Precise section view placement

I just discovered that though you can NOT move an existing section view to a precise location, you CAN create a NEW section and snap it to a part of the model (like half way through an arch to show the section at the peak of the arch).

Itā€™s possible if you set up a point to snap to such as with crossing guide lines.
section

[quote=ā€œron, post:1, topic:88475ā€]
I just discovered that though you can NOT move an existing section view to a precise location,
[/quote] But you can. Add an edge ā€˜On Section Planeā€™ and select both, them using the edgeā€™s vertex as handle when moving both

1 Like

Thanks Dave. I hadnā€™t thought of sneaking up on it like that. The problem is that the sections have no ā€œhandleā€. But adding a guide line that gets cut off by the section DOES work as you say.

I was not able to ā€œadd an edge ON a section planeā€ as you described, but Daveā€™s method of adding a line that gets cut by the section DOES allow snapping to the section (to the end of the line). Maybe thatā€™s what you meant.
Thanks

No. Try the ā€˜Lineā€™ tool and draw an edge on the section plane, donā€™t be too hasty and wait for the hint ā€˜On Section Planeā€™.
Itā€™s a general solution.

Your RIGHT. I just needed to read what the curser was telling me ā€œon section planeā€. I found that your method requires the section to be IN-active (otherwise the line just disappears). Daveā€™s method allows me to activate the section and still move it. Either way, you really have to set up a target line. I canā€™t get inferencing to work very well with a bunch of sections in the way. Seems like it would rather snap to the sections.

HEY, I just discovered that you can HIDE sections (Duhh). I had a forest of them. Hiding all but one made it a lot easier to use either method.

Thanks for helping me out with that.

Another Doā€™h moment. I didnā€™t ever think to try drawing on the section plane. I didnā€™t know that was a possible inference.