[PIC] Help with windows, slanted sides/top

[kappy]

Please see my attached image.

I'm creating a parametric window for my firm, and as you see I would like the option to make the sides/top slanted.

The problem I've now come to a halt on, is that my co-worker would like to be able to have different angles on the sides/top.

Right now I've made a void sweep, which follows the red line.

I'm able to have the same angle at sides/top, but not different, which is what my co-worker wants.

Do anyone know what way I should build my model to be able to achieve something like that?

Best outcome: I can change both the side angle and the top angle, and the meeting in the corner works.
Second best: I change the angle for side/top together, but I'm also able to have the top straight while having my sides slanted.

In worst case I'l make two models, one with sides/top slanted, one with sides slanted & top straight.

[patricks]

Instead of a void sweep, use a void blend. Control the base and top sketches of the blend with different dimension parameters out past your window frame. Then set up those dimensions with an inverse tangent formula so that you can control the dimensions via angle parameter inputs. You'll also need some parameter for the inset depth of the window into the wall to make the inverse tangent formula work.

[patricks]

Here's a quick version you can deconstruct.

[kappy]

Is it possible for you to resave that file in 2011? I'm sorry for my late answer.

[rosskirby]

Wow, an "inverse tangent formula", that sounds pretty intense.

I'd take a little simpler approach. Create a new profile family, with parameters as required (including the angle), create several different types based on the angle differences, then load it into your window family.

Instead of a void sweep around the opening, do two separate extrusions for the frame: one for the jambs, and one for the head/sill. For the profile of each of these extrusions, select the appropriate profile, and set it as a parameter (i.e. Profile-Jamb and Profile-Head_Sill). That way in the project environment, you can have several different window types, and for each, you can select the profile you want to use for the jambs/head/sill. Just make sure that in the window family, you have the frame set to the same material for both extrusions, and then join the geometry.

It may seem more complex, but it's a lot less math. Oh, and an added benefit of using a profile is that you can associate a detail component for each profile, so that you don't have to draw it when you do your wall sections and details.

[patricks]

I'm not sure a profile will do it, since the OP needs a void that cuts the host wall at a particular angle, and that angle needs to be different on the sides vs. the top. Even if you did use a profile, you'll still have to do some trig-based formulas to control the height extensions of the sides to make them align with the upper edge of the top, and vice versa for the top aligning with the edge of the sides. That's why I said a void blend would be easier - it's a single element that can control the cut angle of both the sides and the top.

And actually the formula is a regular tangent formula, not inverse tangent. We use inverse tangent formulas all the time to take a roof pitch input (inches rise per foot of run) to convert that to an angle parameter to use in a family. In this case we're taking an angle parameter and converting it to a depth and width of the void cut beyond the extents of the window frame.

The family looks like this (did it quick and couldn't think of better names):

SlantAngleTop and SlantAngleSides parameters, which are the angle input parameters the OP needs. Then there is:

SlantWidthTop (distance) = SlantDepth / tan(SlantAngleTop) which takes the depth of the void cut and divides it by the input angle for the top of the window, and outputs the required distance beyond the extent of the window frame.

Same thing for SlantWidthSides = SlantDepth / tan(SlantAngleSides).

I did run into an issue where it calculated the formulas but then said it couldn't figure a solution or some such thing. I changed the operator from / to + and it took, then changed it back to / and it still worked. Weird.