split line removal

As you know split lines can be very difficult to remove from a part if
a design changes means they are no longer necessary. This happens to
me with plastic part design occasionally when a split line meant for
draft reversal or stepped partling lines etc changes.

A method I use to remove the split line feature with lot's of children
(and if there are simpler ways please let me know!) is to rollback
before the split, offset a surface from the face the split line
originally split, then roll forward, edit split, then replace solid
face(s) with offset surface(s). This after this change the split
feature will have no children and can be deleted.

There are probably lot's of scenarios where this wont work, but for me
it's helped a few times.

Zander

 

Thanks for the tip.
I can see it being especially useful for intersection and silhouette
split line features

When using your technique, do features referencing the split faces need
to be redefined to get rid of dangling errors? Sketches on planar
faces, edge fillets, sketches that reference edges and verteces from
the split faces, etc?

For years I have used the following technique for sketch based split
lines - edit the sketch used for the split line, and redefine all the
lines to 'construction'. The split feature will fail, but that's good
(I call it sabotaging the feature, a trick that has a lot of
applications outside of split line).
I can then redefine any children then delete the split feature.
However, if your technique doesn't require any rework/repair of the
kids I'll have to give it a spin.

Ed

 

Good tip Zander. There is another way also without having to rollback.
At the point you want to get rid of a split line, and if it's a solid
body, find a way to turn it into a surface body by deleting a face
somewhere using the delete face option. Now make a new face (or copy
the face before you deleted it and use it) and then knit it back to
solid. Knit automatically removes splits in most cases.

I object to this behavior in knit and I'm working to make it a
checkmark option in the knit command, but in this odd workaround it
works for you.

Regards

Mark

 

Excellent tip Mark - I'll try that next time.

Related to the split line topic - I've been experiencing trouble with
doing reverse drafts on portions of faces that have been split by the
split command. ie. I'm relieving an undercut - creating a seal-off
so a split line is created on the face. I want +1° draft on one
portion of the face and -1° draft on the other portion. Often times
the draft command is unpredictable in this situation and will usually
consume the split line hence drafting the entire face one way or the
other. Draft seems very sensitive ie. I needed a parting line draft
created in an area that needed to be duplicated on other side of the
symetrical part. One side would draft beside the split line, but the
other side would consume the split line as described above no matter
what I tried.

Zander

 

At the point you want to get rid of a split line, and if it's a solid

Two elaborations to Marks tip:

1) with Mark's suggestion you will be leaving the split feature in
history - this approach just gets rid of the lines.
A decision to use it depends on style.
I spend most of my working day in rollback so features are where they
are 'supposed' to be, not just adding stuff to the bottom of the tree.
While rolled back I also remove irrelevent features, instead of just
cutting them away ( or otherwise working around what they left me).
However, that is just style, and I cannot be so arrogant to say that
other styles are not valid (OK, I can... but I'll lay off the 'best
practice' opinion). If you are most comfortable working at the bottom
of the tree, Mark's suggestion will be a life saver.

2) Add on tip: REMEMBER to hit 'try to form solid' in the surface knit
feature when you are doing this. If you first knit, then thicken in a
second feature by 'creating solid from enclosed volume' you lose a lot
of really good functionality. I wouldn't mention it if I haven't seen
it a bunch of times.
Here's the deal - if you double click a solid face that was made from a
knit-to-solid, you still can access the dims for the feature (critical
if you want to do equations or undo experimental changes to sketch dims
- if you edit the sketch, you lose undo, but if you double click the
feature and make the change, you can undo)
If you double click a face made from thicken-boss-from-knit-feature,
you no longer can access those dims (at least through 2006); that
thicken-boss becomes a hard parent for everything that follows, and you
lose a lot of editing flexiblity (and i think drawing flexiblilty with
inserting dims from faces). It shouldn't work this way IMO - a face
should always remember what feature was used to make it in the first
place, but we play the cards we are dealt.
For folks following mark's tip, you'll be happier if you make the solid
out of the knit feature.

Hear!Hear! and thanks, Mark! How many times do I use split to control
loft start tangency (within the 60 deg limit, which I would also like
to have as a checkmark) , only to lose that prep-work when I knit?
Thanks yet again for working for us, man.
Ed

 

No, 1701. If you gonna preach, youd better get it right.

Undo in 07 works across sketch editing boundaries. Don't foist
incomplete doctrine on impressionable minds.

Daisy

 

Good point to bring up that undo is now operable on sketch changes in
2007.

I don't use 2007 yet on real work yet.
Please note that's why I made a point to mention in my post that my
experience was 'at least through 2006'.
However, I would challenge your notion about 'impressionable minds'
here. I think there are just folks (perhaps more careful readers?)
looking for ideas to try out.

Ed

Personal to Daisy - Dude, you have to pick a beef - must I put 'through
2006' after every item I write, or are you going to bitch about my
posts being too long because I have to layer on exceptions after
exceptions because of a guy like you?
Be a MAN - pick one and go with it.
I look forward to your decision.

 

PLONK!

Now Jon & cliff have company.

Muggs

 

Ed PLEASE don't shorten ANY of your posts. They are the most thought out
(and thought provoking) of the group.

I need to say that I hope that there are some impressionable minds here.
I hope we all have the ability to still be "impressed". I think what Ed
(and Matt, Wayne, Paul, TOP, Zander, Dale, Mark, have I missed anybody)
is (are) trying to do is to get us to THINK for ourselves. If I see
something here and say to myself "I think I'll try that", That's a good
thing. Now sometimes I try it and it doesn't work for me but I have, at
the very least, gained some knowledge. And sometimes, I'll admit, I
can't get my little pea brain around is being talked about, but I try to
store away for later when I say "Hey there was something on the NG about
this a while back".

All this to say to Daisy (sorry I won't get your reply) is the LAST
person on the planet you should be attacking is Ed. He's has (arguably)
given more to this NG (read ME) than anyone else here!

Muggs

 

Hi Muggs, I assume your speaking of flowerpot? I put him in my
killfile as soon as I came across him. I don't know about everyone
else of course, but my life is way to short to waste reading that kind
of drivel!

Zander

 

NO I was talking about Ed, what with his l o n g drawn out answers to
simple questions!

KIDDING!!!

Yes, I was plonking FlowerPot. I will usually give peeps a chance to
prove that they weren't just having a bad couple of days. But when she
(he) blasted Ed... well that was the last straw for me.

Muggs

 

We are in complete agreement - !

 

Mark,

Yeah, I've been bitten by that knit issue.

There is a function that will geometrically remove the split in a
simpler way, though. If you do a Delete Face using the Delete and Patch
option, selecting a face to one side of the split, it also gets rid of
the split line.

Of course you have to weigh if having all of that feature history
lingering is really what you want. There is sometimes a point where
expediency outweighs style, given that the results are the same.

 

Another good suggestion.
The thing that gets me about delete and patch is sometimes it is really
fast, and sometimes it takes forever (OK, just feels like forever ).
I've never been able to see much rhyme or reason to it.
Any ideas/insights/patterns to delete+patch times that you have gleaned
from your experience? When removing a split line I would figure it
would always be instantaneous.
Ed

 

Good point Matt, I'll make sure to get that into the spec to get this
option in knit and perhaps off by default in Delete face. As you
probably know, the delete-patch command is just a macro to the
sub-routines of face-untrim and knit solid.

BTW guys, if you haven't make sure that you're getting OER (online
enhancement requests) on things like this - nothing impresses
development more than mulitple customer hits on issues.

Thanks

Mark

 

why bother?
the idea is there why keep repeating it?
same with bug reporting...
surely the peolpe at SW have some idea of the worth of these things
themselves.
if not put up a wish list and have users vote on it

and despite all the requests and suggestions over 'years' we are still
waiting for the new forum and FAQ etc etc...does anything really
actually happen that customers ask for or is it all a fop?

and...why can't we have our curvature comb outline back? FFS Mark you
do ID stuff...

it doesn't actually make any difference what we want
we get what marketing tell us we want.
while you might be doing your best it is obvious some your fellows have
a piss poor attitude.
my few cents

 

Neil, the enhancement requests are important because developers are
not exposed to the design enviroment at all. They are busy working on
the software not designing parts etc.

Therefore they cannot understand how important some seemingly small bug
or feature is to people who need to perform that function 150 times a
day. eg. Arrowhead on notes and ballons not 'sticking' to edges in
2006.

The only piss poor attitude here is yours, I can only assume you don't
carry on like that with people in your real life, so why be that way
here. Posts like that do absolutely nothing to solve problems or
enhance the software. Making it personel is actually not contructive
and ditto on getting emotional.

 

Don't guess what I believe because you'll probably be wrong! Seriously
though, I'm the one who started a thread recently proposing a halt to
all new feature developement until long standing bugs are fixed. I
don't believe sw is doing everything possible - that wouldn't be
logical... I do believe that you shouldn't talk to people on usenet
any differently than you would if they were standing in front of you.
I don't think writing endless streams of edgy nasty posts in every
thread saying 'where the hell is my f'ning curvature comb border' will
achieve anything.

I don't think I've defended anyone or any company but I've met many of
the actual people who work at solidworks and know them to be thoughtful
and commited to the software. At the same time, I get frustrated by
long standing bugs that never get fixed (arc length dimension with dual
units). I also recognize that a software developer who isn't under a
deadline to send out 60 pages of drawings will not understand how much
time is wasted by some minor bug, so I do let them know, I call my
var, I send emails and talk to people at conventions - but I don't
shout or act rude because I try to treat people the way I like to be
treated. If you think you can justify agressive nasty behaviour when
it comes to software I think you don't have any 'real' problems at all
- like starving or dying for example. This isn't the end of the world,
it's a cad program, it has bugs but it's also great and fun to use and
has greatly improved my productivity and work enjoyment over the past 8
years or so.

It's a big complicated program and codebase - it will likely never be
bug free and never work exactly the way the you want it to. So take
the good with bad. If there is more bad than good for you try some
other software, there are loads of them out there.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W5864282E

Also, try to figure out what positive effect yelling at someone has on
solving a problem. Have you ever had success coming up with solutions
by yelling?

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
large, I contain multitudes. "

Zander

 

'where the hell is my f'ning curvature comb border'

actually I didn't say that so don't misconstrue my post.
neither did I have go at Mark personally so back off the tone.

..

 

and...although few would credit me for it I have been more conspicuous
than probably anyone in voicing objections on behalf of users about
quality and features especially in the face of fanboys so please don't
tell me I do little constructive for other users.
also.. there ARE a few of my ideas that have found their way into the
software..
all said and done 99% of users contribute stuff all here or anywhere
else so I don't do too badly I think.
consider also I am often the person who defends others here so don't
put me in the hothouse with flowerpot

yours etc