TurboCAD Forums

The Ultimate Resource for TurboCAD Knowledge

Register
 
Interested in some really terrific mobile apps? Visit www.turboapps.com for details.

data compatability
Read 775 times
March 25, 2020, 09:50:33 AM
If following protocol properly it seems that TurboCAD’s plug-in variables deviate some from the Machinery’s Handbook & supply houses like McMaster-Carr in establishing taper doll pins & their respective reamers a similar thing happens with hex sockets on screw heads especially for machine designers.

Using trig the equivalency isn’t in conflict; however you’d think having to resort to any intermediate work (trigonometry) ideally is not required before arriving at the useful information. If TC publicized diameters small, large, & length compatible with the previously mentioned would be more direct; isn’t the intent of any CAD software to make designs intrinsically easier?

Logged


* March 25, 2020, 10:46:02 AM
#1
Bob, specifically what plug-in variables are you referring to?

Henry H

Logged


March 25, 2020, 02:20:33 PM
#2
You’ll see this when making truncated tapered objects; the variables are on the lower left of the screen.  If highlighting a provided truncated icon at the screen bottom you’ll see several variables you’re to plug in two heights one a projection the other the length, but not the small diameter of the cone – using this is how it is specified in MHB.

The small diameter I had to trig out rather than have that specified out off corresponding with supply houses.  Perhaps there’s a good reason surely not just randomly giving data but at this writing I don’t see it.

Logged


* March 25, 2020, 03:06:41 PM
#3
Is that protocol an actual standard or traditional?  TC's got buckets of methodologies to define and propagate those parameters, is there a compelling reason that it should conform with the book?   Lofting or prisming between profiles of end diameters does it that diametrically, revolving a tapered profile or extruding with draft takes angular parameter.    Constraints give numerical, tabular variables, they can be set up pretty much as you want. 

Logged


March 25, 2020, 04:01:10 PM
#4
The main reason to comply with previous work is to use terms or data presently familiar or established with its reader, that way you’re always on the same page or in sync.  If the system can indeed be set-up giving the small diameter right-off for a given length as well as the large diameter I stand corrected.  It sounds like from your description it can, then I might be doing things the hard way - but I was not aware of it.

Thanks,

Bob

Logged


* March 25, 2020, 05:26:11 PM
#5
If following protocol properly it seems that TurboCAD’s plug-in variables deviate some from the Machinery’s Handbook & supply houses like McMaster-Carr in establishing taper doll pins & their respective reamers a similar thing happens with hex sockets on screw heads especially for machine designers.

Using trig the equivalency isn’t in conflict; however you’d think having to resort to any intermediate work (trigonometry) ideally is not required before arriving at the useful information. If TC publicized diameters small, large, & length compatible with the previously mentioned would be more direct; isn’t the intent of any CAD software to make designs intrinsically easier?

What is the problem with hex sockets on screw heads?

EDIT: Let me guess: It's the inability to specify the across flats dimension. I'm with you on that. There is a workaround that's maybe a tad easier than doing the trig. Draw the hexagon with Angle =0 and using a reasonable guess for the "Radius." Select the object, press the "Keep aspect ratio" icon on the Inspector Bar, type the desired dimension in the Size Y field, and press Enter.

Henry H
« Last Edit: March 25, 2020, 05:43:54 PM by Henry Hubich »

Logged


* March 25, 2020, 07:26:24 PM
#6
If following protocol properly it seems that TurboCAD’s plug-in variables deviate some from the Machinery’s Handbook & supply houses like McMaster-Carr in establishing taper doll pins & their respective reamers a similar thing happens with hex sockets on screw heads especially for machine designers.

Using trig the equivalency isn’t in conflict; however you’d think having to resort to any intermediate work (trigonometry) ideally is not required before arriving at the useful information. If TC publicized diameters small, large, & length compatible with the previously mentioned would be more direct; isn’t the intent of any CAD software to make designs intrinsically easier?

What is the problem with hex sockets on screw heads?

EDIT: Let me guess: It's the inability to specify the across flats dimension. I'm with you on that. There is a workaround that's maybe a tad easier than doing the trig. Draw the hexagon with Angle =0 and using a reasonable guess for the "Radius." Select the object, press the "Keep aspect ratio" icon on the Inspector Bar, type the desired dimension in the Size Y field, and press Enter.

Henry H

In the 2D Polygon tool, you can select the "Segment Mode" to specify a Radius to the ‘flat’ on the polygon.

Logged
John R.

V17—V21, 2015—2020
Designer, Deluxe, (Basic, Expert, Professional), Platinum
RedSDK enabled
Windows 10 Pro (1909), 64-bit


* March 25, 2020, 07:37:57 PM
#7
Thanks for the reminder, John. I'd forgotten that.

Henry H

Logged