Placing Datum Planes between surfaces

[feltmounce]

I am trying to make a dtum plane that is midway between to existing surfaces. The surfaces are parallel, so I would just want the new datum plane to split the difference. What is the easist way to do this?

 

[wsylvester]

relation

 

[wsylvester]

or additional geometry with a midpoint

 

[design-engine]

easy way? I could list several ways ... you might have to pick the easy way. I often don't choose the easy way fist... Ill choose the way that modifies the easiest.

1. use relations to force the datum plane between the geometry. If the two surfaces have some parametric value holding them together then utilize that dimension value in the relation. Offset the datum with respect to those surfaces. I can imagine your model but an image might help ...

2. Sketch a straight line between the two surfaces and use that strait line to create your datum. That datum can be created thru the curve and normal or parallel to another datum. Just make sure your sketched curve is healed maybe with a relation in sketcher maybe.

I could keep going....

 

[feltmounce]

Thanks for all of the suggestions. This is just a general question, no specific application. There are many times it would be useful to hve a plane halfway between to surfaces, such as between two walls in a room, so you could then have a reference for the center of that room when placing objects in assemblies. I have tried all of these suggestions before, but I was just looking for a simpler way. Having to create additional geometry, or open up the relations screen to do something this basic seems a little over complicated, but hey, that's Pro/E for you. You create planes to serve a support geometry for creating actual entities, so to have to create more support geometry to make it possible to create support geometry is cumbersome.


I spent time working in Inventor, and to create a Datum that would hold midway betweeen two surfaces, all you would have to do is select the "create plane" tool, click the first surface, click the second surface, then click the first surface again, and it would automatically place the plane betweenthe two surfaces. 4 clicks total. This is as opposed to creating more geometry or opening up a new screen to define releations, as you have to do in Pro/E


Releations is another thing that bothers me. When I want to edit a dim, I just double click on the dim and enter in the number or function, and that works great. I would like to able to double click the dim and then enter the relation right there on the screen, using the format "=d1+d2", where the dims d1 and d2 could beentered just by picking those dimensions with your mouse like picking cells in excel. Having to open up a toolbar just to enter a simple relations is, again, overly complicated.


Sometimes Pro/E makes me never want to model again, ever.

 

[design-engine]

you should take a class your not playing with a toy like inventor. Save you much time and your frustration level would lower. And your company would probably pay. A forty hour class would save you 100's of hours. You can probably find something close to you too, check online.

 

[feltmounce]

Thanks for the demeaning reply.


I've taken a class (this year) which my company paid for. I've used Pro/E for 4 years. I took a Pro/E and Pro Mechanica class in college. I'm not an idiot.


I mentioned the method that Inventor uses to solve this problem for comparision purposes only. I have experience in Inventor and Solid Works, and I was just showing that other software packages have looked at some basic issues and have created solutions. I was asking if Pro/E has any solutions.


As far as Inventor being labeled a toy, I'm not sure what your perspective is, but Inventor has many capabilities that Pro/E would do good to learn from, andis also more productive. (e.g. frame builder, 3d sketcher, creating drawings from models) I mean seriously, Pro/E hasn't figured out how to incorporate 3d sketching yet?

 

[design-engine]

I am trying to help.... not to sound demeaning.... I see that problem often with students... and I have no taste for Inventor. so you could say you struck a cord with me.... and I make assumptions when you start to make comparisons like that.

I remember when I started to learn Solidworks... I created many of the Rayovac Barbie flashlights for a chicago design firm in back in 2002 or so (I started to learn Soldiworks in 1998). I was really challenged with the surfacing in SW on those things and I bitched a lot and stated "only if I had Pro/E". I think back and I should have taken a class. So my basis for that suggestion was based on my own learning curve.

You should let me buy you a beer ...

"apology is a sign of weakness" < another one of my quotes




Edited by: design-engine

 

[design-engine]

3d sketcher has been in Pro/E since before Inventor was born. Let me add that I took the day off when Autodesk made the purchase of Alias and Maya. Looks like it has not damaged those products much tho... so it may turn out good for those products.

1993 the curve between points. Can anyone verify this? Version 9 or 10 I think. Complete with CV manipulation 'Tweak'. I use ISDX curves instead now days.

 

[sip]

Hi feltmounce,


I'm leaning into this discussion with a bit of trepidation.


Is it not so that when you draw a sketch you draw it with design intent in mind?


When I draw a rectangle (say for a room), I'll draw it so the sketcher has some center lines in it, and I'll draw it symmetrically about the two planes. Now I don't have to bother with putting a plane midway between two walls, as the geometry is already constrained that way.


If you draw all your blocks coming out of the corner, so to speak, you'll constantly have to put in planes that should have been there for you from the outset if you had constrained the sketch symmetrically.


I'm not saying you'll never ever have to still put a plane midway beteen two other features, but it will be the exception when you do.


Hope to not cause offence.


Sip

 

[jeff4136]

> "Sometimes Pro/E makes me never want to model again, ever."


I knew where this discussion was going when I saw the title.


Whether, or not, Inventor is a toy is a matter of perspective.


Re: http://www.cbliss.com/inventor/Parts/Tools/index.htm
I did the twist drill model at the top of the page.


Inventor was a terrible disappointment and orders of magnitude
over purchase price waste of money, in my view, as a part modeler
and as a top down assembly design tool.


I understand why some people like it. It fulfills their needs.
Once past the software's application I've found that people that
expound Inventor's virtues tend to get hung up on the small stuff
like a mid span plane function and / or are in sales. I'm not in
sales. Are you?

 

[design-engine]

jeff... your smarter than me. I fell for it. Oh well. "I love proe" another one of my quotes... and thats how i started my talk at the milwaukee proe users conference friday.

that drill? do you have a twist function or a helical function in inventor? I met an AE of Inventor at a conference at fisher-price this year in buffalo ny. Sat at dinner with him and a bunch of alias AE's and the owner of Rhino after the conference. Interesting dinner that was.


Edited by: design-engine