Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

No, I didn't. I'd be very surprised if you could get it to shell. If you are
going to try it all again, try using splines instead of the analytic curves so
you don't end up with all the G0 (not tangent) surface joins (and probably
more importantly fewer separate surfaces). I think the chances of that
shelling would probably be much better.

Jeff
==============


"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
news:AA1C6C613241D04AC3975442B271F974@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
........ but did you try to shell it?

[#2]

Well, I did end up getting the two main lofts to shell at once, after all.
Think the tip about the splines made a difference, although I still don't
understand why two out of three profiles in that loft would work but all
three wouldn't. Do you know if there's a cosmic law that U & V can't ever be
the same or opposite and as a result we will never be able to make the
failed example work? Anyway, I put a cap in CF if you want to see the
result.
~Larry

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:A45FE2BACA38BA80BDEF97D29181B104@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> No, I didn't. I'd be very surprised if you could get it to shell. If you
are
> going to try it all again, try using splines instead of the analytic
curves so
> you don't end up with all the G0 (not tangent) surface joins (and probably
> more importantly fewer separate surfaces). I think the chances of that
> shelling would probably be much better.
>
> Jeff
> ==============
>
>
> "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
> news:AA1C6C613241D04AC3975442B271F974@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> ........ but did you try to shell it?
>
>
>

[#3]

Very cool, Larry!

Since I can only pretend to understand what the UV error is supposed to mean;
well you know. I don't think the defect(s) will ever be allowed, but as time
goes by it may be that some circumstances which cause an error will solve
(improvements in surfacing algorithms).

For the particular instance that we were looking at (sk 10, 11, 12), I can
only speculate what the problem is. Rhino will make a decent enough looking
surface out of that set of profiles, but I've seen it argued that it is not a
good practice. I don't remember the arguments against (probably something
only a (P)ointy (h)eaded (D)octor of Mathematics would really understand), but
I avoid the condition. My own simplistic way of trying to comprehend it is
that there's a supposedly smooth flowing surface that spans an edge curvature
discontinuity (at the ends of the arc in Sketch10) with the U and V edges
meeting in the same plane and that doesn't seem right (how's that for a
technical opinion?).

Have a good one,
Jeff

PS The Ph.D. slur was meant in jest. They have my utmost respect.
No offense meant and I hope none taken. 8~)

===================================


"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
news:216FB31D922B0CA173D47867F4F3EAD5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Well, I did end up getting the two main lofts to shell at once, after all.
Think the tip about the splines made a difference, although I still don't
understand why two out of three profiles in that loft would work but all
three wouldn't. Do you know if there's a cosmic law that U & V can't ever be
the same or opposite and as a result we will never be able to make the
failed example work? Anyway, I put a cap in CF if you want to see the
result.
~Larry

[#4]

Thanks!


"...(at the ends of the arc in Sketch10) with the U and V edges meeting in
the same plane..."

I can get it to solve as long as the arc in sketch 10 is at least a full
half-circle, which, BTW, is as small as you can make it without the dims
failing, if, that is, it starts out larger than a half-circle. On the other
side, if you start out with less than a half-circle, you can only dim it up
to a full half-circle; not beyond, before the dims fail. I guess that must
have something to do with it, but like I say: Not expecting a Nobel Prize in
mathematics any time soon. Still, the ends of the arc are at the same place
whether the arc is greater than or less than a half-circle but one fails and
the other doesn't. Wish there was a way to show what's going on the way you
showed the failure in the MDT example. Maybe with a visual representation, I
could understand what's going on.
~Larry

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:4CA3AC1884C96766AEF52F02A683B9C7@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Very cool, Larry!
>
> Since I can only pretend to understand what the UV error is supposed to
mean;
> well you know. I don't think the defect(s) will ever be allowed, but as
time
> goes by it may be that some circumstances which cause an error will solve
> (improvements in surfacing algorithms).
>
> For the particular instance that we were looking at (sk 10, 11, 12), I
can
> only speculate what the problem is. Rhino will make a decent enough
looking
> surface out of that set of profiles, but I've seen it argued that it is
not a
> good practice. I don't remember the arguments against (probably something
> only a (P)ointy (h)eaded (D)octor of Mathematics would really understand),
but
> I avoid the condition. My own simplistic way of trying to comprehend it
is
> that there's a supposedly smooth flowing surface that spans an edge
curvature
> discontinuity (at the ends of the arc in Sketch10) with the U and V edges
> meeting in the same plane and that doesn't seem right (how's that for a
> technical opinion?).
>
> Have a good one,
> Jeff
>
> PS The Ph.D. slur was meant in jest. They have my utmost respect.
> No offense meant and I hope none taken. 8~)
>
> ===================================
>
>
> "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
> news:216FB31D922B0CA173D47867F4F3EAD5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Well, I did end up getting the two main lofts to shell at once, after all.
> Think the tip about the splines made a difference, although I still don't
> understand why two out of three profiles in that loft would work but all
> three wouldn't. Do you know if there's a cosmic law that U & V can't ever
be
> the same or opposite and as a result we will never be able to make the
> failed example work? Anyway, I put a cap in CF if you want to see the
> result.
> ~Larry
>
>
>
>

[#5]

That's one of the things I like so much about Rhino. It very seldom gives you
an error message instead a trashy looking surface when you do something that's
not to it's liking. Being able to see the mangled results helps a lot in
figuring things out. 8~)

========================

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
news:BBD7069C8FAA956B49F384EF7DC3D793@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
.......
Maybe with a visual representation, I could understand what's going on.