Is this a bug? I can't change 303,8 dimenison in 3D sketch. Arc is mated through x and y coordinate.
Yep, definitely a bug. You should report to your var. Just like this. No need to attach a file or anything. For sure.
I tried to reproduce your issue locally. I was able to edit the dimension.
It works for me
Could you post the file?
I said change, not edit.
what do you meant by change then? change to what/how?
Change to different dimension.
By editing the value you change the dimension.
as in from ARC length dim to ie. horizontal dim? don't think you could ever do this.
just delete this one and put one u want.
You can if the arc is floating... or mated to an edge of the arc.
Damir Galic wrote: You can if the arc is floating... or mated to an edge of the arc.
Damir Galic wrote:
Please use more words to explain what you are trying to do.
I want to change arc length when mated as it is.
Damir Galic wrote: I want to change arc length when mated as it is.
As Ditmars Veinbachs said above, you should be able to edit your arc length, but without the file it's not possible to be more help. Can you post it here please? Instructions are at How can I attach a file to a forum post? if you aren't familiar with the process.
If, by this point in the thread, you've not managed to understand the need to post your file, there is no hope that you would understand an explanation, were one created.
guys he did post file, check up 3rd post from start.
Wojciech Paterski wrote: guys he did post file, check up 3rd post from start.
Wojciech Paterski wrote:
Dang. That's what I get for reading the inbox view. I apologize for the aspersion cast.
While it should technically be a valid relation scheme, I imagine solving it using whatever algorithms SW has puts it in some kind of iterative-solve or feedback loop.
There are better relation schemes to define the desired outcome.
Simply changing your "alongY" relation to reference the arc centerpoint vs. the midpoint of the arc fixes it.
Or, since you have already defined your endpoints as being alongX, a simple construction line from endpoint to endpoint, with its midpoint coincident with the origin, also works. The presence of the construction line also helps visually communicate the design intent.
So... Is it a bug? Maybe. Non-programmers usually have a much broader definition of a bug ("it doesn't do what I think it should") than programmers do ("it doesn't do what I told it to do"). In this case, the algorithm failed to achieve the desired result, exited gracefully, and informed the user, rather than crashing or doing something wacky/unexpected. I'd put it in the "limitation" category rather than "bug". However, I'd be interested to see a situation in which the design intent can't be just as well (or better) executed with a slight change to the relation scheme. Unless you can show how it's needed, even if they classify it as a bug it's going to get the lowest severity rating they have.
Retrieving data ...