I've been trying for hours to fully define the 3DSketch1 feature in this part and cannot seem to do it. What am I missing?!
Any help would be much appreciated.
I've been trying for hours to fully define the 3DSketch1 feature in this part and cannot seem to do it. What am I missing?!
Any help would be much appreciated.
Hello Tyler,
it seems its fully defined, you can compare the sketch relations on the top hole.
may i ask why did you choose this technic to model the part?
it could be probably done in a easier way..
Thanks! I still don't understand why mine wasn't fully defined but oh well...
I'm experimenting with this modeling technique and so far I think it's promising. It seems more laborious to create a new part but if you're comfortable sketching in 3D I think it's just as easy (at least it should be, but the 3D sketch function seems to have a few bugs), and it has lots of advantages in later stages. I have found it much easier to edit parts drawn this way without breaking references within the part or in assemblies, and when references do inevitably get broken I know exactly how to re-establish them and can do so in seconds. A part's drawing is 90% done since I have full control over which plane a dimension is parallel to (I often want dims to be perpendicular to the plane the sketch entities are drawn on) and where the extension lines are attached, so I can import dimensions and have them actually show up where I want them. I also just find it easier to design with all the critical geometry defined in a single 3DSketch feature and the meat of the part referencing that. I haven't been working this way for very long so I might find a dealbreaker soon, but for now it's working for me.
Hi Tyler Nichol, is there any reason why you chose to use a 3D sketch versus 2 standard sketches?
3D sketches can be more troublesome, and also add extra time to re-build which for a fastener could be a problem later on in large assemblies. see below.
2 sketches residing at the top of the tree is going to be IMO better to manage.
Just for reference, check below the performance evaluation on a toolbox part. 0.03sec versus 0.67secs, plus less features.
The performance aspect is compelling.
The reason I used a 3DSketch is because I often want to have sketch entities driven by other sketch entities on a perpendicular or skewed plane, but also want to control where dimensions are placed and extension lines attached. In the screenshots below, with a 2D sketch I wouldn't be able to attach the hex depth dimension ext line to the edge of the hex without defining the hex width dimension on the front plane annotation view.
The point of all this is to be able to import sketch dimensions into a drawing and not have to manually adjust extension lines or try to move dimensions into different views. Not exactly critical stuff but I sure would be nice. But I don't really think it's worth the extra compute time so I may have to keep experimenting... I guess to do it with 2D sketches I could define the hex width in both the front plane and top plane annotation views and link them, then only mark the dimension on the top plane to import into the drawing. That way I still have a driving dimension shown in the preferred drawing view. I'll try that out and see how I like it.
Thanks!
Ok thanks Tyler, can see why you've approached it that way, but like you said is it worth the extra compute/design time.
Also something to keep in mind is the design intent for the part, i.e. how it mates to other parts/assemblies, orientation, use, etc.
Hello Tyler,
it seems its fully defined, you can compare the sketch relations on the top hole.
may i ask why did you choose this technic to model the part?
it could be probably done in a easier way..