Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
What you are referring to is the infamous 2 projection
curve. Never use it.
Do this instead. Extrude a surface from a plane as you normally.
Then Extrude another surface from an adjacent plane. Where they
meet creates an intersection. This is much easier to visualize and allows
a trail for others to follow.
You can also use design-engine's method of creating intersecting
surfaces, then select both surfaces and "Edit -> Intersect."
You'll get a curve at the intersection.
I didn't realize that the projected curve was a bad thing, so this
method might be bad, too. Design-Engine, can you comment?
I agree with Design-Engine. It is much easier to identify the two created surfaces than it is to figure out the 2 sketches used to make the intersected datum curve. If you do not like the surfaces, put them on a layer and blank them. Either way gets you the same result. Using the surfaces, makes it easier for a future user to identify how the feature was created.
I don't see any problem either way. Coming from a system that didn't have the intersect curve function I'm kinda tickled it's there; saves a lot of steps.
so is it better to create 2 intersecting surfaces then merge them and
use the merge edge as, say, a sweep trajectory, or is it better to
create the 2 surfaces then intersect them and use the resulting curve
feature as, say, a sweep trajectory?
Does anybody know if it is possible to use the edit intersect command with a curve created in ISDX and a normal sketch? or if there is another way to do it?
The isdx and sketch do not intersect. I would imagine an extruded surface and an intersect at that point would work.
As far as my .02...I never extrude two surfaces to get an intersection, instead opting for the 2 curve approach. I can't stand trying to layer every little thing off...it's too time consuming and I can't think of that many unique layer names. Surfs that are close to one another or are very close in intent are way too hard to differentiate in my opinion. Dealing with all the extra unnecessary surfaces is a waste of time as well in a resolve situation. U..G..L..Y! Besides WF will automatically hide the sketches.My models are much less cluged by not having so many construction surfs.(sounds like the old days of Catia and UG).I add feature names where it makes sense to point subsequent moders in the right direction.
You will help the next person by keeping the model clean of extra crap more than having every step mapped out graphically IMHO.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
