Help with a Dynamic Louver

Hello all,

I am fairly new to dynamic blocks, and have been given the task of creating or revising some of our most common pieces of hardware, one being a louver. I have created a stretch point horizontally, as well as vertically, but am having a tiny bit or trouble with the array. Would it be possible for someone to look at my attached .dwg and tell me what I am doing wrong?

 

What is happening is that I am getting an additional line at the top of the array that I do not want. Basically there is a frame around the louver, and then horizontal lines inside of the frame. When I stretch up, I am getting an extra line due to the array distance being 3/4", yet the frame being 1".

 

TESTLOUVERS.dwg

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jason

I took a look and fixed the block. I changed the line array to a line hatch, I put the origin point in the bottom corner. You could change the hatch scale if you want taller louvers.

 

TESTLOUVERS.dwg

 

Hope this is what you were looking for.

Oh ok, so by utilizing a hatch instead, the hatch will stay within the bounds regardless of size. I see, thank you for your help.

Yea the hatch in this case is a better more reliable option than using array. For the future though using arrays in dynamic blocks, I found that using two to start the array is better, then on the first one have a move point, so you can adjust as needed. I have an example of that here in this thread, the purple ladder looking block, CMU reinforcing.

 

Post #4

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?87898-Masking-Parts-of-Blocks&p=603177&viewfull=1#post603177

What I was trying to do was to just have 2 grips total, length & width, and the hatch pattern will ALWAYS stretch with it. The hatch needs to stay inside the 1" frame around the 4 sides, so I didn't want that part to move independently of the frame. Once I get a little more free time at work I will be messing around with other pieces and types of dynamics, including the visible / hidden pieces. We have 3 types of hinges we use from the same manufacturer (who does not have CAD files of course): full overlay, half overlay & inset, so I may make a grip that allows the user to interchange depending on the door type.

 

Thanks!

You can easily create that all in one block, you just need to add a visibility parameter. Then make a visibility state for each full overlay, half overlay & inset. Its really easy! If you need help you can ask away. Here's a couple of blocks that have visibility states that might be help to you to understand them

 

Visibility State Examples.dwg

I've actually watched a Youtube tutorial on visibility states and such, I just haven't actually used it for anything at our company just yet. We have multiple pieces of hardware that are similar, but just different enough to warrant another block, or in this case, another visibility state.

 

Thanks for your help!

I'm still relatively new at dynamic blocks, but I have a great deal of knowledge for them already! Here to help anytime

Hello all,

I am fairly new to dynamic blocks, and have been given the task of creating or revising some of our most common pieces of hardware, one being a louver. I have created a stretch point horizontally, as well as vertically, but am having a tiny bit or trouble with the array. Would it be possible for someone to look at my attached .dwg and tell me what I am doing wrong?

 

What is happening is that I am getting an additional line at the top of the array that I do not want. Basically there is a frame around the louver, and then horizontal lines inside of the frame. When I stretch up, I am getting an extra line due to the array distance being 3/4", yet the frame being 1".

 

[ATTACH]50098[/ATTACH]

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jason

Do you work for the manufacturer of the Louver you've developed? Or are you developing someone else's product to make things more efficient for you? Louver's usually aren't sized the way you've constructed the stretch for the Louver. In other words, using an incremental stretch would be more accurate, say to the 1/4" or even more precise if needed. This is only if you plan to dimension and detail, of course.

 

You can also look into using a Block Table with preexisting sizes tallied in, driven by constraints. This way you can actually create a BOM of the louver's themselves.

 

Just thinking out loud is all. It seems jarr got you going pretty good.

Well since you are a Stars fan I can't take your word for it. Just kidding, Flyers fan here.

 

No, we buy out the grills from another manufacturer. While they are incrimental, we order them anywhere from 12" x 12" up to ~36" x 16", so I don't want to put every 1/4" in there. Unless there is another way?

swell, what frampton is saying is to use a lookup table for different sizes, and using constraints. Constraints aren't available in Autocad LT, only in the full version. For an example block of this, check out the WF Beam - Imperial block on the tool palette, structural tab. This has a lookup table and constraints similar to what he is talking about.

 

I wouldn't put 1/4" constriants on the block that would be too tedious. The two stretch might be just fine for your needs, but a built in drop down of possible sizes might also be beneficial (lookup table) As long as you use a default size like 12x12 thats easily able to stretch in both directions, ie I make a cabinet sink combo, the base cabinet starts at 24" so if I need 36" I stretch 12 more inches. which is how your block will work.

Ok, I got ya. I'm not sure where they came from, but we have a drawing with dynamic screws that we have been using with one of those. They are wonderful!

I wouldn't put 1/4" constriants on the block that would be too tedious.

Not any more tedious than having no incremental parameter at all.

 

I did notice an error in the updated louver. If you type in the value for Distance1 or Distance2 in Properties, it breaks the louver fins. Stretching them does work, but then it'll be very hard to get an exact "to the inch" distance. Will need to rethink that one.

 

As for the 1/4" precision, I am only raising awareness of the true frame-out dimension. I use Ruskin louvers a lot and the frame is usually 1/4" shorter each side (1/2" overall) so a 48"x48" louver is actually 47-1/2"x47-1/2" respectively. It also depends on if it's sleeved or flanged. Again just thinking out loud to consider the fidelity of the dynamic block.

Not any more tedious than having no incremental parameter at all.

 

I did notice an error in the updated louver. If you type in the value for Distance1 or Distance2 in Properties, it breaks the louver fins. Stretching them does work, but then it'll be very hard to get an exact "to the inch" distance. Will need to rethink that one.

 

As for the 1/4" precision, I am only raising awareness of the true frame-out dimension. I use Ruskin louvers a lot and the frame is usually 1/4" shorter each side (1/2" overall) so a 48"x48" louver is actually 47-1/2"x47-1/2" respectively. It also depends on if it's sleeved or flanged. Again just thinking out loud to consider the fidelity of the dynamic block.

 

Yes, same with our sizes being smaller. We are a custom millwork shop, and we use these on our refrigerated cases, so the critical dimensions are the opening in the plywood, not the actual frame size. But being that we are almost completely custom, the length of our units changes the grills, so we have had probably every increment from 12 up to 36 at some point. Once I have a little more time to tinker around with this, and the other items, I will do that.

I did notice an error in the updated louver. If you type in the value for Distance1 or Distance2 in Properties, it breaks the louver fins. Stretching them does work, but then it'll be very hard to get an exact "to the inch" distance. Will need to rethink that one.

 

I just tried this and it worked for me. I also tried stretching via the arrows, and by typing a number, and they all worked for me. AutoCAD 2013.

I just tried this and it worked for me. I also tried stretching via the arrows, and by typing a number, and they all worked for me. AutoCAD 2013.

Something must be breaking it in 2015 then.

 

BTW, I'm a total Flyers fan... I was sad to see Hartnell go.

Something must be breaking it in 2015 then.

 

BTW, I'm a total Flyers fan... I was sad to see Hartnell go.

 

Not sure, they haven't given us 2015 yet.

 

And I was sad as well. I get it from Hexy's PoV, but still, it sucks.