3D Alignment to arc

[resullins]

This may very well be impossible, but I thought I'd ask. I have a 3D block of a piece of box truss. And I need it to curve! Without rebuilding the whole block, is there a way to, say, bend it?

[Jack_O'neill]

There may be a better way, but what I would suggest is that you take the shape as if you were looking at the end of your box truss, put that at the end of an arc or ellipse or what ever shape you need and sweep it using the arc as a path.

[resullins]

Unfortunately, that won't work. There are integral supports that can't be swept or extruded like that. We're using that method for a basic shape right now, but I was hoping I'd find a better way.

 

http://www.tomcatglobal.com/truss.html

 

That's what I'm trying to bend.

[43st]

I've drawn more Tomcat/Thomas style truss than I care to admit in public. It does need redrawn, and it's a pain in the ass. Keep in mind that the truss diagonals only exist in one plane, which further adds to the PITA factor.

 

The easiest way to get started is to just draw lines (or arcs) for the 2" tube and for the 1" internals (create a skeleton bascially). Then offset and add your welding spaces. After that you can extrude the main truss circles (trim as needed) and start aligning the internal tube solids to the skeleton frame.

[Jack_O'neill]

Maybe we should put a "warp" or "bend" command for Autocad on Autodesk's "wish list". I thought you were just needing a shape to represent it. I guess you could sweep the outline, shell it, then go through and poke triangular holes in it and chamfer/fillet the bits in the web that are left. That would give you a convincing cartoon. If you are doing some sort of structual analysis on it though it might not work.

[JD Mather]

Maybe we should put a "warp" or "bend" command for Autocad on Autodesk's "wish list"...

 

There is a Bend Part command in Autodesk Inventor - but I think I would use Inventor's Frame Generator for something like this.

[Jack_O'neill]

There is a Bend Part command in Autodesk Inventor - but I think I would use Inventor's Frame Generator for something like this.

 

Where you been JD...was wondering when you'd suggest Inventor! I am saving my pennies as we speak, just to acquire a copy and learn to use it.

[JD Mather]

I am saving my pennies as we speak' date=' just to acquire a copy and learn to use it.[/quote']

 

Got a kid in school? Any student anywhere in the world can download Inventor for free http://www.autodesk.com/edcommunity (pushing 2 million members now - your kid might hit the 2 millionth)

[43st]

Popping into random AutoCad threads and suggesting that Inventor is the answer is not really that helpful to the original poster or the issue at hand.

 

If resullins industry is similar to mine, as in we're doing design and fabrication (not manufacturing) Inventor is a waste of time. Not to mention thoroughly incompatible with show deck layouts, lighting plots, speaker hangs, etc. I might take Vector Works as an acceptable answer but that's about it.

[Jack_O'neill]

Wow, somebody dun gots up on da wrong side o da bed!

Edited February 18, 2011 by Jack_O'neill

[Jack_O'neill]

Ok, got to playing around with that shape, and couldn't stop. I don't know nuthin bout these trusses, and to anybody that does, it probably shows. Had fun doodling with it anyway.

Took no information from the link to Tomcat, just made some stuff up tp see what it would look like. Ok truth is, wife is out shopping with a friend, and sadly I had nothing better to do.

[resullins]

So, um, somehow I got unsubscribed from this thread. I swear I wasn't ignoring you guys!

 

I would love to use Inventer, but 43st is right, it's just not worth the money for what we do.

 

Now, where is this wish list and who's throat do I need to cram it down?

[Jack_O'neill]

So, um, somehow I got unsubscribed from this thread. I swear I wasn't ignoring you guys!

 

I would love to use Inventer, but 43st is right, it's just not worth the money for what we do.

 

Now, where is this wish list and who's throat do I need to cram it down?

 

I'd like to have it as well. Maybe some day. The cartoon above is just plain old autocad.

[43st]

This is a few years old now.. but circular truss. Honestly the truss goes fast once you work out the points and spacing.

 

[Jack_O'neill]

That's pretty cool. I realized after I got my cartoon finished that I'd gotten so caught up in making the diagonals that I put them in both planes. Didn't realize it till I was doing the curved bit. By then it was too late to go back and change it. If it had been for something real, sure, but for just playing around, naw...

 

I don't ever get to play around with stuff like this. I'm usually detailing curtain wall or doors and windows or stuff like that. Sometimes I get to draw some tooling for tubing fabrication. That circular truss looks like fun.

[JD Mather]

Popping into random AutoCad threads and suggesting that Inventor is the answer is not really that helpful ...

 

But that is the key point you seem to have missed. Not random. When the solution to problem after problem already exists, how long can you afford NOT to get the correct tool and instead fool around with work-arounds and other expensive "solutions"?

 

In many of the cases I see, it could be paid for on the first project. Doesn't it make you wonder when the solution to problem-after-problem is a next-generation CAD product. There is a reason why Autodesk, SolidWorks and others develop these products.

 

Kind of reminds me back in the last century when I was trying to convince people to leave the drawing board and use this new-fangled AutoCAD tool..... .... some resisted until they retired, or were retired.

[kencaz]

I would agree with both JD and 43st on this one. Inventor's Frame Generator is perfectly suited for this type of work, however, I still think it lacks when you need to show other peoples work. I tend to model in Inventor now, however, I still pull my models into AutoCAD to show other peoples geometry, usually in 2d...

 

KC

[43st]

But that is the key point you seem to have missed. Not random. When the solution to problem after problem already exists, how long can you afford NOT to get the correct tool and instead fool around with work-arounds and other expensive "solutions"?

 

In many of the cases I see, it could be paid for on the first project. Doesn't it make you wonder when the solution to problem-after-problem is a next-generation CAD product. There is a reason why Autodesk, SolidWorks and others develop these products.

 

Inventor (SolidWorks, etc.) was made with manufacturing in mind.. Our industry is fairly low yield, mostly custom fabrication. A parametric modeler is not design friendly in this regard. We need to design and be on the shop floor in 2-3 days usually. We need design tools for this, not parametric tools. Not to mention all the other trades we interface with.. most of which DWG is the default format.

 

Maybe Inventor Fusion will be worth something when it's released.. but if it doesn't have some basic 2d ability it probably won't be used either. You seem to think we're not using 3d and are stuck in some old fashioned system.. We're just not using Inventor's wizard/generator based system. AutoCad has made some very impressive improvements in 3d over the last few releases, you really should check it out.

[resullins]

Boys boys, you're both pretty.

 

Can't we just make AutoCAD do everything I want it to do without learning new software? That would make me happy!

[JD Mather]

...AutoCad has made some very impressive improvements in 3d over the last few releases, you really should check it out.

 

I haven't had time to write anything new lately, but I'm well aware of AutoCAD 3D functionality

http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/CAD238/AutoCAD_2007_Tutorials.htm

 

I wouldn't use AutoCAD for anything that had to be done in a hurry other than schematics.

The idea that parametric is harder or slower is based only on lack of experience. Ask anyone with SolidWorks or Inventor experience.

 

Not sure what this side discussion has to do with the OP's problem description.

I believe my original response was relevant.