Code: Select all
Code: Select all
I believe you should rather download abdullah's own file from the bug report, as he wrote.
What puzzles me, is how can P09_GebläseauslassSketch001 show three different colours?
What exactly do you mean? I changed the sweep path's width from 32mm to 42mm (Constraint13) and the AdditiveSweep did not fail. But, the sweep profile is not linked to the sweep path, and does not move when the path is changed; so it's to be expected that the sweep shape does not change.
For me, the PDN Sweep works pretty reliably. As for usability, it's another matter. Improving its UI would be most beneficial.
That would be great and I can imagine that a warning might not be too complicated.
Thanks. I had to leave in a rush and I did not even check the post after posting.
Funny enough now it works (I have updated from the PPA in the meanwhile totally unrelated to this).NormandC wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:11 pmWhat exactly do you mean? I changed the sweep path's width from 32mm to 42mm (Constraint13) and the AdditiveSweep did not fail. But, the sweep profile is not linked to the sweep path, and does not move when the path is changed; so it's to be expected that the sweep shape does not change.
I guess I was too focus on the shell/solid issue... but it is always good to have some reminder on how it shall be doneNormandC wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:11 pmIn fact, P09_GebläseauslassKonturV2Sketch is not attached to anything in the Body, as shown in the dependency graph. IMO, the proper method of constructing the two sketches is to
Create the path sketch first, attach it to the Body's XY plane
Create a datum plane normal to the path sketch
Map the section sketch to the datum plane to ensure it follows any edits to the path.
The original beef (original sketch) was in that changing the length to different values, at the time, resulted in sometimes a solid, sometimes a shell. The tangency between the ellipse arc and the line was not actually tangent. As for my reconstruction, he tangent is just ok. I had no longer reproducible problems as explained above.
Good to know. Yesterday I somehow panicked that a very unstable Sweep would make its way to 0.17 release. As
Yep. I could not understand the "profile" part in FC, I just did trial and error and ended up concluding it was path what was intended. This is easy to change. I'll do.NormandC wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:11 pmAs for usability, it's another matter. Improving its UI would be most beneficial.
A couple of problems I've seen:
The Sweep parameters labels the section to add path segments as "Profile". IMO it is utterly confusing, because users expect "Profile" to identify the sweep sections to be used, not the path.
Once the first sweep profile is selected, it is not displayed in the Pipe parameters; even changing the Transformation Mode to Multisection, it is not shown in the list. So it is impossible to change it to another sketch.
Yes, this is another pain. Selection in PDN is quite a nightmare, also for filleting.chrisb wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:47 pmAs far as usability is concerned: the selection and even more so the deselection could be improved; e.g. the Path Workbench shows how.
Select: allow multi select using ctrl-key
Deselect: Allow selection of the items listed in the panel. When a sweep has to be repaired due to changes in previous steps it often is hard to find the right element in the 3D view, as they most often are hiding in the smallest segment available on the whole object.
I think so. Lately I have implemented transparent removal of constraints in the interface between the sketcher and the solver for the "Block constraint". replacement should be rather straightforward. I will wait for Werner to merge the "Block constraint", otherwise I will have lots of merge conflicts.NormandC wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:33 pmSo maybe something could be done about that in the Sketcher, but I don't know what, and how complicated it would be.
Make the solver detect these conflicts and warn the user about it?
Make the solver detect these conflicts and transparently replace the dual constraint with the proper point-on-point tangent constraint?
chrisb wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:06 pmActually the situation is even worse when using the ValidateSketch tool. It reports false positives on these tangential joins, and if the auto repair is used sketcher reports redundant constraints - if you are lucky.
So a look at the validation tool would be great as well and it would already be of some help if the tool reported the other way round, without the need of changing the sketcher.