I just went through a problem one of my users encountered again. It's something that pops up on occasion but never with any sort of regularity, consistency or repeatability.
He created a section in his model that cuts through the center of a hole (or a hole-shaped extrude). In the model the section displays 100% correctly. However, when placing a drawing view, the section does not behave correctly. No matter what actions taken to try to resolve this the x-hatching does not display properly and it appears the section is cutting through a different location.
The only fix appears to be moving the x-section datum plane so it's .005" off the axis of the hole it goes through. Once that is done, everything looks the way it should.
Things we've tried that did not correct the problem:
- redefine the x-section datum plane side (flip the datum arrow)
- recreate the x-section datum plane
- flip the section in the model
- flip the section in the drawing
- change to an offset section that references the hole/extrude axis
- change to an offset section that does not reference the hole/extrude axis
- create the hole/extrude axis as a child of the x-section datum plane
- create the x-section datum as a child of the hole/extrude axis
- create the x-section datum and the hole/extrude completely independent of each other (no parent/child relationship)
Action taken to correct the problem
- create the section so it does NOT go through the axis -- we offset it by .005" and it worked properly
Generally this solution allows an acceptable drawing to be created, especially if it's possible to use driving/shown dimensions for the features shown.
However, I'm wondering if there is a solution that doesn't involve faking out the system. This is a problem that I've seen since around the beginning of Wildfire.
As mentioned, repeatability is an issue. Every time I've tried to recreate the problem -- because that's the first thing tech support is going to ask for -- the sections work perfectly. I can't send the actual drawing/part files due to restrictions (and so far it hasn't been worth the paperwork trouble). It also happens so rarely that users generally forget about it and this time it took me some time to remember the trick to fixing it.
So, has anyone else seen this behavior and is there a solution I'm overlooking?