Why if the X and Y coordinates of a circle center are 0 and 0, the origin is in another place ( red indicator)?
Maybe I have created another center of cordinates ( red origin). If that, how to check / edit it?
It might be hard to say anything without the file but close you sketch and then check again.
Here is the file.
I believe this is a correct behavior since this sketch or feature was made in assembly with relation to assembly's origin and hence the display is showing the assembly origin.
Whereas in the part you can see the correct/current X/Y/Z position's here :
Since you've already broke the references, you can drag the circle and then you should get the correct display.
Lets go to the assembly.
As you see, I've mate both origins, "general" and "eje". They are not aligned ( so you see 4 vectors), but the are coincident.
However, the origin of the sketch ( red one) is still somewhere else.
What I'm not understanding?
Where is defined the RED origin cordenates?
Could you upload this assembly file as well?
I'm not fully sure but this is to something with broken references and file has not updated correct. Was there any reason you broke them?
I aslo afraid there is related to reference.
Why I broke it? Re: Matting problems. Probably just a silly problem
I'm afraid I donk undestand properly how to manage the references.
Without including the other two part files for the assembly, it is very difficult to tell what is happening exactly. For this sketch, it looks like you have sketched on the face or plane of one of the other parts (but I cannot tell because those are not included). The origin of a sketch (the little red origin in the sketch) is determined by the face or plane that you sketch on and that does not necessarily relate to the origin of the assembly. It could relate to the origin of the part that contains the face or plane that you sketched on or it could relate to something else. Each sketch itself has it's own origin independent of the global part and/or assembly origin.
If you can include the other parts, I could perhaps give an exact explanation of where it is derived from.
I hope this helps,
Jim both part are same in the assembly. Download the part from post above and then when prompted, use that part (ignoring the internal ID issue if that would be OK to check).
Yes, I do have both the assembly and the part, but the second part is missing. My guess is that the part that was included was built on a face or plane of the part that is missing, so if Pablo can include that, we may be able to tell him more.
I'm afraid with the broken relations and how things are positioned in the assembly, it is really impossible to tell what you were attempting to do and therefore, how this assembly got into this situation. As I mentioned earlier, if you are sketching on faces or planes of other parts, the origin of the sketch will be relative to the definition of that plane or face in the other part. If you are trying to work with in-context relations like you are attempting to do here, you should be very careful about having your components either fixed or have mates on them that control their position relative to the assembly coordinate system. Otherwise, your parts can float around in the 3D assembly space which can very easily result in the origin of the parts moving away from the assembly origin and the sketch and solid geometry therefore being defined very far from the origin. I am guessing this may be what happened in this case, but again, it is impossible to tell with the broken references.
Thank you to all. I was trying to understand this problem to avoid it happens to me in a more complex project, but I don't want to loose more time with this.
Retrieving data ...