Simulation of motion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Willem Wagelaar on January 29, 2010 at 1:33am

Tijs, I have had similar problems when making a model to simulate robot movement with a parallellogram. See my post "unable to constrain" in the General chapter of the other SpaceClaim forum. Hope they will make it work in the next version. It would also be nice to have a real motion module in SC to simulate the movement of cylinders, wheels etc.

Regards,
Willem Wagelaar

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tyler Wesley on February 3, 2010 at 1:50pm

I think what you are trying to do can be done with the tools in the assembly toolbar (align, center, orient)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bob Argh on February 4, 2010 at 6:46pm

word on the street is that this functionality will be in the next release. Look for a checkbox in options -> advanced to turn it on.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Poorvesh Mistry on February 7, 2010 at 9:03pm

I had found this functionality missing a year back and had asked for enhancement. Tyler those commands of assembly, just helps to align & orient parts but currently its not possible to analyse the motion between 4 links of a mechanism.
I am currently working on Solidworks 2009 & found some functionality which is similar in SpaceClaim, like contour selection, sketch modification in 3D & Instant 3D, for fast conceptualization.
It appears as if the concept was initiated by Solidworks, but SpaceClaim came with an approach which seems to be far more faster than Solidworks due to no restriction of structure / specification tree. But the same is a hurdel, due to no perfect constraining and locking of such dimensions / constraints, so sometimes the geometry model deforms unexpectedly
I believe that there is solution to this that we would soon find in the upcoming version of Spaceclaim

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by christopher bartlett on February 8, 2010 at 11:20am

I agree that inverse kinematics would be very useful.

In a related issue, I have had trouble exporting STL files of the components of an assembly--the exported files of the various components do not seem to share a common coordinate system--despite the fact that they appear to have a common coordinate system in the spaceclaim assembly. When the STL files are re-assembled in another application the orientations of the respective components is wrong. It would be great if this feature could be repaired when the inverse kinematics is added.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on February 27, 2010 at 10:48am

It seems the functionality discussed in this thread is there now. At least I could just build and move a 4-joint construction. If we could only upload files here, I'd show you a sample ...

There appear to be certain limitations, though. I could easily constrain four joints, but when I put the bolts in the joints, and constrained them to the holes, it stopped working. Maybe I need to follow a different strategy.

Martin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tijs Driessen on March 1, 2010 at 7:13am

Hi Martin,

I've installed SP 1 of SC engineer now, and I tried to make my 4 joint mechanism move, but so far I haven't been able to do so.
I made 4 simple bars with two holes in each bar. Then I mated the holes with the center tool in the assembly section. I assume you've done something similar, am I right?

But then how do you move the construction so that all the joints stay attached?

Regards, Tijs

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on March 1, 2010 at 7:26am

Tijs,

if I had your email address, I'd send you the file ...
I have in fact done something very similar to what you did: I made a base part that hast two 'pins' that act as axis' and three bar or bone like objects with two holes each, and centered these on the pins and with each other.
I move one of them bars (doesn't matter which) with the move tool.

Did you switch mechanics on in options/advanced?

Martin

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tijs Driessen on March 1, 2010 at 9:11am

It was the advanced option that I missed. Thank you very much!

▶ Reply to This