-
-
-
|
.
|
| I appreciate the new languages available for DevCad. Thanks for this new option.
When starting installation of recent version DevCad 3.04 is was first prompted to chose English or Italian. At the end of installation I was again prompted to chose a language, this time offering i.a. my native language German. I chosed this, and it works quite fine.
For some reason I switched back to English in the "Tools" menu. However, the "Tools" menu still offers English and Italian only, as in the very beginning of the installation procedure. I cannot switch back to German. Is there a way to go for the entire range of languages, except re-installing the entire software?
Cheers,
Stefan |
|
-
|
.
|
| The "simple break" function works fine on polylines, as long as such polylines are "open".
In my personal practise this is seldom the case. Most of the time I use polylines to draw a closed contour, wherein start point and end point meet each other.
In such a closed contour resp. closed polyline, only the "break" function works. However, I cannot make the "simple break" function work for opening a closed contour. Is there a way to go for it?
Cheers,
Stefan |
|
-
-
|
.
|
| CITAZIONE (Greg9504 @ 24/1/2020, 11:11) ... Perhaps if you took a screen shot you could better relay what your problem is? ...
I'd like to do so, Greg. Its just I cant find out how to upload images. The IMG button asks for an URL, but this doesn't help me with the image files on my hard disk. Any help how to proceed?
|
|
-
|
.
|
| Thanks for clarifying that.
Just to make it clear: although Devxxx use on a 4K monitor is below optimum, it is still an impressive improvement over previously used 1920x1080 display. So feel encouraged and give it a try.
- Stefan |
|
-
|
.
|
| Hi all,
recently I upgraded my computer including the luxury of a 32" 4K-Monitor. Everything works fine so far except one thing:
The MS-Windows monitor setting recommends 150% for text and icon enlargement for better readability. This works fine in standard office applications, and also (for comparison) in the 3D CAD application Creo Elements: All menu items are enlarged, while the graphics of the designed parts is 4K super fine. Perfect.
Devcad (and other Devxxx applications) behaves different: In case I chose 100% I'll get a super fine graphic presentation of my design (which is very nice :-)), however accompanied with pretty small menu items and also a quite small text command line. In case I chose the recommended 150% then the menu items plus text command line do have a good size. However, the entire graphic presentation of the design is also blown up, leading to thick lines with coarse steps in angled orientations. The entire appearance is like I would use the 3840x2160 monitor in 2560x1440 mode, which is not desirable.
Is there any workaround ahead to operate Devcad and the other Devxxx range in ultra-HD mode with enlarged menu items/text command line while keeping the super fine 4K graphic presentation of the designed parts?
- Stefan |
|
-
|
.
|
| Just for the case that anyone else is interested:
Stefano immediately helped and found the solution:
The airfoil contour needs a certain sense of rotation, which is counter clockwise. I had it the other way round.
Solution is simple: Either draw a polyline counter clockwise, or (as I did now), use DevCad command "modify=>polylines operations=>invert sense of rotation"
Now everything works as should be.
Thanks a lot, Stefano
Greetings,
Stefan
P.S. Althoug no top priority issue: It might be desirable to implement an automatic correction in the DevCad Export-to-Dat-file routine, since it is not straight forward to avoid or find such mistakes. |
|
-
|
.
|
| Ontop of an old RC pattern plane (MK Fuji) plan I made a drawing of the wing section trying to derive the unknown airfoil. Using DevCad I exported the drawing as a .DAT file and imported it into my Profili Pro.
Everything fine so far. Profili shows the airfoil as sketched. I had a look at the .DAT file and everything looks fine to me. Even the integrated Xfoil routine calculates plausible polar diagrams.
Everything fine except one: Profili says "0% thickness at 0% of the chord". While strictly speaking this is a true statement, it is of course not what I'm looking for. With such message I can't make use of the "similar airfoil search" routine.
So what does it need to generate correct basic airfoil parameters like max thickness and location of max thickness?
greetings,
Stefan
I should add:
From manual measurement it is a symmetrical airfoil having 16% max thickness at 35% od of the chord.
I drew the upper contour only and mirrored it for generating the lower countur. In result the airfoil as drawn is strictly symmetrical.
Stefan |
|
-
-
|
.
|
| Hi all,
when using the DevCad spline function I stumbled over an end tangent issue:
End tangents can be nicely used to introduce a forced direction and curvature at the respective end of the spline. If one does not want to have such forced end curvature one can omit the end tangent option, with however two different ways and two different results.
1.) First way is straight forward: Use the regular spline function including the end tangent function. Then take the green end tangent control point an put it on top of the corresponding blue end vertex. Works fine. Advantage: In case one does not like the result, one can grab again the green end tangent control point and modify the end until satisfied. Works fine as well.
2.) Second way of end tangent omission: Put both (!) green end tangent control points on top of the corresponding blue end vertices during the initial spline definition. Initial result is the same in having no forced end curvatures. However, the difference (and disadvantage) is, that there is no green end tangent control point generated. In case one finds the spline end not to be satisfactory, one cannot correct the end tangent. Same with a spline when converted from a polyline. It looks like DevCad has two different types of splines, one with and ane without end tangent option.
In case I have a spline without green end tangent control points: Is there a way of afterwards introducing or reintroducing the end tangent control option?
Greetings,
Stefan |
|
-
|
.
|
| Hmh, hard to imagine. Where is the logic?
Generating line contours in the active layer: fine.
Generating a region in the active layer: fine.
Adding one or more regions in the active layer: fine.
Altering a region by adding, deleting or moving one or more vertices in the active layer: fine.
Altering a region by merging or substracting another region of the same layer: result disappears to layer #1. For what reason should one like such behaviour?
Or from a more practical viewpoint:
- I work let's say on a wooden model airplane
- I have dedicated different layers to different materials, which could be e.g. 1.5mm and 2.0mm Balsa plus 1.5 and 3.0mm plywood.
- Now I work in the layer let's say dedicated to 3.0mm plywood for refinement of a front fuselage former. Consequently I switch off all layers being not required for that.
- I do a number of adjustments by whatever region function, and the adjusted former region stays where it should be, that is in the 3.0mm plywood layer. Everything is fine with that, since the present object is acutally going to be a 3.0mm plywood former.
- Now I do an adjustment by using boolean subtract or add function. And all of a sudden, my 3.0mm plywood former vanishes to layer #1, which is probably dedicated to something else. How could that make sense?
Stefano, the entire thing is not a big issue, and I can work well with the status as is. I'm not rushing you, since I am not in a rush. And I have no intention to nag about a product which I actually like to work with. But when it comes to the point whether the discussed behaviour is good as is or not, it's hard for me to follow. I don't see any benefit in automatically moving a boolean generated region to layer #1 in contradiction to any other region alteration function, nor can I imagine that anyone else could have reasons for liking that. My intention is limited to indicate where I am stumbling during work, for either getting help, or to give hints on improvement opportunities.
Stefan
Edited by Haegar - 28/11/2017, 15:26 |
|
-
|
.
|
| Okay then, Stefano. Again, please put it on the "non urgent sometimes to be done" wish list :-)
Thanks,
Stefan |
|
-
|
.
|
| Hi there,
the functions as offered under "Regions boolean operations" are pretty nice. However, when using it along with multiple layers things are confusing me. To explain my issue I present a simple example:
I want to have let's say a rectangular plate with four holes. Therefore, I draw a rectangle and four circles inside. Then I use the "create region" function by just clicking into the required place of the drawing, that is one click in each circle and one click inside the rectangle. Works well, and five regions are created. Finally I use the "regions substract" function, and the result is - as required - a rectangle plate (region) with four holes in it. So far, everything is fine.
In a more complex drawing with numerous layers in use, I stumbled over a strange behaviour: Let's say I have ten layers, and at present I work in active layer #10. Rectangle and circles are correctly generated within layer #10. And also the five initial regions are correctly generated within layer #10.
However, not so for the final region as generated by boolean operation. When using substract (or add), the resulting region is always placed in layer #1. This is not what I intend, since I deliberately work in layer #10. I have to relocate the newly generated region from layer #1 into the current working layer. And there also is a disturbing side effect: in case I have made inactive layer #1 invisible (turned off the light in the layers manager), as I prefer to do in multiple layer projects, the newly generated region just disappears from the screen, giving the impression that something was accidentally deleted. Of course it is not deleted, but one has to remember that the new region is just hidden in the turned off layer #1.
Is there any workaround to keep the entire process of regions handling within the current active layer?
Cheers,
Stefan |
|
48 replies since 5/2/2014
.
