bmckelvie

I have been trying to model steel mesh, its made from .1875" rod, forming 2 inch squares. # the mesh is for a safety cage, so there are many different shapes for the mesh to fit in. Any tips for how you would make a useful model of this? I have tried making an assembly of copied rods crossing, but it leaves me with the problem of I can't modify the assembly to fit in the different shaped openings that it needs to. My current plan is to create a part, not an assembly with the rods spaced out correctly, then cut out the shapes I want out of it. Thanks Brent

Kevin just explained to me how to do what I wanted. The change was (how I understand it at least) when I want to use mechanism mode with an assembly I have to change the selection filter to assembly/part not just part. Then it works with the entire assembly.

Hi, I think something has changed with the way mechanism mode works, or in my case does not work. Up until recently the following method worked. I would make a sub assembly of parts, position them all how I want, and lock them in place using "fixed in parent". I would then import that sub assembly into my main drawing, position it with constraints and use mechanism mode to check that the machine being analyzed will still work with the new part. Usually this is simply rocking back and forth about a pin. This does not work any more, If I fix in parent in a sub assembly file, the sub assembly will not work with mechanism mode in the main drawing anymore. I know this worked in February as It is how I set and tested all my models. I preferred this method of work as it aloud me much quicker assembly and reduced the amount of constraints I required dramatically. I have noticed that if I use a lot of constraints, IronCad on my computer will slow down becoming nearly unusable. To sum up, sub assembly all fixed in parent (separate file). --> Import sub assembly into main file and constrain. --> Aforementioned sub assembly now acts as one solid piece essentially wielded together. --> Mechanism mode moves the entire unit as constraints allow. Is there a new way to do this or should this still work and its just me? Thanks

I just figured out that they will save if I do not have any other file open that uses the parts in them.

Hello, I have made a scene that has a few assemblies in it, I want to save all the parts in the scene as external .ics files, but when I go to "file/save all as external" these assemblies do not save as external files. Is there any way to force an individual part in a scene to become an external ics file? Thanks Brent

I am sending the files, I can delete the lines and I do on my drawings. The problem is on a complex assembly there are so many that it often takes a hour to do.

Thanks for the replies, as usual all very helpful. To clarify what I was talking about on point 3, I attached a drawing. LOADING_LATCH_EXAMPLE.PDF

Hello, I am attaching a drawing to better illustrate what I am talking about. I a having a few issues with making shop drawings in IronCad. 1. is it possible to make the sizes of dashes change with the scale of the drawing? If I make a part that is to big to fit on a typical sheet of paper, i need to scale it. but when I use hidden lines the dashes are so big they appear solid and confuse the meaning of the drawing. 2. If I have a cylinder with a chamfer on it, IronCad will draw two lines for the max diameter making an ugly drawing. This is clearer in the detail view A. Is there a way to stop this? 3. This is not in the drawing, but If i am making a drawing package for an assembly and I need to detail a part of the assembly with hidden lines Ironcad will show a bunch of hidden lines that have nothing to do with the part I am working on? Ideas? I fear my former drafting prof would fly here and murder me if I make a drawing not to standard so not using hidden lines is out Thanks Brent test_part_2.icd test_part_2.ics

Thanks that all helps

Hello, I am attempting to create detailed drawings of my mechanism for my shop to build. The standard method of making drawings at my shop is; first an overview of the entire mechanism with bom balloons pointing to each part with a bom table giving more info on the parts. Then on the following sheets I detail out all the individual parts and include a bom with the correct part number on it. This mostly works for me in IronCad. My problem is, if in my mechanism the individual part is not oriented cleanly to the axis, it will not be oriented correctly in my drawing. I can manipulate it slightly with the standard view creation button, but often I can not get them to be correct. Any advice or tips on how to do this? Also when I use the hole depth symbol in drawings after I can type after it but my computer only shows white spaces, then on the drawing the correct info shows up.? I attached my current drawing to illustrate what I am talking about. (don't look to close at the standards yet it is no where near done ) If you are interested in it, it is a imperial conversion and re-size of a metric pan brake. the parts that have the issue I am talking about are, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 panbreak.icd

Wow you made videos! Thanks that really helps.

Thanks for the info, First I am trying to do the first method with editing the cross section but I do not know where to find the "parameter name?" to use for my relation. second I'm adding a layer of complexity to this now, can I do this any way with a custom hole, not using structured part? so that it stays a distance from the end that changes in relation to the total length?

Happy Easter everyone! Is their a way to make a feature stay in the middle of part even if i change the length? IE if I place a hole in the centre of a 500 mm long bar, then change the length of the bar to say 600 mm I want the hole to automatically relocate to the new centre. In Pro/E I would setup a relation like "distance=length/2" But I do not see any place to do that in IronCad. I can make features auto locate to the ends a part using locked smart dimensions, but I do not know of a way to set up relations. Thanks Brent

Thanks that saves me a lot of work.

Is it possible to take one part and separate it into multiple parts? Say I have made something by dragging three different blocks onto the screen so the tree shows part1 + block block block. Then I decide that I would prefer if one of those blocks were its own part, can I do this?

The bi directional constraint solver in 2012 is infinity better than what 2011 used, I really like it. Assembling using only Triball positioning, then only constraining parts that need to move, or are tricky to get into place without the bidirectional solver appears to be working well. Then when I need to use Mechanism mode, i use "fixed in parent" for everything I can, to try to keep the assembly in the correct shape. Thanks for the suggestions

I have been using IronCad for almost 1 year now, and have never yet understood the constraint theory behind IronCad. Coming from a Pro/E background I used to try to constrain every part to make it fully incapable of moving any way that I did not want, but I have found that after models get sufficiently complex, too many constraints just start causing problems. both with the computer slowing down and IronCad becoming impossible to continue to add new parts. Then after downloading other IronCad users models from grabcad to see how they constrain their work and I found that the majority of users did not constrain anything, they just positioned everything with the TriBall and left it. After trying that method I find it to be way faster and have less problems putting everything together. The downside to that is, Mechanism mode completely destroys the model; making any form of simulation impossible. So I am wondering, What is the theory on constraining models in Ironcad, how do you (other users) constrain your models and why do you use that method?