the user to select a bunch of points, curves, and bodies on the screen and the information window will export the object name, feature...
We are using the 2009 standard FYI. Just looked up the 2018 standard and they clarified that it is for planar surfaces only in paragraph 9.4. Bummer.
I'll just reverse the scheme and call it a day
Yeah I read that thread a little. The example there is a little different as I think the part is a 360 degree toroidal shape that is one constant surface (albeit curved). In the 2009 standard I don't see anything that specifically disallows the T modifier on a curved surface like that (Paragraph...
Hi All
I have a tooling application that is a plate with 3 spherically tipped pins inserted into a plate at a basic height shown below. The component that will sit on top of it will be sensitive to any tip/tilt caused by varying heights of the 3 pins it sits on, BUT not sensitive from the...
PMARC sorry that we are crossing texts. Yeah I would have a large profile all around to all of the datums to loosely already control the form location and size of the triangle to keep it from "running away". Then at the tangents the triangle would be further refined via the UAME size and...
Good question. Its the 2009 standard unfortunately, so the dynamic modifier was out.
The UAME size would be a tighter requirement than the profile. To me that makes the most sense as the general profile will keep things very loose for MOST of the triangle (that we care less about), but the...
PMARC
Yeah I would put a loose all around profile to keep the triangle form somewhat defined from "running away". But I was thinking of still keeping the UAME size as-is to be more direct (unless that's an issue). That is more personal preference as its more direct to the geometry and function...
I thought about that a little but and it is still a similar problem I think. I would ultimately be profiling the entire surface of the triangle back to the cylinder (datum target cylinder). If I were to profile the periphery of the profile tight, that would keep a tighter positional control back...
Hi everybody. Long time lurker on these forums, but I think first time posting here. ASME Y14.5-2009 Senior.
Have an interesting application for a part assembly fit that we are working on the tolerancing for. To break it down in a very simplistic state, the mechanics would be similar to a...
