RobDraw Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 We've also proven that the center is located on the circumference after the move, 0 distance from center to perpendicular. It is a display problem that needs to be addressed. Quote
Dadgad Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Draw a line from the center of the circle that passes through the circumference. Now when you draw your second circle use the intersection of the line and circle as the point to snap to via INTERSECTION and forget using NEAREST. dadgad: We've tried to pint out that the OP is working in a world of mixed objects (both 2D and 3D) but he wants to ignore the fact. Yeah, I was late to the party, I use PERPENDICULAR all the time to snap to circles, and it works fine for me, assuming that they are coplanar, if I am using a POLYLINE. And even if they are not coplanar, if your OSNAPZ is set to 1, it should still work with 2D geometrics. Please repost if you come up with an answer, good luck. Quote
MSasu Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Please check the attached drawing; starting from the one you posted, I have draw some circles on the circumference of your entities - the red ones are done using NEArest Osnap mode, respectively the green one using INTersection. Problem_drawingX.dwg Quote
ReMark Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 I went back and using the posted example drawing by the OP was able to move the circle using the CENTER osnap as my basepoint and then NEAREST for the second point (selecting the larger diameter circle). It worked perfectly for me (AutoCAD 2012). Quote
RobDraw Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 It worked for the OP also. It just didn't look right on the screen. Quote
SLW210 Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Try setting FACETRES=10 You neglected to mention you were snapping to 3D Cylinder. Quote
ReMark Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 There is a way to verify that it is right simply by drawing a line from the center of the larger circle to the smaller circle. Do a list on both the line and the smaller circle. Look at the X/Y coordinates of both. What we should see is that the center of the circle and the endpoint of our line share the exact same coordinates. Which they do: So, I agree with RobDraw. The error is in the eye of the beholder and does not indicate that AutoCAD itself is the source of the problem. Quote
MSasu Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 The inaccuracy is measurable, it is 0,04mm,more with bigger circle, but this is measured whitout Nearest snap on, as it will just snapp to the same point. The OP was talking about a measured difference - it will be intersting if he/she will mention how was validated that. Quote
ReMark Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 With the method I just outlined the "measured difference" would be zero. Darn those quotation marks they just keep slipping in there. Quote
Dadgad Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Last shot, it is working on my computer, using the PERPENDICULAR snap, no problem. Quote
ReMark Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 I don't think we're going to change the OP's perception of the problem. He will believe his eyes and nothing we say is going to convince him otherwise. Maybe we should resign ourselves to the three words used in post #57. Quote
rkent Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Set APBOX to 1, APERTURE to 7, try again. Quote
redbeardcad Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 Maybe I'm "out in left field". But in old versions when you zoomed in on two line that crossed you could always see that they crossed. Then in maybe 2007 or 2008 when you zoomed way in, the two line would appear to move apart (which was stated earlier) as a graphics thing. I was under the impression that this was done so that if there were many line that went through a single point, one could distinguish between the lines. When zoomed out to view more of the drawing everything looks good and in fact are good. But then I thought that since I have a minimal graphics card, it is all just a display problem. One that an IT manager may not like to admit, because they think they know all, and you really don't need good graphics in CAD if you are just doing 2D. Quote
aglaerum Posted October 23, 2012 Author Posted October 23, 2012 Maybe I'm "out in left field". But in old versions when you zoomed in on two line that crossed you could always see that they crossed. Then in maybe 2007 or 2008 when you zoomed way in, the two line would appear to move apart (which was stated earlier) as a graphics thing. I was under the impression that this was done so that if there were many line that went through a single point, one could distinguish between the lines. When zoomed out to view more of the drawing everything looks good and in fact are good. But then I thought that since I have a minimal graphics card, it is all just a display problem. One that an IT manager may not like to admit, because they think they know all, and you really don't need good graphics in CAD if you are just doing 2D. The Cad guy was at home today, tomorrow im going to Oslo, so there might be some delay for those as eager as me to find the answer. Im used to older versions and it might ass well be as simple as you say, the thing is, sometimes it fails to find the intersection, i zoom in slightly and see a big gap, but that might be a different problem all together. My hardware has 16 GB ram, newest i7 prossessor and so on, but I never checked the graphics card for some reason. So you might be right... Nice to see someone without an agenda to show how smart one is, and how stupid OP is, I knew forums was bad, but this really blew my mind ;P Quote
RobDraw Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 You joined the crew pretty quick. Some of your comments were knee jerk reactions that snowballed the situation. Quote
aglaerum Posted October 23, 2012 Author Posted October 23, 2012 You joined the crew pretty quick. Some of your comments were knee jerk reactions that snowballed the situation. RobDraw: you might be right. ReMark: although you may possibly know cad, and know nice little anecdotes, you completely lack the skill to communicate properly, therefore your knowledge will never reach its destination. Quote
ReMark Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 The point is you were told by more than one person what the cause of the problem was but you refused to be open minded enough to accept what they were saying. Quote
JD Mather Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 ReMark: although you may possibly know cad.... I didn't read through 8 pages (can't understand how a "discussion" on this could run 8 pages), but anywhere in the discussion did you actually attach a dwg file that exhibits this behavior? I prefer to communicate with geometry rather than words or static pictures. Never mind - I see attachment in #30. Not sure what you are doing. Carry on the discussion.......... Quote
aglaerum Posted October 23, 2012 Author Posted October 23, 2012 I didn't read through 8 pages (can't understand how a "discussion" on this could run 8 pages), but anywhere in the discussion did you actually attach a dwg file that exhibits this behavior? I prefer to communicate with geometry rather than words or static pictures. Never mind - I see attachment in #30. Not sure what you are doing. Carry on the discussion.......... This is why this tread is too long... Quote
ReMark Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 Post #2 by MSasu: "This may by only a visual representation problem..." Could have stopped right there. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.