Fill surface patch using 3DSketch grid.

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by Paul Salvador, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. All,

    Not sure how many of you would find this useful but I find it useful.

    http://www.zxys.com/swparts/fill-patch-zxys.png
    http://www.zxys.com/swparts/fill-patch-zxys-b.png
    http://www.zxys.com/swparts/fill-patch-zxys.zip

    What's kewl about this is you can drag/drop this into your sldprt and
    utilize the 3Dsketch boundary as is or convert the 4 inside curves too
    add as your constraint curves for more shape control.

    Although it would be nice to drag/drop or copy/paste on a specific plane
    or point in space or rotate... I don't think it's possible?? (please let
    me know if it is??).. so, you'd have to make a few versions for
    different orientations or break all the constraints and re constrain?
    Otherwise, a quick workaround for orientation, you could do a incontext
    sldasm relation or insert part?

    Anyhow, have fun! 8^)

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Apr 8, 2004
    #1
  2. Here is a file that shows pretty much what I wish SolidWorks
    would do when you press the "Face Curves" button.

    http://www.mikejwilson.com/misc/associative_face_curves.zip

    Instead of just laying the Red/Green direction lines over the face,
    I would want it to be associative and to be able to push/pull some
    control points and tweak the face a little.

    Mike Wilson
     
    Mike J. Wilson, Apr 8, 2004
    #2
  3. No, it has nothing to do with filling a hole, it's more directed towards
    freeform face or sheet modeling.

    If you don't understand it's usefulness or don't see a need for such a
    tool, you'll probably never use it or ever have a need for it.

    This is totally related to the need/want of having UV access,
    manipulation or associative curve/surface control.

    For example:
    http://www.rhino3d.tv/ano_2003/bumper_enero.html

    And, yes, ShapeWorks has some of this functionality..
    http://www.baren-boym.com/pages/solidworks_sa_sw.htm

    Since SW Corp is clueless with implementing this or maybe they can
    (honestly) buy the technology (which they can't figure out) and
    implement something which some of us have been requesting.

    Nevermind, it's a silly thought... (duh!,.. slap forehead)

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Apr 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Yeo, yeo, dat's the ticket homie!

    No, nevermind, make more tree's, Mike!!??

    ... (sorry, I'm LMAO right now... control/focus...)
     
    Paul Salvador, Apr 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Paul Salvador

    neil Guest

    Paul,
    I have a need for better surfacing tools and I have come to the conclusion
    SW will never get there. instead of waiting on SW I intend to biff
    subscription this year and buy Rhino. Are there any negatives or limitations
    with using Rhino and SW together on a project in your experience?
    thanks
    BTW I see 04sp3 lofts changed slightly again from sp2 but still aren't
    consistent with 03...oh well.
     
    neil, Apr 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Paul Salvador

    Jeff Mowry Guest

    Rhino's not parametric, so you would have major problems in editing if
    you're doing production design/engineering (who doesn't require edits?).

    You could import and use the Rhino surfaces, but they would be stuck as
    imported. Maybe that would work for what you're doing.

    You might want to try out Rhino before buying it. Yes, the NURB stuff
    is nifty, but you might need some equations to drive your point clouds,
    depending on what you really need. I find the push/pull meshes a hassle
    in many cases, but you can certainly get what you want. I'd recommend
    using as few U/V controls as possible for what you're trying to get.


    Jeff Mowry
    Industrial Designhaus, LLC
    http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com
    (Remove "GETRIDOFTHIS" from email address)
     
    Jeff Mowry, Apr 8, 2004
    #6
  7. I have a need for better surfacing tools and I have come to the conclusion
    Here's an interesting factoid to chew on - last weekend I was in the weird
    position of having a conversation with the guy who invited NURBS surfaces in
    his PHD thesis (Ken Versprille, I think is the name). He told me that NO
    CAD vendor has implemented them the way they were originally designed to be
    used.
    One specific thing he said that stuck in my mind was that the original math
    was intended to be able to draw curves on the surface to define regions for
    changes, which is sort-of-like-but-even-more-powerful-than the control point
    model. So I don't know if I can get down on SWx so much when an entire
    industry has had the math for almost 30 years and still hasn't caught up to
    the original design, at least according to a guy who is, by my thinking, in
    a really good position to know.

    But I don't want this to be a defense of SWx surfacing -I have maintained
    for a long time that if you are able to go use better existing surfacing
    tools, why wouldn't you? My customers work in SWx, so I work in SWX. There
    are also duplications of learning curve issues that were covered quite well
    by Andrew Troup earlier this week that keep me on SWx. But if you can go to
    something else and you have no good reasons to be held back, it seems to me
    the choice is simple.
     
    Edward T Eaton, Apr 8, 2004
    #7
  8. Paul Salvador

    neil Guest

    Thanks for your feedback Edward -that's quite interesting about the surface
    loops still not being used as intended by anyone. You have quite a few
    interesting insider contacts!
    I don't really understand the 'reluctance' of SW to 'articulate' surfaces
    for us.
    It seems to me there must be underlying difficulties in the way the SW
    program is put together? If you look at the CG field SW is really beginning
    to look quite wooden- even things like open source Blender are moving
    faster.
    Just about every product I look at these days has had a fair bit of time
    spent on its styling - or it isn't going to sell in a global market place-
    and the shapes definitely aren't simple. IMO if SW want to maintain a
    leading sales position in the midrange they are going to have to provide
    better tools than the current offering. Seems to me development resources
    are deployed on reusing/streamlining current capability rather than adding
    to core functions e.g. weldment routines. No sign of surface improvements in
    05 AFAIK.
    I gather you don't make use of any imported surfaces? or other programs for
    ID? I would have thought that being as involved in ID as you are that using
    SW for surfacing would be like working with one hand behind your back all
    the time. You must have looked at other programs anything tempt you?
     
    neil, Apr 9, 2004
    #8
  9. I gather you don't make use of any imported surfaces? or other programs
    for
    We sometimes work with imported surfaces, but usually in the context of -
    "here's an imported surface... please remake it in SWx."

    Other packages do tempt me, and I would like to use them. Talking to Ken
    opened my eyes to some things, though, like the UV points that other
    packages use that have evenly spaced nodes. They are called NURBS for a
    reason - the whole point is that the B-SPlines are Non-Uniform! If
    everything were evenly spaced, they would be URBS. This of course is
    another level of validation for throwing out the silly notion of
    constructing lofts from evenly spaced sections, which I ditched years ago
    from trials (and lots of error) and have been able to get better work done
    ever since.

    On ID - I could be stuck with one hand behind my back if I let myself. I've
    done it in the past, and now cringe when I think of it. That is why,
    instead of starting in software, I start my designs without thinking about
    CAD at all, focusing instead on form, users, and manufacturing. Usually,
    there is a point where I make the design in a castelene clay (this clay has
    excellent properties), and then go into CAD to 'document' that design and
    add all the stuff CAD is good for (draft, symmetry, etc). So I can
    legitimately say that SWx does not hamper my ability to design because I
    wont f***ing let it. The vulnerable parts of my design is done out of the
    context of CAD so it can't restrict me.

    This brings up an interesting point - ever walk around an electronics store
    and look at products from the CAD standpoint? I think in many cases you can
    identify the software used by looking at the final product, because some
    forms are easier or harder depending on the CAD you use. I can always tell
    what came out of 2D design software, which is still (scary revelation here)
    the primary tool of a huge block of Industrial Designers, with the exception
    that they no longer do perspective views because it is too hard in P-Shop,
    Illustrator, etc. SO, as you walk through a store, you will see a lot of
    'orthographic products that suspiciously have not had any consideration
    given to their backs, which is really sad on things like cell phones where
    the back is really important.
    And lets not kid ourselves - do you really think it is just a coincidence
    that, now that designers are being pressured to use solid modelers, that the
    'sexy cube' is suddenly in fashion?

    Even the bumper sample form Rhino that Paul Salvador slinked us to is a
    victim of this CAD-centric process of form creation - yeah, cool form, but
    so much of it was defined NOT by the user BUT by the software. You are
    passing on authorship of most of it to a piece of code, and all you are
    responsible for is region and magnitude. Try to exactly match a clay model
    or design done without CAD controlling too much and you are probably back to
    working the way I work.
     
    Edward T Eaton, Apr 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Paul Salvador

    Andrew Troup Guest

    Huge snip
    Alleluya, brother ! (I'm not sure that I achieve that, but I certainly
    aspire to)

    Interesting notion - I've wondered that for a long time, but I haven't put
    in enough time on enough packages (or been close enough to users of other
    packages) to have more than a hazy presentiment of this.

    I first noticed this "tool influencing the task" phenomenon when turret
    (sheetmetal) punches first became commonplace. It seemed to me that there
    was a global upsurge in certain design "phrases" or "quotations" (jazz
    parlance, I guess) which had suddenly became easy to achieve, like groups of
    obrounds (round ended slots) set at 45deg. Although it started with items
    like park benches, this even trickled into non-sheetmetal designs like car
    taillights.
    (This is one I happen to quite like.)

    Similarly the rise of the ellipse (which I personally hate with a
    passion*) - it possibly coincided with the wholesale adoption of CAD.

    I experience the dislike in this case as an aesthetic repulsion. I don't
    quite know why, I just find the ends too pointy for my liking. I don't mind
    ellipsoidal domes- it's specifically the ellipse as a planar boundary I
    dislike.
    Possibly it might be intensified from having trained in the era when you had
    to construct hundreds of ellipses with a compass just to draw an isometric
    cutaway section through a gate valve. Drawing realistic threads in external
    isometric projection was particularly tedious (Hell, to this day it's even
    considered too laborious and menial for a powerful modelling kernel). Maybe,
    as with cod-liver oil, familiarity breeds loathing.


    PS Ed - if you read this:
    Give us some warning if you are ever minded to visit New Zealand -- you can
    be assured of a thoroughly good time, possibly even better than Texas
    (putting flame suit on NOW)

    If you *really* wanted to, we could even wheel you out in front of some very
    attentive user groups !
     
    Andrew Troup, Apr 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Paul Salvador

    neil Guest

    thank for your thoughts
    I know what you mean about looking at products and thinking about the tools
    used. What I have noticed here in New Zealand in the world marketplace the
    design bar is rising all the time. Sure there is some rather clumsy- semi
    shoddy stuff about from emerging countries but it has to sell at bottom
    prices and it is not long before they close the gaps. I don't think anyone
    can seriously expect to succeed today without some seriously competent
    design work. What I wonder about is-is SW really good enough for this stuff
    now?- present tools that is. I know you can work around the shortcomings and
    f***ing well not let it beat you however if I adopt some more articulate
    software and you don't then chances are I will end up producing something a
    customer would prefer at a premium. If I can sit down and pull a surface
    around as I please in a few minutes rather than lever around lofts etc over
    a few hours/days then I am also being much more effective/efficient. I am of
    the opinion that I should be investing in something that will handle nice
    swoops and continuities etc or I am going to end up well down the food
    chain. There are more and more producers of about everything you can imagine
    all looking for a sale- in many cases the insides of the box is much the
    same and style sells the product- so styling matters a lot. Much as though I
    like SW it doesn't look like there is an appreciation in HQ that people are
    serious about their surfaces and want new tools now. Even what look like
    just sexy cubes are often finely detailed now with shapes that in SW are a
    bit of a wrestle...
     
    neil, Apr 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Ed,

    Does this mean you were one of the SW users invited to COFES? Cool!

    Jerry Steiger
    Tripod Data Systems
    "take the garbage out, dear"
     
    Jerry Steiger, Apr 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Since Jerry brought up COFES, yes, I was there, so its not going to feel
    awkward name-dropping to say the following:

    I spent a fair amount of time hanging out with Bob McNeel (McNeel and
    associates, producer of Rhino) last weekend and he was telling me that the
    newest version of Rhino (which I was told is in public trials right now, or
    really soon) has pretty great interaction with SolidWorks. The surface is
    still a single feature in SolidWorks (almost like an imported surface), but
    you click on it, you get transported into Rhino where you can edit it, then
    when you exit your SWx model is updated. I think you could live with that.

    Rhino is not parametric, and I bet that would be hard to get used to. Bob
    said that the principle behind that choice was they wanted the surfaces to
    be so easy to make in the first place that you could just remake them when
    the design changes. I wonder if, from a human psychology standpoint, a user
    would not do as much 11th hour fine tuning of a design because everything is
    'good-enough' and, in order to make the change, they kind of have to start
    over. After using SWx so long I have grown connected to the notion that I
    can feel free to make changes in my design right up to the end. I just
    can't tell if that would change in another package until I have a chance to
    try it.

    Rhino has some other goodies in the new version - C3 continuity, and some
    other things that sounded great that I can't remember right now. What's
    weird is that I can't find this new public beta anywhere I can see at
    'http://www.rhino3d.com/' for Rhino 3.0. I hope and trust that I am
    speaking out of turn - Bob never said anything was secret and I certainly
    didn't get the sense that he was pulling my chain for laughs (he's a REALLY
    nice guy)
     
    Edward T Eaton, Apr 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Much as though I
    I can tell you for a fact that they are very serious. But don't take my
    word for it - in a couple of months, you will be able to judge for yourself
    (don't ask me for details because I can't give them - it'll all be public
    very soon. Now, don't get your hopes up for tons of brand new things, but
    just keep an eye open for how significant the improvements are and ask again
    if they really aren't serious about making things better).
    In the mean time, if you have any funky wrinkled surfaces, things that
    aren't working well, or shapes you just can't get, send them in. The
    developers are literally begging for this stuff. They care so much that
    they get excited when you show them stuff that doesn't work, because they
    then have a direction for what to go fix.

    Even what look like
    True! I just did a sexy arced cube that looked simple but was actually a
    pretty darned complex shape when you got down to it. Its the subtleties
    that make a surface really exciting, and those subtleties can be the hardest
    thing to even get your mind around, let alone capture in CAD.
     
    Edward T Eaton, Apr 11, 2004
    #14
  15. Paul Salvador

    neil Guest

    ok well sounds good the way you tell it but I am a bit cynical...gotta be
    quite a bit better than deform ...and twist ... I am not interested in being
    drip fed half finished tools over a period of years either , sorry, Ed.
    .....serious well I am always hearing about serious efforts in the quality
    control dept that don't seem to pan out...afraid I am not really enthused by
    the news... still ill wait to see whets on offer...going to have to be
    pretty darn significant to turn my head this time.
    thanks for your replies
    neil
     
    neil, Apr 11, 2004
    #15
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.