Hello, Is there a setting or preference that can be changed so that there would be automatic constraints set within a sketch? I'm trying to do a "simple" sketch and trying to see if it's possible that "logical" constraints such as two lines with endpoints on top of each other be connected, two lines that are at 90 degrees automatically be perpendicular or 2 circles on top of each other automatically be concentric. It seems like I'm having to go in and set every constraint - even if it seems like it would automatically be assumed. Unfortunately, I've used another CAD software for years and it had a lot of logical/intuitive settings (that could be overridden) and it just really cut down on set up time with it being so user-friendly. The sketch I'm working on now would be a matter of minutes. Now I'm having to go in and manually set every constraint. Thanks
Solved! Go to Solution.
In the preferences -> sketch dialog, you can turn on "create inferred constraints". In the customer defaults, you can choose the types of contraints that you want to be inferred.
Thanks, @cowski1. I actually had most of those set already. After setting all of them as default, I'm still having to set some things that would seem to be covered. As shown in the screenshot, I have a circle with lines going from the 4 quadrant points. I then try to add a new circle at the quadrant point and endpoint, but it still throws in the 120 dimension. Seems like it shouldn't need that if it was recognizing all the constraints.
I plan on using the reference lines, as well, for another part of the sketch, but haven't been able to get passed this part yet. Thanks
I agree that NX Sketch needs lots of manual input to assign even basic and any obvious sketch constrains.
After that it’s more cumbersome, to select any specific constrain to edit/delete. Comparatively, NX sketching is sill in primitive stage.
In NX11, by RMB a sketch element will give you a new option of “Sketch Relation Browser” which is little bit helpful.
"I agree that NX Sketch needs lots of manual input to assign even basic and any obvious sketch constrains.
After that it’s more cumbersome, to select any specific constrain to edit/delete. Comparatively, NX sketching is sill in primitive stage."
I couldn't agree more.... I've redone my reply a few times now because I'm writing this in frustration and irritation with the "primitve stage" of NX.
I've been in the "CAD world" with a few different softwares for approx. 20 years. I've dealt with softwares enough to know that there's not one perfect software. They each have their own limitations, but some of the NX limitations are surprising.
Similar to having to deal with these primitive constraints in sketching, the assembly constraints are also very fragile and not intuitive.
When you double click an assembly constrain (A live/unbroken) it opens the Assembly Constrain Manager window. Majority of the times, under the “Geometry to constrain”; Selected Objects= (0) or it won’t highlight or won’t help the user to identify what/where the constrained objects are. Given, it’s because they were created in a different reference set conditions (for construction and clarity purposes).
If I’m not mistaken, to get them identified, first you must change those component’s respective reference sets or to “Entire Part”. Then QUANTITY of objects (does this really help? Don’t we know the number of objects needed) will be appeared under “Geometry to constrain” in a vague manner; in a one line. To redefine them you must go to model space, first Shift+ select individual (=deselect) and then reselect the new. Does NX really think that this is as an efficient productivity process? While editing Assembly Constrains, why couldn’t it automatically switch to “Entire Part” reference sets of the specific parts without expecting user’s repetitive back and forth manual work?
It's mind numbing and painful (at the same time) with how much "user’s repetitive back and forth manual work" that has to take place. I think the worst thing against me is that I've used other CAD softwares for 20 years, so now I constantly compare efficiency, user friendliness and level of "intuitiveness". Is that a word? I much prefer to be doing value added work and actually designing product instead of spending my time with "user’s repetitive back and forth manual work".
Rather than swapping reference sets to "not show" geometry used for constraints, but otherwise un-needed (e.g. datums) I prefer to put them on layers that can be turned on/off (for display) but they are always there (for updating or for reference to figure out how constarints were defined or whatever)
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP16/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steamed than e-diseaseled