Cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Phenom
Phenom

I agree with Jason. Since the goal is to have an "automated" function that is partially driven by equations/variables your best choice would be to use Ordered mode.

 

You have to keep in mind that Synchronous Technology is not about one mode (ORdered/history-based) vrs. (Synchronous/history free/ simultaneous solving). It's about using the right tools at the right time to create or modfiy geomerty.

 

The more complexity and automation you want to build into your design the more you will find yourself creating a Hybrid model- One that contains the base shape as Sync and the ordered features for the finer details.

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

PLM World Member Phenom PLM World Member Phenom
PLM World Member Phenom

Hello,

 

I went back to the model, deleted all but the end knuckle.  I then went to ordered mode created a parallel plane .50 from the original knucle and used include edges to create a new knuckle.  I then used a fill pattern to make the rest.  I agree with both of you that a hybrid approach is probably the best in this case.  This was first reall attempt at patterning in Synchronous.  The recognize pattern does work - to an extent, but if you try editing in they way I did, it hits a wall.

 

Kyle

Kyle Joiner
IPA LLC
ST10 MP1

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Siemens Phenom Siemens Phenom
Siemens Phenom

Kyle,

Exactly what I did...

Kevin Grayson
Solid Edge Technical Consultant
kevin.grayson@siemens.com

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

I agree that hybrid is often the best approach. However, I find that I and other experienced ordered users like Kyle have to find out on our own what the limits of synchronous are. That takes time and frustration. Especially since often, not always, but I think in the majority of instances, we encounter the somewhat defensive attitude that anything can be done in synchronous just as well in ordered. On the other hand you get users that just flat out reject synchronous as unusable.
It would be nice to have an honest broker that spells out what works better in which mode (at least as development has succeeded thus far) so that some of us can get work done rather than bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out our disconcerting inadequacies regarding synchronous.
Maybe just something as simple as a specific list of feature types that would best be left to ordered for now.
Maybe we all know about rounds and chamfers but I've run into things on my own like thin walls, slots, hems and patterns, and probably others I don't remember, that don't seem to work well in synchronous.

Bruce Shand
SE2019 MP5 - Insight - Win10 - K4200

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Gears Phenom Gears Phenom
Gears Phenom

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry, I'm late a bit...

 

Ohh no, this works well in synch, but I suggest dividing surfaces where "C" shapes join to "tab".

 

Here are steps to reproduce:

 

I've attached the finished model.

 

BR,

Imics
http://solidedgest.wordpress.com/

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

PLM World Member Phenom PLM World Member Phenom
PLM World Member Phenom

Imics,

 

Wow!  I'll need to watch that a couple of times to absorb it, but it looks like you found a way to make it work.  If you were to change the overall length dimension, would your model upddate the number of knuckles?

 

Kyle

Kyle Joiner
IPA LLC
ST10 MP1

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Siemens Phenom Siemens Phenom
Siemens Phenom

Imre,

Nice job.  I attempted something very similar in sync but did not think of splitting the part for (sync's sake....).  Unfortunatley, I don't know if most users would think to do that as that is one of those "synchronous creative modeling" techniques.

Also, I think most people would want to drive the part and have the pattern update; not the other way around.  I applaud you, however, with what you came up with.  You are always thinking very creatively!

 

Just to reiterate what Ryan stated, the "hybrid" method works well here.  An Ordered Fill Pattern can be executed quite quickly in this case. 

Kevin Grayson
Solid Edge Technical Consultant
kevin.grayson@siemens.com

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

As usual Imics knows the way. Although the process of watching and translating is somewhat exhausting to me.

His model did show the pattern filling in when the length increased.

 

Edit: Oh, Grayson, I didn't detect that he was changing the pattern not the length directly.

Bruce Shand
SE2019 MP5 - Insight - Win10 - K4200

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Phenom
Phenom

Now that is a pretty interesting way to work around the problem.

Re: Trouble with Syncrhonous patterns in piano hinge

Gears Phenom Gears Phenom
Gears Phenom

Hi,

 

I like your phrase: "synchronous creative modeling"! Modeling in Synch is very different from Ordered mode, I completely agree with guys here, that the power of Solid Edge is the mixed, hybrid mode...

 

Is using of Synchronous tech easy? Hmmm! Yes or no! It depends on your challenge. I think we have an important role to share our experinces with others who bumps into wall like this.

 

BR,

Imics
http://solidedgest.wordpress.com/