Planes for Features

Experimenter
Experimenter

Still learning more and more about SolidEdge. My question today is what is the point of the plane selection/highlight withing another plane. Why would it not just select the plane it is on instead of (what looks to be) creating a local plane just for that feature on that existing global plane. 

7 REPLIES

Re: Planes for Features

Esteemed Contributor
Esteemed Contributor

If you move your cursor away from the coordinate system you can select the larger plane. Coordinate systems have implied or virtual planes so that's what your image shows. You can actually use either one since in this case they are coincident or coplanar.

Bruce Shand
ST9 MP10 - Insight - Win10 - K4200

Re: Planes for Features

Experimenter
Experimenter
So those virtual planes are defined by the coordinates system, and also the base reference planes are defined by the coordinate system. Isn't that redundant to have both?

Re: Planes for Features

Esteemed Contributor
Esteemed Contributor

I suppose. But it's just the nature of coordinate systems and the fact that this "base" one is coplanar with the base planes. You could have more coordinates systems in other locations with their own virtual planes.

Bruce Shand
ST9 MP10 - Insight - Win10 - K4200

Re: Planes for Features

Phenom
Phenom

Hi @testes

 

 

this more or less is for historical reasons.

 

In the very early days of Solid Edge we only or mainly had reference planes for using them as profile planes.

Coordiinate systemes came - not quite sure - a little bit later and were only used as tool for reference for part copies and similar.

 

The big time of coordiinate systems came with synchronous.

Suddenly the CS was equal to the reference planes or IMHO even better.

I found that the use of a CS rather than reference planes is more comfortable and gives more opportunities.

 

With one coordinate system You have 3 orthogonal planes, together with 3 reference axis for rotation, dimension and so on, and also You have a center point to use as origin etc.

 

To have a rotation axis for example requests You to intersect two planes at those older days where only ref planes where possible.

 

So one coordinate system offers 7 refrence objects in one step.

 

So from that moment on when CS were usable I personally prefered CS over ref planes and tell these to my students and trainees too.

 

There is only one issue I see here making me "blue":

The naming text for reference planes which came 2 or 3 versions ago.

This looks pretty good and helps a lot.

 

But coming back to our initial question:

 

Yes reference planes and coordinate systems are equal with regard to planar references

 



regards
Wolfgang

Re: Planes for Features

Phenom
Phenom

And to add a twist. The coordinate planes (the small ones that are not in the tree) use the right and rule for + offsets. The referance planes (The large ones in the tree) do not follow the right hand rule (Y axil offset is opposit) when creating offset perallel planes.

 

I often make assembly driven sheet metal (ordered) where the sketches are on the assembly planes (I turn the part planes off) so that I know the part will re-size based off the the assembly planes.

Re: Planes for Features

Phenom
Phenom

Recent posts in other threads also indicate that it may be better to use the origin of a CS as a fixed/reference point, rather than a mid or end point of a reference plane as planes can change size.

HP Z420 16GB RAM
Quadro K4000
ST7 MP10 on Windows 7 Pro 64.

Re: Planes for Features

Phenom
Phenom

Hi @beachcomber

 

 

Yes another good point!

 

Have forgotten that one.

 

What together with all the other advantages show, that it seems to be better using CS rather than ref planes

 



regards
Wolfgang