Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Frame uneven end angle reporting

Siemens Experimenter Siemens Experimenter
Siemens Experimenter



I am interested in knowing what you think about Frame end angle reporting in drafts. Currently we see that uneven cuts or those created using the Extend/Trim command show an angle of 0 degrees in drafts. I intend to understand what your requirements are when it comes to manufacturing frames and how helpful would reporting end angles as more than just the degees, but also the orientation, be to you. Eg, +/- 45 degrees or a 0-360 degree methodology.


Also, Uneven angles made with other frames and bodies is currently reported as 0 degrees (Refer to attached Image 1). In such a case where uneven angles are created; do you require both Frame end angle cuts to be reported? 


In case of a frame which has mitered cuts, how important is frame uniqueness based on the direction of the cut (Refer to attached Image2). In this instance attached, I have observed that the angles show Miter 1= 45 and Miter = 45 with a quantity of 3. This is ambiguous, since the middle section is a unique frame with different fame end angles.

Do you think that showing the angles as just 45/45 degrees in drafts gives enough information about the middle section? Or are they independent of the direction in which the frame end angles are oriented?


I would love to hear what you think about the Frame end angle reporting currently in place and help me understand how you use the Frame feature better. 


Betreff: Frame uneven end angle reporting

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

Hi @stuti_prakash 





the end angle issue IMHO is a very important one in regards of using frame components.


Let me start with a question concerning Your second issue.

For me those items are not equal and I'm really surprised, that they are counted as one and the same frame element.

IMHO the end angles are different and therefore SE - at least for me - brings them with different pos numbers.

But this depends on Your options settings for that BOM.


The more important issue and problem is, that the angle values are shown as the same, although they are pointing into different directions. So only the absolute value for them is listed, buit not the cuttind direction.


But what is the "positive" and what the "negative" cutting angle?

That's the question.


I would solve it on a pure mathematical way.

Your profile is defined in the frame part with the first profile sketch.

And there also is defined the positive x and y axis and therefore also the z axis, which is the length axis of the frame.

From that coordinate system as reference You can define a positive cutting angle if the "vector" (rotation vector) is pointing to the positive x or y, and it is negative if it shows in the negative x and y.


So for the given example the middle frame has two parallel cutting ends, what means, they are either both positive or both negativ, where the vertical one has two different cutting ends (in taht case they are orthogonal) so one of them must be positive while the other must be negative.

But always in regard to the profile definition.


This now brings me to the secon question You asked.


Yes, Yes and another "Yes" trimmed ends also must get their cutting end angles!

Trimming frame components is one of the most often features people will use, but then You do not get the correct values.


And - when talking about frames - let me post another (for me) important issue:


There should/must be an option/function to export all frame components to unique, associative and clear indicatable parts.

Although You can place them onto the draft of the frame assembly, many people want and need single drafts and 3D documents.




Betreff: Frame uneven end angle reporting

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

Hi @stuti_prakash 



and there is another real big issue with regard to frame components:


Due to SE sees the frame as a single part instead of different parts for every frame element:


"The physical property manager of the assembly only shows the mass of the master frame component, rather than the mass values for every frame element!"


This IMHO is a real big bug!


And when creating a report of that assembly, there is no mass (element) info anymore.

Only a "*"


All together IMHO is resulting of the internal frame handling where no real volume/part/pos num/etc. is existing.