jguest82179
2005-08-16, 02:56 AM
Has anyone else encountered the problem of not being able to enter an angular constraint successfully?
The example that I have is when manually creating pipework (i.e. not using piping module) and trying to constrain an assembly which is made up of a two flanges and two elbows, one of each of these at each end of a straight pipe.
Whilst trying to enter an angular constraint to define the rotation of one flange with reference to the other, we discovered that Inventor makes no distinction between direction of rotation.
E.g. If you enter an angle of 16.91 degrees it will put the flanges at 16.91 degrees from each other; if you then add another 90 degrees to that making 106.91 degrees it will continue to rotate the flange in the same direction as the initial movement; if you then add a further 90 degrees making a total of 196.91 degrees Inventor will then rotate the flange a further 33.82 degrees. HUH?!? :banghead:
A little mathematics will tell you that this new point is actually at the correct angular displacement - IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! :banghead:
It would appear that Inventor is being lazy here and only rotating the flange as little as possible to achieve the correct mathematical result, with complete disregard for consistency between operations or the sanity of the operator trying to perform such operations.
Am I the only person who has encountered this issue? Is it a deliberate attempt by Autodesk to break the old habits of those of us who have been using AutoCAD for many years and have grown used to working with such conventions as counter-clockwise positive angular rotation? Or is it simply something that the development peoples at Autodesk managed to miss altogether?
BTW, this is not an isolated incident. It frequently happens in a slightly different incarnation whilst using an angular constraint to perform a similar function to an offset mate in an assembly. In this instance an angular constraint of zero degrees may well apply easily enough, but it will completely flip the part that you have just applied the constraint to through 180 degrees or thereabouts. Usually pretty obvious what the problem is here, but a pain in the hindquarters nonetheless.
The example that I have is when manually creating pipework (i.e. not using piping module) and trying to constrain an assembly which is made up of a two flanges and two elbows, one of each of these at each end of a straight pipe.
Whilst trying to enter an angular constraint to define the rotation of one flange with reference to the other, we discovered that Inventor makes no distinction between direction of rotation.
E.g. If you enter an angle of 16.91 degrees it will put the flanges at 16.91 degrees from each other; if you then add another 90 degrees to that making 106.91 degrees it will continue to rotate the flange in the same direction as the initial movement; if you then add a further 90 degrees making a total of 196.91 degrees Inventor will then rotate the flange a further 33.82 degrees. HUH?!? :banghead:
A little mathematics will tell you that this new point is actually at the correct angular displacement - IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! :banghead:
It would appear that Inventor is being lazy here and only rotating the flange as little as possible to achieve the correct mathematical result, with complete disregard for consistency between operations or the sanity of the operator trying to perform such operations.
Am I the only person who has encountered this issue? Is it a deliberate attempt by Autodesk to break the old habits of those of us who have been using AutoCAD for many years and have grown used to working with such conventions as counter-clockwise positive angular rotation? Or is it simply something that the development peoples at Autodesk managed to miss altogether?
BTW, this is not an isolated incident. It frequently happens in a slightly different incarnation whilst using an angular constraint to perform a similar function to an offset mate in an assembly. In this instance an angular constraint of zero degrees may well apply easily enough, but it will completely flip the part that you have just applied the constraint to through 180 degrees or thereabouts. Usually pretty obvious what the problem is here, but a pain in the hindquarters nonetheless.