Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
section cuts in a drawing
- Thread starter morexyz
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
RoryBreaker
Automotive
There can be a few reasons for this.
1) Your solid is not updated.
2) Your solid is corrupt
3) Your model file is corrupt
4) Your solid tree is not flat enough
5) The section plane is very very very close to a an almost parallel (but not quite parallel) face.
Hope this helps.
RB
1) Your solid is not updated.
2) Your solid is corrupt
3) Your model file is corrupt
4) Your solid tree is not flat enough
5) The section plane is very very very close to a an almost parallel (but not quite parallel) face.
Hope this helps.
RB
hi,
Solid tree not flat enough ???
For V5 or even V4, I never agree with this comment.
But with the other one i do agree, we are having problem with section section/cut, most of the time we solve this pb with a nice clean of the file, or worst find the geometrical pb : if you've cut/past solid from v4, you should really check the geometry, v5 accuracy is better than V4. this means some stuff were good in v4 because under V4 accuracy, but when past in V5 this very small pb is over the accuracy of V5 this might cause some pb.
Eric N.
catiav5@softhome.net
Solid tree not flat enough ???
For V5 or even V4, I never agree with this comment.
But with the other one i do agree, we are having problem with section section/cut, most of the time we solve this pb with a nice clean of the file, or worst find the geometrical pb : if you've cut/past solid from v4, you should really check the geometry, v5 accuracy is better than V4. this means some stuff were good in v4 because under V4 accuracy, but when past in V5 this very small pb is over the accuracy of V5 this might cause some pb.
Eric N.
catiav5@softhome.net
RoryBreaker
Automotive
Hi
Re: Flat trees,
My expereince is in V4.
We had a part with over 1200 nodes in it, and was virtually vertical.
I spent 2 weeks re-ordering the tree (no deleted nodes- or replaced nodes) so it was 'flat'- and used all the original operations.
When I updated it the section cut worked fine, and was much quicker.
The reason we were doing this, was to prove to our supplier of the data, that his tree construction was slowing our work down.
Also, it was explained to me by our reseller, that the vertical tree, led to 'circular references'- I didn't follow the logic to be honest, but it involved nodes at the top of the tree being affected by nodes at the bottom of the tree during the update???!!!
RB
Re: Flat trees,
My expereince is in V4.
We had a part with over 1200 nodes in it, and was virtually vertical.
I spent 2 weeks re-ordering the tree (no deleted nodes- or replaced nodes) so it was 'flat'- and used all the original operations.
When I updated it the section cut worked fine, and was much quicker.
The reason we were doing this, was to prove to our supplier of the data, that his tree construction was slowing our work down.
Also, it was explained to me by our reseller, that the vertical tree, led to 'circular references'- I didn't follow the logic to be honest, but it involved nodes at the top of the tree being affected by nodes at the bottom of the tree during the update???!!!
RB
Hello,
RE: Flat Trees
I understand and the flat tree concept in V4 and our company practices this across the board. However, I am not so sure what a flat tree means in V5. We are begining to capture company standards and practices and the construction of the spec tree is a hot topic.
We are using the terms "linear" tree and "boolean" tree. I suspect that the boolean style tree would correlate best to V4 "flat" tree, whereas features are constructed with its parts and then added, removed, or intersected with the main body. Linear would correlate to a V4 vertical tree which is a pain to work with.
The question I have is: Is there a clear winner, or best practice, when building V5 spec tree? Linear or Boolean?
I maintain the boolean style construction is the best and easiest to work with. Especiallty when trying to decipher someone else's part.
Maybe this topic warrants its own trhead?
Thank in advance for any replies.
Scott
RE: Flat Trees
I understand and the flat tree concept in V4 and our company practices this across the board. However, I am not so sure what a flat tree means in V5. We are begining to capture company standards and practices and the construction of the spec tree is a hot topic.
We are using the terms "linear" tree and "boolean" tree. I suspect that the boolean style tree would correlate best to V4 "flat" tree, whereas features are constructed with its parts and then added, removed, or intersected with the main body. Linear would correlate to a V4 vertical tree which is a pain to work with.
The question I have is: Is there a clear winner, or best practice, when building V5 spec tree? Linear or Boolean?
I maintain the boolean style construction is the best and easiest to work with. Especiallty when trying to decipher someone else's part.
Maybe this topic warrants its own trhead?
Thank in advance for any replies.
Scott
Hi,
I do agree about updating time improvment when using a flat tree in V4, but as sccot357 said in thread560-71784, I'd rather have a tree I can work with (readable) and a solid I can easyly modify than a "pur flat tree".
As for V5, if you work with Boolean tree (nice name by the way), then when you update, CATIA will check if that Body needs a update, if not, catia will go to the next body. So it might save time if you don't have linked element between bodies ( need extra brain to remember all the link in a big solid hey !!). But again a boolean tree will be much more readable and I do think this is really important.
So if we split our BIG solid into bodies, then what should be the size of those ? I used to say for wireframe that when you don't see all features of a openbody in the tree because of the size of the tree (too long for the screen), then you should think about making more openbodies.
Speaking of the Boolean tree of a V5 solide I would say about the same thing: when the cannot see all features of a body/openbody in the screen, then you should consider sub-(open)bodies...
What you think about that ?
By the way I will start a new thread so dont reply me in that one PLZ
Eric N.
catiav5@softhome.net
I do agree about updating time improvment when using a flat tree in V4, but as sccot357 said in thread560-71784, I'd rather have a tree I can work with (readable) and a solid I can easyly modify than a "pur flat tree".
As for V5, if you work with Boolean tree (nice name by the way), then when you update, CATIA will check if that Body needs a update, if not, catia will go to the next body. So it might save time if you don't have linked element between bodies ( need extra brain to remember all the link in a big solid hey !!). But again a boolean tree will be much more readable and I do think this is really important.
So if we split our BIG solid into bodies, then what should be the size of those ? I used to say for wireframe that when you don't see all features of a openbody in the tree because of the size of the tree (too long for the screen), then you should think about making more openbodies.
Speaking of the Boolean tree of a V5 solide I would say about the same thing: when the cannot see all features of a body/openbody in the screen, then you should consider sub-(open)bodies...
What you think about that ?
By the way I will start a new thread so dont reply me in that one PLZ
Eric N.
catiav5@softhome.net
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question