daveykbelgium
Mechanical
- Mar 12, 2005
- 73
I have made an assembly of a rack and pinion. I have added a servo to the pinion, and can also drag the rack. I can run my analysis okay – all appears to be okay up until……
…..when I return to standard Pro/ENGINEER, I want the assembly to return to a controlled position – this would be done by using the regeneration command.
My question is how should I place the rack part into my assembly to be able to use a joint-axis setting that can control the regeneration position? The pinion isn’t an issue, as this uses a pin connection, and this worked until I tried to add a joint-axis setting for the rack.
I don’t think that I can use a slider connection for the rack, as the only joint axis settings here are for rotation, and this doesn’t apply. Presently I use two planar connections.
I think that Pro/MECHANISM is a very good product in concept, but I have really struggled with issues related to “controlled position” in the past too – am I the only person struggling with this, or is this functionality not required by other designers? Any rotational constraints are easy to make, but axial ones seem to be a real pain and a lot of trial and error.
PTC advised me not to use Pro/MECHANISM within top-down design methodologies too when I contacted them with regard to a similar problem – this was despite an article on their website last year giving details to the contrary. Strangely enough, the article is no longer available!
Thanks in advance
Dave
…..when I return to standard Pro/ENGINEER, I want the assembly to return to a controlled position – this would be done by using the regeneration command.
My question is how should I place the rack part into my assembly to be able to use a joint-axis setting that can control the regeneration position? The pinion isn’t an issue, as this uses a pin connection, and this worked until I tried to add a joint-axis setting for the rack.
I don’t think that I can use a slider connection for the rack, as the only joint axis settings here are for rotation, and this doesn’t apply. Presently I use two planar connections.
I think that Pro/MECHANISM is a very good product in concept, but I have really struggled with issues related to “controlled position” in the past too – am I the only person struggling with this, or is this functionality not required by other designers? Any rotational constraints are easy to make, but axial ones seem to be a real pain and a lot of trial and error.
PTC advised me not to use Pro/MECHANISM within top-down design methodologies too when I contacted them with regard to a similar problem – this was despite an article on their website last year giving details to the contrary. Strangely enough, the article is no longer available!
Thanks in advance
Dave