cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - If community subscription notifications are filling up your inbox you can set up a daily digest and get all your notifications in a single email. X

Trying to set up relational table

pimm
14-Alexandrite

Trying to set up relational table

I've never used Relation Tables before but I see where this might be quite helpful.

So far the only thing I've figured out is how to put in a text description in what I'd like the table to do.

I have a number of sections that I've made into a Swept Blend feature.

These sections need a modified draft value for the side walls.

For every section that I have (There are 14 total) I would like to increase the sidewall angle by 1 degree.

Since each section has 4 sidewall draft dimensions I will need 56 dimensions updated to increase the draft value by 1 degree.

I know that each dimension in the sections has a different symbolic name. Most of the dimensional values are different.

I'm thinking that I would have to modify the symbolic names so they include something in common, so the draft value will be changed in each of the 56 dimensions.

How would the relation table values appear for something like this?

To give you a better grasp of what I am working on I'll attach a snapshot of a few of the sections.

Sections.JPG



This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
35 REPLIES 35
Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire II
(To:pimm)

Is this more what you were looking for? I used a planar spine for the VSS, though you don't need to. There is a smooth transition between the sections and angles, driven by the graph feature. It's all tied together via relations and parameters. I could have used relations to control the points on the graph to be equal if I'd wanted. One fun thing is that you can do Dynamic Edit on the ANGLE_DEFINITION_POINTS feature's points, and watch it change while you drag it! Unfortunately you can't also do that with the graph.

VSS_VARIABLE_DRAFT-01.jpg

pimm
14-Alexandrite
(To:Patriot_1776)

Frank,

I've looked at your model.

It is very interesting how you've influenced the end result with your controls on this part.

I couldn't understand how your graph worked, I didn't see how the numbers correlated to the model.

That is very nice how you can influence along the spine curve with the points.

It is interesting how you used an up and down curve for depth to go along with the origin trajectory.

You have a flair for using abstract controls to get to your final result. I still consider myself a new Pro Engineer user, but I can see I've not scratched the surface on what different tools can do.

I don't believe this method could control the sectional twisting needed but I will certainly refer back to what you've shown me here for ideas in how to get the most out of the available tools within this software.

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire II
(To:pimm)

'Morning Paul,

Without actually seeing the model, it's hard to tell exactly the geometry needed. Are those "hard" sections, that have to be used? The method I'd try then would be: You COULD create datum curves thru all the sections endpoints, with tangency conditions at the ends where it joined the pther protrusions shown, then use one of the 6 curves as the VSS spine and use the other 5 to control the section continuously. Then the VSS WOULD go thru all the endpoints, though the sections themselves might not be exactly perfect because of the difference in "timing" (length) of the different curves.

Think of the graph as the "X" value being the length of the trajectory spine, (made equal via the evaluate feature - love those! - so it's parametric) and with every "Y" value of th egraph being continuously put into the VSS section by the section relation. The "X" value of the hard points in the graph directly correspond to the datum points (the "X" value on the spine) I put on the trajectory spine, via relations, but the "Y" value (angle) can be changed in the graph (and relations added to them, etc.). All the relations make sure that as long as that spine length is, the graph "X" length always is equal to that so you don't "run out of graph". Meaning you don't get the full "Y" values of the graph at the right end - sometimes you actually WANT do do this, but I digress....

Did you play with dragging the points dynamically? That was pretty cool! Too bad you can;t drag the graph....

Why not just copy the surfs from your customer's model as a copy geom, etc.? Or does it need to be parametric.

pimm
14-Alexandrite
(To:Patriot_1776)

Frank,

Even though the method you showed was ingenious it wouldn't work in the application I am using. Each section has squeezes, dives and tilts that can be different from section to section. Variations are in X, Y and Z. Datums are tilted. All 6 walls of the sections are independently twisted and positions of the rails vary up and down in X and Y.

I do like how easy it is to change sections positionally within the sweep you created. I finally understand the graph. I didn't realize you could chart distance as an angle. I'm baffled how you put your influence sections after the sweep. I don't see anything inside the sweep creation that allows for the graph inclusion.

The reason we have to build separate models is because the preforms in our dies have to have additional draft. These preform shapes also have to have less detail than the finished part impression.

Our work is for a crude process, but because of the constraints required within this process it makes the creation of part models very difficult. We have to have draft, strange locks and radii going from everything to everything.

Patriot_1776
22-Sapphire II
(To:pimm)

Yeah, I thought it might not. Like i said, you might be able to do it with the spine and 5 other trajectories, depends on the blend needed between sections. It would probably smooth it all out better than the independent sections.

The sections at the end do NOt influence the VSS, I put them there so you could see that the datum points and graph forced the correct angle at a plane normal to the spine thru those points. So you could "check" and see what was going on, they have nothing to do with the creation of the VSS, being after it in the model tree.

A graph can drive ANY dimension I know of in a section. You must include the graph in the SECTION relations, via trajpar.

Well, here's one, how about make both ends as shown, and do boundary blends, eact quilt having a curvature continuous or at least tangency to the previous section, and the last one having those conditions to BOTH ends? I think that would probably smooth things out, and still give you EXACTLY the sections you need. Try that.

And if not, now you'd had a lesson in evaluate and graph features!

pimm
14-Alexandrite
(To:Patriot_1776)

Frank,

I am using a extrudes as adjoining surfaces that launch good tangency for the rails.

The rails are either datum curve or ISDX. They start and end at the extrudes with tangency. In between they connect with edge points on corresponding edges of the sections to shape the rails.

I do use Boundary blend to fill out the skeleton frame. I like how it gives me a fully enclosed sidewall. I love how I can tweak the curves and it will parametrically update. This is the 1st time I've ever fully done a part with parametrics. The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to tweak the sidewall draft on just one feature to fully update the rest.

Yes, I really appreciate your primer on using Trajpar and other features related to VSS.

I wish they didn't get rid of the helpful points on this forum as you have helped a lot.


Top Tags