When simple sh^$ fails... makes you go... hmm? Then,.. WTF!?$

Doesn't look like it's specific to SP3. I opened it in 1.0, and 2.1 and in both cases it's off initially by .00034741 degrees. In all cases, removing and re-applying the reference solves it. I don't know what that means, just adding some more information.

Richard

Confirmed on SP3. You can also edit the 3D sketch a slightly drag any of the lines and it will correct itself (or use Move/Size Features).

Could it be a 3D sketch bug?

Mike Wilson

It's called the "We put the 'F-U' in FUN" plan. Doh!!!

Yeah, it makes sense that the 3Dsketch (parent) is only sharing old data with the axis (child)? Or the axis is not updating to recover the new parent data?

I've been running force rebuild for the past month or so and I still "have" to ctrl-q!? Amazing,.. simply and utterly amazing...

..

"Mike J. Wils>

I must be missing something....how about simply turning on the temporary axis of the surface body? That seems to show up and be available to swirl the circular pattern. The temporary axis should always be intact no matter how many rebuilds. Bernie

oh joy, defend-o-rama,...

i had no intent of looking/waiting to defend or flame what-so-ever. when my files fail or when something so basic fails, you're darn right I get annoyed and I get frustrated when the users feel that there is something they should have done correctly, as if it is their fault, when in fact the software is screwing up. from my point of view, the suggestion is a workaround and pointless because there was no intent of using the temporary axis. axis1 refers to the true parent centerline, not a child temporary axis. and, no, I did not make this up with some conspiracy doomsday intent to slam SW, it was a real part and that is how I use the tool. just because you do not know anyone who uses 3Dskethes or a axis in that way does not make it an incorrect way or does it have any less weight to why Axis1 fckedup.

..cat eye's.. you understood the jest of the sentence. maybe you should have more correctly stated,.. you did not understand the word used in the sentence? pointless, wasn't it!? sure, let's roll some more dice or spin that random wheel with our highly accurate relational feature based engineering tool...?

it's my information and my opinion,..shared as good or bad, positive or negative... take it or leave it.. turn your internet dial,.. it's your choice to read and hate to your hearts content on a free and public forum. hate, hate, hate, hate,.... hmm,.. I wonder,.. can you model hate?

here's a thought,.. contribute some luv to counter the hate you see and feel!?

..

Ok, all flaming aside. The reason I wrote in is that I get frustrated and annoyed with the "It should work like this because that's the way I want to do it" attitude. It seems to me like that's backward thinking. SW is a tool, like a hammer. And like a hammer it has it's intended uses. You can turn a hammer on it's side and pound in a nail but you're going to have trouble and it won't work very good.

In the subject you call this simple. It is a simple part that has been made 10 times more complicated than it needs to be from SW point of view. BTW, I didn't think you were conspiring at all, I just thought this was a simple example to show a problem you were having in a more complex part.

SW is good at featured based parametric modeling. The simpler, the better e.g. if you can make a part with a base-revolve and cut-extrude you'll be much better off than making the same part with a 3-D sketch, surface-revolve, surface-thicken, cut-extrude, axis, pattern, etc. In fact, I think SW #1 problem is they've gone away from just concentrating on what they're good at and leaving the extraneous stuff up to partners. With every release they add in more and more "enhancements" which seem to cause more and more problems. I personally would trade every 3-D sketch, curve driven pattern, and Cam Mate I've ever used to be working on a fully supported, completely stable version of SW 2001. But that's just me.

In short, should your part work the way you have it? Yes. But you also could have made it a lot easier on yourself using a simpler approach.

Not necessarily. It really should work that way. I agree that sometimes we may think there is a better way which SW can not do so we workaround the limitations with techniques which some may not be familiar with but that does not make those techniques incorrect. I usually try the shortest of fastest way or do something which gives me more flexibility. Otherwise, where is the "right" way to do things book for SW, especially using curves and surfaces? BTW, attitude is want makes things happen and generally it's a back by forward thinking individuals.

Joe, clearly, we do not agree with many things.

It's simple to me and it's something I've used in the past, at least 10 years. Please, show me how it is 10X more complicated,.. give me an example of my part which uses fewer steps!?

I don't agree, SW is going beyond a good feature based modeler. No doubt, simpler is good but to simple is not good.

Again, show me an example which is simpler than mine?

I agree the more they add, the more chances of stuff having problems or loss of focus concerns, or half-bakeware.

3DSketch has been around for quite a while as well as in other modeling tools for many years..so I don't see your side of this or with the other features, like Cam mate, which are useful as well. Unfortunately, curve driven patterns do not work very well.

We see things different, that's for sure.

Again, show me a faster way which is any more/less complicated?

-Paul

What SPR # did solidworks issue on this?

Yes we clearly are not going to agree on many things. Regardless, it's a good discussion so here's a couple more things:

----- I didn't say it shouldn't work that way. I said it's not the best way to do it.

----- I guess that all depends on what the attitude is.

----- How about a Base Revolve and a Cut Extrude? And if needed take care of the odd angle in the assembly.

----- All of this is true. I'm not saying these things aren't useful, I use Cam Mates all of the time. I'm saying that SW should spend less time trying to cram "enhancements" into their release and more time making what they have more streamlined and stable. I think that is one thing we could agree on.

----- Yes we do.

Joe

I don't work for them so I don't know.

..

cadishaq wrote:

"SHOW" an example of the "BEST" way?

Surely.

"SHOW" an example. A real sldprt/sldasm of your description.

It maybe a difference of using different 3D tools and 3D techniques?

So you never sent the problem in?

Hey, I know... since you have time and an interest, you can do it for SW Corp!!??

I'm sure SW Corp will "Respect" that!?

..

cadishaq wrote:

This is really getting painful but for some reason I just can't stop myself....

I don't really understand what you need to see. I'm just talking about a solid revolve for your base feature and a patterned cut for the four triangle sections on top. If you really want to see the actual part I guess I'll have to email it to you because I don't have a website to post it on.

Are you suggesting that you don't have time to send the issue in? Or that you don't think sending the issue in will result in a correction of the issue?

respect