My shop does it the same way. I actually wrote a couple of simple "programs" for generating transitions. Mine get the little corner cut out thing, but they don't show up on the blanks so I just ignore it. The file that stevec781 posted has a funny looking blank, look at the corners, they're all splined up. I don't know if that actually matters to you, but my laser program wouldn't be able to process that.
I don't remember how I coded the drawing side of it, it might not work without my default.ivb file. Let me know if you want the code from that (if there is any).
I also made some for rect to rect and round to round if you're interested in those I'll post them.
Thanks for posting the files. Unfortunately, I can't open the files because I am on 2011. That being said, I have a workflow that mimics the fabrication process. I do get the funky shaped corners though but that hasn't been a problem in the past. When I put the first attempt I made into an assembly I get corners that interfere with each other too and I'm not sure what causes this:
At the end of the day, I think the workflow that Stevec781 gave me (not the file he posted) is the correct way to go about it. I just wish I could see how you are doing it. We always wait until the next version is announced before we upgrade to the previous one so I should be running 2012 soon. I'll have to come back and take a look once we upgrade. We only do these transitions once in a great while so on the next one I can come check back.
Thanks for the help!
It looks like tt's the way you're mating the parts. Remember that they're still flat sheets butted together.
This is what mine looks like:
It looks like tt's the way you're mating the parts....
Yeah, that's what I thought at first too but it's not. The files I created were done so around the origin (like a skeletal modeling technique) and then circular patterned around the axis. All the dimensions of the transition are perfect but the corners are hitting. It's the reason I scrapped this method in the beginning. Thanks for the help though. I'm anxious to see your workflow one we upgrade.
EDIT: The file I am talking about is the TEST 1 file I put up in my OP in case you are curious.
Here is a brake press version. Since I am still with IV2010 I had to use Delete Face feature. That produces a neater model but on the flat pattern you will see an excess of material in the corner. If the Delete Face feature is suppressed - the Flat Pattern is good as gold but the model is showing a notch in the corner. Maybe the latest release of IV is handling that transition better, but for the IV2010 I would convert that part into iPart and suppress the feature in one child. Just for the Flat Pattern creation.
jeanchile wrote:Yeah, I saw that. I was talking specifically about the brake press method where I have multiple bends at that corner. There isn't a perfect arc like in your example but a series of bends, bend lines, and inside radii that make up a spline shape. I appreciate the time and the help, I would have been stranded without the two of you.
Reverse the direction of the lofted flange feature and you should be in the money.
I can't. It needs to be 2'-4" square and 10 3/4" round at the outside, not the inside. What did I screw up?
On my computer your part doesn't completely flatten all the way and I can't figure out why. Does yours go completely flat?
Then subtract two material thicknesses (actually use 10.75-Thickness*2 for the parameter so it stays parametric) from the dimensions and reverse the direction so you're modeled to the ID but you'll still get the correct size.
As with most of my endeavors, it's not that easy. First, let me state that I am by no means attempting to "split hairs" or be a "pain in the you know what" because I already have a work flow that produces usable results that I am thankful for and I appreciate all of your input because I am eager to learn some of the ways others would do this.
That being said, I can't simply subtract the thickness because the thickness is the "hypotenuse" of a triangle that would require the "base" to calculate correctly. If I offset the 2'-4" dimension by the thickness my outside will be smaller than the 2'-4" (the difference between the "hypotenuse" and the "base" of the triangle). I can obviously figure it out using another sketch, or a calculator, or whatever, I was just trying to follow the JD Mather school of thought and not do more work than was necessary .
If I get some more time here this afternoon I will try to work up an example of what you are talking about working to the inside (which is where we would normally work anyway, this piece mates to another vendor's equipment hence me working to the outside).
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register