configuration of a sheet with folds.

[giacomoerre]

Bye to all,

I have recently begun to use the configurations of the parts seriously, as in some works I find it is the most logical way to work.

I found a problem in the case of sheet metal bent, and I can't figure out whether it's a 2011 sw limit or if I miss some knowledge.

the sheet should be configured with a fold in a configuration at 30° and in the other at "-30°". the problem I find is that the insertable angles in the edge flange command vary between 1 and 180°. and I cannot therefore get the configuration to -30° and I am therefore obliged to create another equal part (save as copy) and then press on the dart as the attachment.

Is there a way to solve this problem?

Thank you in advance.

greetings, jacomo

 

[Mike1967]

Bye to all,

I have recently begun to use the configurations of the parts seriously, as in some works I find it is the most logical way to work.

I found a problem in the case of sheet metal bent, and I can't figure out whether it's a 2011 sw limit or if I miss some knowledge.

the sheet should be configured with a fold in a configuration at 30° and in the other at "-30°". the problem I find is that the insertable angles in the edge flange command vary between 1 and 180°. and I cannot therefore get the configuration to -30° and I am therefore obliged to create another equal part (save as copy) and then press on the dart as the attachment.

Is there a way to solve this problem?

Thank you in advance.

greetings, jacomo

I recommend the use of the "basic flange" function with which you can configure the sketch quotas by avoiding the problem you encounter.

 

[giacomoerre]

so it seems to me that it is a limit of solidworks.. .

However I will follow your advice and try to work by configuring the sketch quotas.

Thank you for the answer! !

Good day, Jacob.

 

[giacomoerre]

For example, in this case how would you create two configurations, one with the folds facing up and the other with the folds in the opposite direction?

thanks for availability, giacomo.

 

[eboss]

For example, in this case how would you create two configurations, one with the folds facing up and the other with the folds in the opposite direction?

thanks for availability, giacomo.

but by chance your problem is to have a right and a left piece and manage it as a configuration?
What version of solidworks do you have?

 

[giacomoerre]

That's the problem!!

I am using 2011 sp.5

 

[eboss]

That's the problem!!

I am using 2011 sp.5

What do you think of mirroring the body?
Could you be okay as a solution?

sometimes I use the body in the opposite configuration (e.g. sx) and delete the body (e.g. dx)

I can't send you anything in 2012. .

 

[eboss]

I mean something like that could be good for you?

 

[giacomoerre]

sincerely I had never used the function erases body.

I must say that it seems to me a good solution, as the part and its "specchiata" remain connected (naturally inserting functions before the mirror function).

By erasing the body, I shouldn't have any problems even in the table. .

Thank you, I think I've solved this way! !

Thanks again for the availability, giacomo.

Hello!

 

[Mike1967]

being a "purist" of the plates, avoided to make mirrors and various robes.
often the file is messed up and does not spy on the part anymore.
I press that I must always take into account that my files must be edited
from my colleagues without interpreting the modus operandi that I used to create the piece.
not all use the sheet functions.
very personal opinion, opinabile (if you have courage:biggrin.

 

[eboss]

being a "purist" of the plates, avoided to make mirrors and various robes.
often the file is messed up and does not spy on the part anymore.
I press that I must always take into account that my files must be edited
from my colleagues without interpreting the modus operandi that I used to create the piece.
not all use the sheet functions.
very personal opinion, opinabile (if you have courage:biggrin.

I can't blame you, even because I'm a magai, my colleagues don't have the same knowledge that someone has shaped with certain functions or reasoning a little out of the "standard"
then I say with swx you can do the same in different ways and especially following different methods. each one must make choices, tests and find the most appropriate method to his needs:finger:

 

[giacomoerre]

Of course, I would prefer to avoid the problem with mirrors or other methods, but I do not see any other solution except to recreate another independent part in which to change only the corner (very uncomfortable).

As I told you, the method you had proposed (rolling the sheet directly from the sketch) does not seem to me to apply to all sheets (as in the example above).

Jacob.

 

[Ivan1990]

as an alternative you can always create 2 functions one fold in one direction, and the other in the other direction and depending on the configuration keep one or the other active.

 

[giacomoerre]

I had also tried with the system you proposed, the problem is that if in the fold apply holes or machining of various kinds these must obviously be recreated in both fold configurations and are not therefore connected. If I have to move a hole I have to do it in both configurations to understand. while mirroring the body the modification that I make on a configuration I find them automatically equal in the other.

 

[Mike1967]

Of course, I would prefer to avoid the problem with mirrors or other methods, but I do not see any other solution except to recreate another independent part in which to change only the corner (very uncomfortable).

As I told you, the method you had proposed (rolling the sheet directly from the sketch) does not seem to me to apply to all sheets (as in the example above).

Jacob.

I may not understand, but for the example you posted. . .
[video=youtube_share;EA_7Kl37hAA]http://youtu.be/ea_7kl37haa[/video]

 

[giacomoerre]

It's okay, in your example, there's no problem.

I have attached a file in a comment earlier (that I read in this) in which I cannot follow the method you proposed.

Here's the file.

Jacob.

 

[Mike1967]

It's okay, in your example, there's no problem.

I have attached a file in a comment earlier (that I read in this) in which I cannot follow the method you proposed.

Here's the file.

Jacob.

then you can do so (especially part)
made with 2013, but if I don't remember bad even older versions had this function.
[video=youtube_share;ncCTeTVVWlg]http://youtu.be/ncctetvvwlg[/video]

 

[giacomoerre]

thanks for example and for availability.

In this way I would have the two versions of the part in separate files, but I could still decide to keep them connected by not popping the flag that interrupts the links with the original part.

while if you want to manage the two versions of the part as configurations I should use the mirror function and delete body.

Thank you all!

Jacob.

 

[re_solidworks]

then you can do so (especially part)
made with 2013, but if I don't remember bad even older versions had this function.
[video=youtube_share;ncCTeTVVWlg]http://youtu.be/ncctetvvwlg[/video]

This method does not differ much from the one suggested earlier by eboss. for the record I use it much too, the sin of this system is the having to remake the table (and this is a assist for hunting)

 

[Mike1967]

This method does not differ much from the one suggested earlier by eboss. for the record I use it much too, the sin of this system is the having to remake the table (and this is a assist for hunting)

Uh, more or less.
with my (my you do to say...) method you have an independent file that does not need file
who created it.
Moreover, suspending the "spostacopy" function you can return to the piece that generated it.
the file is light.
I prefer. :smile:

ps: on the table I agree with you... but not hunting.... :biggrin: