i am confuse about this.
One of your sketches is not fully defined.
You have used dimensions that were not given - on a school problem (which I judge this to be), I tell my students to use only the given dimensions as they are assumed to be driving dimensions that will be inspected.
It is my opinion that all necessary dimensions are given - if one assumption is made - parallel line as making part on milling machine as making the cuts in a logical order of machining operations.
There appears to be a missing dimension to define the end of the upper cut.
attached is one way to do this
I agree, there are missing dimensions and/or angles that I believe would keep you from modeling this part. Go back to the customer and ask some questions.
I stepped thru you part. What confuses me is on sketch 3, one of the end point relations is a pierce. How did you create it, what is it peircing?
the pierce relation tells the point to be at the spot on the sketch plane where the other selected entity "pierces" the sketch plane.
and it is created just like any other relation, select the two items (point and line) and select from the available options.
So I delete the pierce relation, then try to attach the end point to "what". I have tried the plane, face, top and bottom edges, without success.
Without the pierce, I can move the end point most anywhere. Just trying to replicate your thought process.
the relation was to a line in an earlier sketch - you will have to "show" the other sketch to be able to select the line.
I am beginning to think that it is Monday.
Ok, which line and why?
this line in sketch2. the line in sketch 3 is used to set the direction of cut-extrude1, and connects the sketch on the opposite faces of the block that define edges of the angled cut (sketch2 and sketch 5).
I understand now. Thanks for your patience.
I took a little different approach.
My solution is slightly different than the previously posted example - so examine it carefully and make sure I did not make a mistake.
agree..that dimension is missing
Thank you very much
If you can't see it in 3D,...try to use the 2D sketch tools (top/front/side) views to begin the process of building the orthographic shape... and also try out the 3DSketch tools as well?
I had (yet) another way of solving it, still finding that we're lacking a couple dimensions to create the part accurately, in my case the angle for the top section and the length of the cut along the top.
will you please send me your model file so that i can compare with my model
The illustration is not correctly drawn because the 36 dimension is out of scale. Also, the middle edge at the back is not shown parallel with the outside edges as others have modeled. Here is yet another way to model it with given dimensions.
Change the dimension from 36 to 32 in the file I posted and it looks exactly like the illustration in isometric view.
Dimensions always take precedence.
Retrieving data ...