I drew a simple part (kink protection for casting).
After printing the 3D prototype I noticed that I had to scale Z by 5mm.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t work, so there are two options:
Redraw the part (loft, projection, sweeps, etc.) or scale it in another CAD to properly mill the aluminum mold (for pouring silicone rubber).
You can’t align multiple parts together as an assembly, you have to align each part individually, which is a shame.
Imagine a simple ball bearing to align :=)
Attached is a photo and a video.
I really like this CAD, but it always lacks the same basic features.
I agree. I frequently create sub assemblies and wish that there was a way to group them as such and align as a complete group rather than individual parts,
(SketchUp has this feature).
As for aligning a ball bearing…
Yes, it’s not easy to align a ball bearing. However, if I need to precisely position a ball then I create the ball in-situ.
This way I can precisely align it with anything…
Speaking of a ball bearing:
Show me a simple solution to align an assembly to an assembly! :
This is a perfect example, and exactly the reason why we need the ability to align sub-assemblies/assemblies.
I completely agree! Just a simple “group” option would be incredibly powerful. I think the lack of this feature is one of the biggest drawbacks for me using Shapr3D. The workarounds are often incredibly obnoxious, like comparing angles and distances and using the move tool
Istavan! We need this feature! Please!
Yes, I use a few methods including measuring angular difference and offsets before moving an assembly in to place.
Another method I use for simpler assemblies (like the bearing) is to create a substitute (fully unioned) then simply align the substitute with the target before replacing the substitute with the individual parts which easily align with the substitute part. (Hope that made sense.)
In the above example I had to first increase the diameter of the substitute balls in order to union them with the inner and outer bearing.
There is another solution that circumvents all the issues with alignment and acts as a temporary solution until ‘grouping’ becomes a thing…
Sub-assemblies could be made and saved as individual files.
Then create substitute models for assembly purposes.
Essentially, the full build will comprise purely of substitute assemblies.
If a client wishes to see a detailed view of each sub-assembly then open the file containing the sub-assembly model.
Kind off! If you want to edit sub-assemblies then the process would be incredibly obnoxious as you’d have to go through different files and export/import
Yeah, this would be a nuisance. It’s already becoming a nuisance even with the relatively small models I’m working on.
I can’t even imagine the frustration for someone professional such as yourself working on more complex and highly detailed models.
The sooner we get this feature the better!
That plane engine model is stunning btw
totally agreed that group management or assembly is missing for complex designs.
Before we have it, here is how I proceed as a workaround:
- place the bodies into a folder
- create a first mid plane and mirror the folder’s bodies regarding this plane (it will also reverse the red and blue sides)
- create cylinders’ axis and use them to translate the folder’s bodies
- create second mid plane and mirror the folder’s bodies (note how it reverses back the red and blue sides on their original orientation, so the bodies are in the correct position now).
Not ideal, and even if it is less painful than measuring angles, it does not replace real group management, which is really needed for complex designs.
My two cents on this subject
This is a great approach and one I missed.
I like the idea of using the mid plane function. This would work even with a body out of orientation on multiple axis.
Using the mid plane to mirror the body and the cylinder axis to determine distance is fairly intuitive after that.
Thanks for jumping in with your valuable input
While it’s clear that aligning assemblies is an important feature, I don’t think it will be implemented this year.
What do you base that on?
My feeling tells me this.
I slowly but surely know the Shapr3D team.
Alright, so you don’t know^^
I’m surprised we haven’t had any comments from the Shapr3D staff regarding this function though. It seems like a quite easy implementation as you could literally use already implemented functions and combine them in a script for this functionality, as displayed by PEC earlier in this thread.