I too have played around with a pseudo "Assembly" and found exactly the same as you. I realized quite quickly for it all to stay intact, manual saves and reference updates to the attached parts were required. It's just like the old days when a member of my team spread across the design floor, would call out "SS!" (Strategic Save), all the others with open files related to that assembly would save their files, close out, wait for the "AC!" (All Clear) signal and then resume working. Team Building at it finest! Now Windchill, PLM or TeamCenter does it all behind the curtain. Sad....

Regardless, I was able to "navigate" that minefield okay until the Monster came to bite me. That was the ability to move and/or align/mate parts together in one file, which I tried and then then....Crash and Burn. Imported files cannot be properly linked to one another it would seem. Anyway, I gave it a go, the code freaked out and I had to exit stage left. This is where updated and robust Assembly functions would be stellar. So many possibilities!

Thanks for the code primer. I am running Shark Pro and it seems to have the ability to modify, set and keep the things you have shown. I too like a clean and non-clunky visual environment. I set all those items to my taste early on and have not had any weirdness within the work space to speak of since. Maybe you could screen dump an image of the Toolbar(s) you have brought out of hiding?

Nothing too exciting, you can just show the fill toolbars and things like that, I also found a Variables and Equations toolbar which I'm trying to figure out, no idea what it does or how to use it but looks like it could be useful?

Also attached the image of auto constraints and there's one for show constraints as well, but they don't seem to have any affect

the D-Cubed 2D/3D constraint manager was removed several versions ago mainly because of royalties for a seldom used functionality but also a mediocre implementation which would have required a lot of love to be fully integrated.

Besides of this, all 'big boys' have promoted over the last several years that they have enabled "Direct Modeling" besides the constraint driven modeling concept which is mainly important for the less creative purposes of MCAD modelers.

Edited by user Tuesday, January 9, 2018 7:24:52 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You can 'live' section an object using 'infinite plane'(s) and the cut section tool.

Moving the Infinite plane(s) updates the sections

Probably not the answer you're looking for

(right click an infinite plane > 'use as clip plane' ... gives you a cut-away- which is 'live' ... ie you can move the section

Posh.de, very true. The Big Boys have promoted it endlessly, but in reality DM is not used widely in the proper MCAD world. I have noticed their are two camps with regard to "ooey-gooey" direct modeling vs. explicit/constraint modeling. The first camp are the concept developers/animators that can whip something up is a few seconds for discussion. The second are the Designers that have to convey reality within the concept that can live on into production. Also, just because it's explicit/constraint driven modeling does not mean it is restricted or less creative. I have seen some very impressive people do very incredible modeling in both methods. But, unless the main objective is lifelike 3D animation, like a Pixar movie, then DM is usually not the method used for very long in the process. And even then, software like Maya and Blender still use an underlying explicit (constrained) structure to control the final results/movements. For example, I mostly use Creo for my day job and I do find situations when I use virtual "goo" (in Creo there are multiple tools: Style, Freestyle, Warp, Solid Freeform, Surface Freeform) as the base feature and then push/pull/morph things into a concept. Even though it's Direct Modeling, 99% of the time it's only good to a certain point for most situations. It's only my experience with Creo that allows me to use that DM model in production. Unfortunately I can not deliver these models to clients as no one could change or revise it later without the model imploding. In other words, if I know I will always be in control of the data, I will use very advanced techniques like DM. Otherwise, I have to use well known modeling techniques so others can revise it later. In the end, usually all unconstrained/direct models that have made it through to prototype/production stage have to be remodeled or constrained to live through the data cycle. The time required is not any less to product release. It's either done in the beginning or at the end. At least this is my experience.

Finally, I am not dismissing the value of either method described above. VC/Shark somewhat sits in the center of both techniques very similarly to Catia, NX, Creo and to a lesser degree SolidWorks. In other words, VC/Shark is not Maya, Blender or any other "ooey-Gooey" code at its core, so it would be unfair to compare it on that basis. I simply see VC/Shark at a very interesting position in the MCAD market. A few added things and it becomes a Player in my opinion.

Edited by user Tuesday, January 9, 2018 9:31:40 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

How was that created? Is that a sketch or an intersection of some kind?

You could try to group profiles instead of joining.

Regards
Jason

Should I be joining curve or grouping curves? As far as I'm concerned I'd be joining them, otherwise we need a work around manual! NeuTechFLA, when you flatten drawing views do they move? Seems Sharks functions which are the same as ViaCADs have issues as well.

The whole view moves, i posted the error in drafting section, and i put a dimension between a flattened and non flattened view

Cheers

Hi, I've recorded the screen to show what happens. If the join curve doesn't join curves what else do you do to join curves?