Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Shape manager unmanageable

34 REPLIES 34
Reply
Message 1 of 35
Anonymous
840 Views, 34 Replies

Shape manager unmanageable

No complex shapes allowed I guess. Out of
curiosity, I tried a boat hull. Don't see a way to do it with the depth
shallower than the width because it would require a loft.The limitations of the
loft being loathe to even touch another face much less join with it prevent
this. It is possible to loft half the hull and mirror it, but then there's a
small gap (guess mirrored faces have an aversion to other faces as well)
which won't fill by any means I have found. Evidentially some edges of a
loft refuse to fillet giving an error, in effect: no edge found. It is
possible to shell one half of the hull by a very small amount (much less than
the radius of the smallest bend) and then it is possible to cut the
face that remains but that leaves remnants of the gap that was left by the
mirror operation. Trying to shell removing both the horizontal and vertical
faces fails. Replace Face will remove the deck faces to make a shell, but won't
thicken.

 

Unless I'm missing something here, I'd say the
answer to the boat hull modeling question would be: Not a chance, if it needs to
be a real boat hull.

~Larry
34 REPLIES 34
Message 21 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Thanks Jeff, I'll give it a look.

The only heavy plate was the deck plate. It was like 1" to maybe 1.5", hard
to remember really even though I usually got the job of burning them in and
flushing the weld bevel so they could be welded to the mating section. The
skin was at least 1/4 but maybe 3/8. Sorry I'm so foggy about it.
~Larry

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:3E5865D4D954F83BB96FC449F981F68C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Sorry, I left out the "how to get into MDT" part. The command is IGESIN.
> There are good and bad surfaces superimposed, so turn off or freeze the
layers
> you don't want visible. If that doesn't work and you are interested, I
can
> post or email some jpg's.
>
> Profile weight.... referring to the loft dialog (in IV6) Conditions -
> Weight. It's value must not be the reason you see the error. I guess it
can
> be generated when lofting between mulitple profiles, but an example
doesn't
> come to mind. I may be misinterpreting what the error message is telling
us,
> too (assuming it's not picked by a random number generator ). Any how,
if
> you'll post one when you come across it, I'll see if I can offer an
> explanation for it.
>
> Maintain value... same thing as the profile weight.
>
> How thick were the plates?
>
> Jeff
> ============================
>
>
>
Message 22 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm sure things are much different now Kent ... noth'n like when we were
kids, eh? Ever remember staring at a test pattern wondering if any
programs were going to come on?
~Larry

"Kent Keller" wrote in message
news:E23718A65BF5A8B835143DDBA35261B9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I had read this a while back in the Fabricator magazine. It doesn't get
> into to much detail, but it is interesting non the less. It sounds to me
> they panels are fully formed now days before being welded (if I remember
> right....didn't read the whole article)
>
> Anne could probably shed some light on this for us 8^)
>
>
http://www.thefabricator.com/xp/Fabricator/Articles/Fabricating/Fab02/02web4
> 99.xml
>
> --
> Kent Keller
> Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program
>
> http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm
>
> "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
>
>
> but I think, for the most part,
> > the skin started out as plane ol' flat plate. The welders would weld it
in
> > place on one end and weld some pad-eyes on beside the location of a rib.
>
>
>
>
Message 23 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Figured it was a command-line deal. That is an excellent demonstration of
what happens. Much easier to see in MDT. I'm going to go back and mess with
that a bit. Thanks Jeff! I assume I could take whacked surfaces like that
from Inventor, save them as igs and go look at them in MDT. Cool!
~Larry


"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:3E5865D4D954F83BB96FC449F981F68C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Sorry, I left out the "how to get into MDT" part. The command is IGESIN.
> There are good and bad surfaces superimposed, so turn off or freeze the
layers
> you don't want visible. If that doesn't work and you are interested, I
can
> post or email some jpg's.
>
> Profile weight.... referring to the loft dialog (in IV6) Conditions -
> Weight. It's value must not be the reason you see the error. I guess it
can
> be generated when lofting between mulitple profiles, but an example
doesn't
> come to mind. I may be misinterpreting what the error message is telling
us,
> too (assuming it's not picked by a random number generator ). Any how,
if
> you'll post one when you come across it, I'll see if I can offer an
> explanation for it.
>
> Maintain value... same thing as the profile weight.
>
> How thick were the plates?
>
> Jeff
> ============================
>
>
>
Message 24 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Actually, you can do Insert - IGES from the pulldowns.....

Before doing an IGESIN, you need to examine the .IGS in notepad. Look at the
header for clues on the source of translation, and/or unit type, precision,
etc. This can give you some insight on which option file to use in MDT. The
option files are located in the MDT support directory....

Dennis

Larry Caldwell wrote:

> Figured it was a command-line deal. That is an excellent demonstration of
> what happens. Much easier to see in MDT. I'm going to go back and mess with
> that a bit. Thanks Jeff! I assume I could take whacked surfaces like that
> from Inventor, save them as igs and go look at them in MDT. Cool!
> ~Larry
>
> "Jeff Howard" wrote in message
> news:3E5865D4D954F83BB96FC449F981F68C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Hi, Larry.
> >
> > Sorry, I left out the "how to get into MDT" part. The command is IGESIN.
> > There are good and bad surfaces superimposed, so turn off or freeze the
> layers
> > you don't want visible. If that doesn't work and you are interested, I
> can
> > post or email some jpg's.
> >
> > Profile weight.... referring to the loft dialog (in IV6) Conditions -
> > Weight. It's value must not be the reason you see the error. I guess it
> can
> > be generated when lofting between mulitple profiles, but an example
> doesn't
> > come to mind. I may be misinterpreting what the error message is telling
> us,
> > too (assuming it's not picked by a random number generator ). Any how,
> if
> > you'll post one when you come across it, I'll see if I can offer an
> > explanation for it.
> >
> > Maintain value... same thing as the profile weight.
> >
> > How thick were the plates?
> >
> > Jeff
> > ============================
> >
> >
> >

--
Dennis Jeffrey
CAD Associates - Fort Wayne
Autodesk ASC
(260-432-9695 x 221
Message 25 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Well, at least I can tell it was done in Rhino, what the directory it was in
and I'd guess it was done in R5.3.

Other than that ... looks like he went fishing for trout at the lake on the
24th and caught 31 o'them suckers. I can also tell it was most likely done
in Hinches instead of Hillimeters. The rest of it might as well be in
Japanese.


1H,,1H;,, G1
39HD:\MyData\Temp\temp4\UV same or opp.igs, G2
26HRhinoceros ( Apr 24 2002 ),31HTrout Lake IGES 012 Apr 24 2002, G3
32,38,6,308,15, G4, G5
1.0D0,1,4HINCH,1,0.01D0,13H021110.065134, G6
0.0001D0, G7
5.303884310917129D0,

~Larry

"Dennis Jeffrey" wrote in message
news:3DCEC03D.538961C9@cadassociates.com...
> Actually, you can do Insert - IGES from the pulldowns.....
>
> Before doing an IGESIN, you need to examine the .IGS in notepad. Look at
the
> header for clues on the source of translation, and/or unit type,
precision,
> etc. This can give you some insight on which option file to use in MDT.
The
> option files are located in the MDT support directory....
>
> Dennis
>
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> > Figured it was a command-line deal. That is an excellent demonstration
of
> > what happens. Much easier to see in MDT. I'm going to go back and mess
with
> > that a bit. Thanks Jeff! I assume I could take whacked surfaces like
that
> > from Inventor, save them as igs and go look at them in MDT. Cool!
> > ~Larry
> >
> > "Jeff Howard" wrote in message
> > news:3E5865D4D954F83BB96FC449F981F68C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Hi, Larry.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I left out the "how to get into MDT" part. The command is
IGESIN.
> > > There are good and bad surfaces superimposed, so turn off or freeze
the
> > layers
> > > you don't want visible. If that doesn't work and you are interested,
I
> > can
> > > post or email some jpg's.
> > >
> > > Profile weight.... referring to the loft dialog (in IV6)
Conditions -
> > > Weight. It's value must not be the reason you see the error. I guess
it
> > can
> > > be generated when lofting between mulitple profiles, but an example
> > doesn't
> > > come to mind. I may be misinterpreting what the error message is
telling
> > us,
> > > too (assuming it's not picked by a random number generator ). Any
how,
> > if
> > > you'll post one when you come across it, I'll see if I can offer an
> > > explanation for it.
> > >
> > > Maintain value... same thing as the profile weight.
> > >
> > > How thick were the plates?
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > > ============================
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Dennis Jeffrey
> CAD Associates - Fort Wayne
> Autodesk ASC
> (260-432-9695 x 221
>
>
Message 26 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

http://www.biw.com/ look under Shipbuilding. Joe's in the middle
of a Patriot's football game so wouldn't do any more than say
"yes dear" on ship design right now

There is the first flat drydock launch out of the new facility
tomorrow. Great treat for Veterans' Day to see ARLEIGH BURKE
Class AEGIS guided missile destroyer start her life at sea.

Anne

Kent Keller wrote:
(snip) It sounds to me they panels are fully formed now days
before being welded (if I remember right....didn't read the whole
article)
>
> Anne could probably shed some light on this for us 8^)
Message 27 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I wish the Bears, would have concentrated as hard as he did! I can't believe
they let the Pats have that one! 😞
Mike


Joe's in the middle of a Patriot's football game so wouldn't do any more
than say
"yes dear" on ship design right now
Message 28 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

For me an example of the "Surfaces U & V same or opposite" error message is
a synch. With just the first and last profiles and the top wire the loft
works fine. Try to make the same loft with the third profile, wire or not:
Error. I also tried it the other way with the two profiles and two/three
wires (other two wires made like the construction lines on the deck): same
error. If you can say why I continually get these errors and know a way
around it, I might actually be able to use this feature. (Emphasis on
might.) Thanks!
~Larry


"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:3E5865D4D954F83BB96FC449F981F68C@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Sorry, I left out the "how to get into MDT" part. The command is IGESIN.
> There are good and bad surfaces superimposed, so turn off or freeze the
layers
> you don't want visible. If that doesn't work and you are interested, I
can
> post or email some jpg's.
>
> Profile weight.... referring to the loft dialog (in IV6) Conditions -
> Weight. It's value must not be the reason you see the error. I guess it
can
> be generated when lofting between mulitple profiles, but an example
doesn't
> come to mind. I may be misinterpreting what the error message is telling
us,
> too (assuming it's not picked by a random number generator ). Any how,
if
> you'll post one when you come across it, I'll see if I can offer an
> explanation for it.
>
> Maintain value... same thing as the profile weight.
>
> How thick were the plates?
>
> Jeff
> ============================
>
>
>
Message 29 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hi, Larry.

Can only speculate that the problem is caused by the 90 deg rotation of the
sketch plane on the nose of the shape (Sketch10). See CF for an alternate
method. Notice also that the profiles will have to extend down into the solid
(Sketch14). I'm assuming that all will work well then.

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

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
news:EECEB9D29D1AF050D9FF6D73743FE25A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
For me an example of the "Surfaces U & V same or opposite" error message is
a synch. With just the first and last profiles and the top wire the loft
works fine. Try to make the same loft with the third profile, wire or not:
Error. I also tried it the other way with the two profiles and two/three
wires (other two wires made like the construction lines on the deck): same
error. If you can say why I continually get these errors and know a way
around it, I might actually be able to use this feature. (Emphasis on
might.) Thanks!
~Larry
Message 30 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I'm going to try a cleaner model than that one is and see what happens using
that technique, but did you try to shell it? I get an error that the edges
or vertex is owned by more than two faces (i.e. part is non-manifold). Not
sure exactly what that means though.
~Larry

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:986C724CFDED3B645C99D1D4BBF5297E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Hi, Larry.
>
> Can only speculate that the problem is caused by the 90 deg rotation of
the
> sketch plane on the nose of the shape (Sketch10). See CF for an
alternate
> method. Notice also that the profiles will have to extend down into the
solid
> (Sketch14). I'm assuming that all will work well then.
>
> Jeff
> ============================
>
> "Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
> news:EECEB9D29D1AF050D9FF6D73743FE25A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> For me an example of the "Surfaces U & V same or opposite" error message
is
> a synch. With just the first and last profiles and the top wire the loft
> works fine. Try to make the same loft with the third profile, wire or not:
> Error. I also tried it the other way with the two profiles and two/three
> wires (other two wires made like the construction lines on the deck): same
> error. If you can say why I continually get these errors and know a way
> around it, I might actually be able to use this feature. (Emphasis on
> might.) Thanks!
> ~Larry
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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?
Message 32 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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?
>
>
>
Message 33 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
Message 34 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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
>
>
>
>
Message 35 of 35
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

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.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report