maybe, but are you using a group for the base shape?
if so, explode it and see if the geometry is still offset…
john
maybe, but are you using a group for the base shape?
if so, explode it and see if the geometry is still offset…
john
I can’t reproduce your results. What are the dims of your two groups? I’ve tried my units exactly as you have yours set.
I can reproduce when i use two groups, but the graphical anomaly is unmeasurable, and it disappears with an explode…
that’s why I said maybe…
john
Even with two groups I get the rotation without any discrepancies. (in SU2014 that is, at the moment)
p.s. I use endpoints from both groups, unlike when working with exploded geometry which then also allows you to use an “intersection” location for the arcs second clicked point to mark its ending. This “intersection” method (as I recall) does not seem to work with mixed contexts of geometry.
Well… theres little doubt about me being a bit crazy. Indeed, exploding the 2x4 component that rotates does cure the “graphical anomaly” as you put it. Interestingly, undo brings it back but recreating the component again does not. curiouser and curiouser…
@EscapedArtist, this does not effect the solution, which is of course the way to to this, I didn’t intend to hijack the thread. It was just an quirk I noticed that I was hunting an explanation for.
@EscapedArtist many of us use LICEcap to make animated GIFs
@john_drivenupthewall I’m glad at least one other person can see Mr. Snuffleupagus
Here’s the file I’m using to test with zoomed scenes.
ARC Quirk.skp (101.4 KB)
Enough.
I think maybe I see what’s going on here. If you use the arc tool and click on the “edge” inference there seems to be the possibility of the error. If however you click on the intersection inference (little red x) the possibility of error seems to go away. I seem to have to zoom out a bit to get the intersection inference btw.
See what you think.
Shep
Okay, perhaps it’s some display glitch from zooming into the molecular level. If I zoom in to the corner of the square the lines and ends start jumping around. The number of vertices seems correct for the geometry.
Shep
IF … The ‘discrepancies’ exist.
THEN … Opposite sides of the finished brace would be unequal in length.
Check the model and you’ll find opposite sides of the brace are equal in length.
The discrepancies which tend to jump around as you zoom in are a ‘feature’ of OpenGL rendering.
Yes, not saying the model is incorrect, it isn’t. Just trying to identify the circumstances under which this whatever you want to call it occurs. The discussed method of moving groups produces it, reliably for me, then exploding fixes it. Just moving groups relative to eachogher by inference does not.
I often have to do this kind of thing. Here’s how I go about it using a construction line:
@simoncbevans, you’ve use a different rotation corner for the slim rectangle at the bottom. Use the other one and guides won’t do the trick.
See OP’s first image in the top post. The rotation corner used isn’t part of the opposite target edge, making it more “difficult”.
You didn’t get the 'Intersection" inference tip when rotating the edge. If you zoom in closer you’ll see that its endpoint isn’t exactly “on edge” of the slim rectangle as it should be. This isn’t a reliable exact method I’m afraid. The ‘Pie’ tool gives you that red cross inference mark when the arc is in the same context as the edge you end it on.
Yes, in my example it shows as Endpoint but usually when I do it I get On Edge which I presume is what you want. It highlights one thing that a number of people have asked for in the past, which is ability to force (or limit) the intuitive selection of points. As it is, you often have to keep zooming in and out to establish the right point as I did in this example.
@simoncbevans, you are willing to draw an edge. Instead use the ‘Arc’ tool (from center and 2 points) according to attached image. Draw the arc in the editing context of the group and edge where 3 is pointing at, the slim rectangle. You’ll see that red cross as inference. ----> you’ll get two points for an exact rotation: start 3 and target 2.
It’s the same little effort as with drawing an edge but it is precise. The edge is not.
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.