Creating a plane at an angle

Maybe it just me not think out side of the box, but there are times
when I want to create a plane at an angle and I dont have an edge or
line to work with. I then have to go and create a "useless" skecth to
work with so that I have a a line. Thus filling up the FMT even more.
Yes I know about folders and all, but does this seem like a extra step
for no reason? Maybe you guys can throw out another way or work around
that I have not though of.

Also I was think if it makes sense to add the ability to not only
create a plane at an angle, but then have the option to offset it at a
distance at the same time. There have been time where I would create a
plane at and angle and then offset that plane at a distance. Once
again extra steps that I think could possibly be achieved in one
motion rather than 2 or 3.

Then again I could be stuck in the box and cant see the light in the
tunnel. Even though that light is a train, none the less it is still
light

 

bob z. has a little macro that creates a plane normal to your view (line of
sight). it is pretty cool. don't know where it came from and it runs from
excel.

--
bob z.
p.s.

"people with less brain power than you are doing more difficult things
everyday"©

 

I always have the 3 default planes in there (carry over from Pro/E days), so
I just click on 2 of them, and insert a "Reference Axis". Then I have the
edge or line I need.

Other than the macro way that Bob Zeeeeeeee mentioned.

Mr. Pickles

 

Working in the program is about being as effective and quick as
possible. And I am sure that we all have little quarks that we wold
like to see happen with the program. SW as a company does try to
incorporate what we ask for, admittedly, alot better than other CAD
software.

But, the work around sometimes can just get on my nerves. That said
creating a plane at an angle and then being able to offset it at a
distance to that angle, I think would be a nice little edition.

 

creating a plane at an angle and then being able to offset it at a

I agree, nice suggestion...

BUT, this is on the verge of making features over-complicated, IMO. I
believe feature definitions should be kept as simple and 'standard' as
possible. If you start adding to many options to a single feature, it
becomes very un-friendly to use. Instead, it may be less complicated if
two features were used instead of combining them into one.

Take sketches, for example. Most would agree that a sketch should be
kept as simple as possible. Thus, when someone edits it, they are not
presented with a cluster-f*** of lines, dimensions, and relations. The
same applies for feature definitions; keep them simple.

Just something to think about when making suggestions such as this one.
Keep in mind that the power of 3D parametric CAD lies in its ability for
changes. While some enhancements may speed the creation of a model,
these same enhancements may hinder how quickly and easily changes can be
made down the road.

my $0.02

 

I create an extruded surface out of a single line segment. This way,
you can explicitly dimension the line to other model entities and it
creates a much more controllable surface for a future sketch plane.
Just hide the surface when your done.

Of course the limitation is that you need a normal plane on which to
first place your surface sketch.

HTH,

Erik

(long time listener, first time caller)

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what's the key issue here, but in the situation I
think you're describing, rather than extrude a surface from a single line,
why not use that same line as the "hinge" axis for a "Plane at Angle", with
the angle set to 90 degrees, and the datum plane being the sketch plane?

I think of this as being like "standing a plane up" on the sketch plane,
like a bookend, or a concrete tilt slab for a building wall.

I do this so much, I wish the default for "plane at angle" could be changed
from 45 to 90 degrees.

If you want it offset the "hinge line" from an existing sketch line, simply
offset a new line and (if necessary) change it to construction geometry.

I agree 110% with whoever said "keep the tools simple"

SolidWorks users are now paying a heavy price in usability and reliability
because the application has moved (in my view) too far to appease those who
equate number of options with power, and can't get enough.


The business convention that software purchases have to be justified to
people whose minds tend to work that way doesn't help.
Whoever it was who said "accountants would prefer to build slums than cities
because it is hard to justify the incremental costs" was not being entirely
flippant.

COMPLEXITY DOES NOT of itself ADD VALUE

usually, quite the opposite.

 

While we are on the subject of planes.

If you were to have the option to offset and rotate. What would you
be rotating about? There are a million line combinations on a plane
that you could rotate on and have a completely diferent plane, how
would solidworks know which one to use? It may be somewhat deceptive
when you have a simple part and are working off of 3 planes (Front,
Top, Right) you would to offset the plane 3" along the top at 45°. I
think we are fogetting that planes go on infinitely in all directions,
solidworks may give them a boundry but in reality infinity is a long
way. Although it would be nice to beable to create an axis at an
offset like this. Axis 3" from Plane "Front" along Plane top. Then
rotate a plane about this axis. It would save making an extra plane
and it would be fully defined.

Second

I have had a few instances where I make a sweep. Well then I want to
add some revolve features at the end of the sweep. I make sure there
is a temporary axis at the end and the face is square to that. All I
want is a plane perp to the face at the temp axis, but again this is
not allowed for some reason. I guess there would be no way to figure
the rotation about the axis. I would be happy if it defaulted to the
x-axis or something (I know AutoCad does this).

And that's all I have to say about that. atleast for now =)

Corey Scheich