propeller and curve repetition

[MassiVonWeizen]

simple, activating them by name. the structure list is not drowned by the myriad of recordings of the actions occurred over time, the objects "point" are in a group created ad hoc and called to pleasure "tool".
being shared were automatically named with an index. f2,f3,f4 etc. to move them I do not have to write a "function", but just a double click on the f2, giving the command moves vertically of 11.1 mm.
the command remains in nesting for which by selecting f3 the option "returns previous shift"f3 salts of 11.1 aligning at odds with f2, clicking on the "reapp" box raises of another 11.1, only click , you see clearly the object that you move responding immediately to the command .

this is valid for creo, but not for solid.
- solid requires a specific command to move the body
- solid does not store the value that is then re-existed
- in solid repeat for each body the move step of 11.1 would bring the shift functions to an exorbitant number that I am not calculating but I would say an 80in
- in solid move them all together-1 makes it impossible because the bodies that are initially numbered progressively are renamed by the name of the last function to dick; you should manually rename the bodies one by one to impose that they do not change. This adds work

Excuse me, but I think you can't give a hint by saying that it's a quick and simple thing without knowing how to behave or what commands should be used to do it on the reference software.

one is suitable for designing machines always different from each other, while the other is valid for serially analog machines with dimensional variations.

in fact passer1214 writes

Such situations I fear will repeat, I think especially if I have to draw or design brakes ''a curly" of considerable length

He certainly wrote it while we were already discussing the issue, but I always assume that the use of the software is to exploit its potential, so in a dynamic way, and not for what you already know, therefore in a static way. therefore my answers in this section are always, unless expressly requested, intended for parametric use.

 

[Cadinpiedi]

think if instead of about ten they were a thousand, you were there until after tomorrow morning.
:

with the macro of the steps always 2min and 3sec,
It is true that if the German did not write the macro...
but if they were a thousand holes the round dia 40 would be 11 m long,
a little strange object
[/QUOTE]I have spaceclaim and know what it means but for big and complicated projects a para saves your life[/QUOTE]bah, I have always designed individual machines for pharmaceutical chemistry,
never felt the necessity of para, indeed.. ,[/QUOTE]with serenity without controversy [/QUOTE]Of course! :

 

[Cadinpiedi]

One more thing! About thousands of holes, then I close the topic.
years ago I designed in 2d a particular device. It is a supply chain to extrude at very high pressure a molten polymer shower inside a process tank.
is composed of a collector and a series of arms with a total of about 34,000 holes.
I resumed the 3d model I had done later and completed it with the holes.
I used the drilling tool technique by modeling it in short time using the possibilities
of serialization of "shared" parts. the Boolean subtraction of the main manifold took about 30 sec, while for the arms it was enough to make one and duplicate the remaining ones by shortening them for the necessary. had the model behaves egregiously, saving about 320 mb and reopening does not give problems, and the orbit of the video model keeps itself fluid.
the merit of managing the hundreds of thousands of facets of the model lies in the kernel. Unlike the parametric family that use more or less all the parasolid kernel, modeling uses a proprietary kernel that allows it to manage without acute problems and subaxis of considerable size.
provided that from the point of view of the construction boards depicting the 34,000 holes does not make any sense, so much so that on the old 2d (in brackets made with me10 I had given only the detailed information of the holes. I have therefore created the table without problems, clearly at the expense of a certain heaviness.
the real problem, however, the one who followed the 34,000 holes, with the blood bath of the dying of tips

 

[sampom]

Just to prevent you from thinking that you're making another controversy, I don't think your method is wrong or is out of context. I simply do not share it, or rather do not share its philosophy at the base.

no, here that method is absolutely "out of context". and, above all, does not help the user who placed the question... Of course, not talking about the same software. therefore substantially useless, a loss of time and bits! ... here was not discussing any "diatriba"