Is it possible to precisly control a loft without excessive sketches in succession?

Is it possible to precisly control a loft without excessive sketches in succession?

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast Enthusiast
2,574 Views
32 Replies
Message 1 of 33

Is it possible to precisly control a loft without excessive sketches in succession?

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I am designing a 3d printable RC airplane. All components have been weighed and drawn out on paper so I have a rough idea of where everything needs to be to maintain proper CG. This has provided me with the cross sectional area in terms of X & Z and the spacing between all the needed sketches in the Y direction.

 

While working through the nose of the plane I decided to try lofting the first few sketches to see what the result will be and I noticed that there is an odd buldge here. This is the sort of thing that I normally solve in Inventor by adding more sketches in very short intervals to more precisely control the shape of the loft. However this is also very time consuming and I wanted to ask if this is the best method or not?

 

The first sketch of the 4 I have so far is a single point, and I noticed that when I set the loft at that point to a tangent I can modify the weight of it so as to control how pointy the tip is. I am wondering if there is something simalar to this for the other sketches the loft passes through. The top edge of the nose is correct but the bottom has a buldge:

XJ64 nose.JPG

 

Is the best way to fix this just to have a few sketches there only a few mm apart? For frame of reference the nose section seen here is 250mm long.

0 Likes
Accepted solutions (1)
2,575 Views
32 Replies
Replies (32)
Message 21 of 33

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

So here is one of these problems I am running into.

I am attempting to avoid splitting that body to leave the two top and bottom center surfaces intact. SO I use the same object for splitting surfaces to create the same trims on the opposite side. Then I copy/mirror the surfaces to the other side attempting to stitch it all into one body.

What works on the original side, does not work on the opposite side. That means that the original solid was not symmetric! The gap between the surfaces is actually quite large!

 

Screen Shot 2021-06-13 at 1.55.41 PM.png

That also explains why I cannot get tangency across the center surfaces when I initially split the solid body and later mirror the results of the fillet lofts!

 


EESignature

0 Likes
Message 22 of 33

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Hey thanks a lot! This has allowed the guide lines to be created now. Although now Im running into the issue of needing to mirror a 3d spline, and Im reading that is not possible in Fusion360 without sweeping down the profile, mirroring that, importing the geometry, and from that point Im generally lost haha.

 

Sketch 8 is what needs to be mirrored in order to have this symetrical. Its not that bad right now and Im sure this would barely effect how it flies, but Im curious to see if theres a proper method for this task.

 

Im also really wondering why the buldge has been reintroduced despite the fact this model is now guided properly on 3 sides:

XJ-64 Fueslage.4.JPGXJ-64 Fueslage.4.2.JPG

0 Likes
Message 23 of 33

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

@ReeceEngineering hopefully my posts are not seen as just being overly critical on your designs and techniques.”

 

Your posts have absolutely not been seen as overly critical! I am happy you all are on here helping me. Also I have pretty thick skin and I know that all my methods are not the best and that I have a lot to learn. The reason I began this project is to learn Fusion360 better as I have included it on my resume and I would like it to be an honest addition. Also because I was struggling to make an EDF Jet out of foam board for the past few years, I know my 3d printer is capable of some amazing things if they can only be designed.

 

“Lofting from a circular to a rectangular profile takes some forethought, if the sharp edges are to be filleted.”

 

I changed the profiles to rectangles after your suggestion that lofting filleted profiles isn’t a good idea. I just tried adding the fillets after lofting and its not possible. So I think we are stuck lofting the filled profiles for this one.

 

 

“As has been mentioned already, you've got to loose some of the profiles, or first make the rails and then size the profiles to match the rails.”

 

It looks like you are right about this. If this loft is going to be this dependent on rails then we really only need one rectangular profile towards the beginning. Truth be told the reason I began in such a fashion is that this is about the only way I knew how to control lofts in Inventor, hence the title here haha. Im glad to learn better and less time consuming methods.

 

“The screenshot shows the curvature your top rail and because you are determined to match I to the profiles, the curvature looks bad. IF you really need these areas of high curvature, then this loft should be broken down into several individual segments.”

 

The loft looks pretty ok in this area on the outside, fairly smooth and flowing surface should net a low C/D. Now if we break the loft down into several segments all running on common rails how will that change anything? Isnt it the rails that’s resulting in this high curvature?

 

“Also, if the geometry between the 2nd (from left) circle and the the first rectangle should be straight, then this segment should be a straight loft and actually would not need rails, but if you do use a rail, I should be a straight line, not a spline with curvature.”

 

Its looking pretty ok as is. Though we may end up moving that curvature farther back once we get to modeling the intakes. Take a look at the bottom of the Panavia Tornado to see the shape there. The designers of that jet used a really simple approach and I thought it would be a good element to apply here.

 

Now if we do use a straight line between these 2 sketchs wont that result in a ridge with each of the surronding lofts? What would be the cure for that?

 

“I am attempting to create a high quality surface. A quality that is unlikely to be discernible  in a 3D printed model from a model with lesser quality.”

 

I like what I hear! This is something I would really like to learn how to do!

 

“One of the "problems" you'll observe in the end result is that I loose G2 surface continuity across the center line. I know what to do about it, it's fairly simple (those were his last words) , but I don't think that should even be the case.”

 

The model pictured here is looking pretty good and smooth. In that area where its loosing some continuity it seems like if it were smoothed out in either direction it would mean a larger and heavier model. So if its not a curvature issue that will cause a higher C/D then lets err on the side of minimum volume. That’s the reason Id had the guide rail curve rapidly to point at the final circle sketch.

 

“Anyway, here are some results. I'll keep working the model and post back something later.”

 

Thank you Peter

 

“I am attempting to avoid splitting that body to leave the two top and bottom center surfaces intact.”

 

By splitting the body do you mean altering it so that Fusion sees it as separate parts in a certain area? Why would we do that?

 

“SO I use the same object for splitting surfaces to create the same trims on the opposite side. Then I copy/mirror the surfaces to the other side attempting to stitch it all into one body.

What works on the original side, does not work on the opposite side. That means that the original solid was not symmetric! The gap between the surfaces is actually quite large!”

 

That’s quite odd as the only guide rails in the model that had been posted at that point in time were on the top and bottom. How could that possibly have lost symmetry?

 

Im also confused as to what you mean by splitting surfaces and creating trims. Are these methods of smoothing out the contours?

 

Im having a really difficult time analyzing whats going on in the workflow of the model you last posted as when I move the end point back through the steps the model disappears completely as early as even the first few lofts. Is this due to a later vs older version of Fusion360?

Absolute confusion.JPG

0 Likes
Message 24 of 33

davebYYPCU
Consultant
Consultant

panavia_tornado_gr1_2.jpg

This one?

Time to start again?  This has twin exhaust.

Create one half of everything then mirror to finish.  No need to mirror a 3d spline.

 

0 Likes
Message 25 of 33

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

I will reply to your post in more detail later, but from the model you posted you've not honored a single piece of advice I've given you so far. 

 

If you really are interested in higher end surfaces, then you need to abandon solid modeling. For simpler situations solid lofts work perfectly fine but this is not so simple 😉

 

Your solid lofts do not look OK to me. The reason for these bulges and unexpected surface dimples and deformation is that you are trying to do too much with one loft and then try to fight it with rails. That is only going to work to a degree, and will certainly not create the geometry that can be created by breaking this up into different lofts.

 

I am a quite puzzled by your statement that we are stuck wit lofting from filleted Sketches, when he model I presented does not use any filleted sketches whatsoever.

 

Read though the following materials. These are  The Autodesk Alias Theory Builders. While they are part of the documentation for Autodesk Alias, a high end surfacing software, the concepts explained therein apply generally and as such also to Fusion 360. This will provide you with the foundation to continue this conversation.


EESignature

Message 26 of 33

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

@ReeceEngineering the vanishing stitched surface body you observed in the model I posted is a bug in the stich tool. I believe I've reported it already, but its been a while, so I'll likely have to report it again.


EESignature

Message 27 of 33

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

@TrippyLighting 

I read through the article you posted on NURBS Introduction and it sound like it would be faster, easier, and produce smoother surfaces.

Looking at the model you posted earlier, XJ-64 Gen Trippy, it appears as if you used the guide rails to extrude surfaces, stiched them together, filleted the edges, & mirrored the result. Lastly turned off the orginal lofted body thus leaving the model as generated with surfaces. This leaves me with some questions:

XJ-64 Surface Model Q.JPGXJ-64 Surface Model Q2.JPGXJ-64 Surface Model Q3.JPG

1. It seems like this would be easier without the inital loft at all, is this true? Could we just extrude 2 surfaces, trim, stitch them together, fillet, and then mirror?

I have tried doing this in a fresh part file and I am unable to extrude a line into a surface. This prompted me to go back to your model and edit the first extrude of sketch 5. If I deselect sketch 5 from your extrude Fusion is not allowing me to reselect it:

XJ-64 Surface Model Q4.JPG

I tried toggeling Sketch5's visibility, clicking the sketch in the list on the left, everything and Fusion will not allow me to retrace your step here at all. Is there a setting I need to activate in order to do this?

0 Likes
Message 28 of 33

jeff_strater
Community Manager
Community Manager

there are two Extrude commands - Solid Extrude:

Screen Shot 2021-06-15 at 6.14.33 AM.png

and a Surface Extrude:

Screen Shot 2021-06-15 at 6.14.52 AM.png

 


Jeff Strater
Engineering Director
0 Likes
Message 29 of 33

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Thank you I see that now, though this does not explain why Fusion360 is not allowing me to recreate the first surface extrusion in the example TrippyLighting posted earlier. Im trying to learn from his work and retracing the steps would be very helpful.

In the above screenshot all I have done is right click-> edit extrusion. So it should be the same surface extrusion tool. Even clicking over to surface under create before editing that extrusion is not allowing it to happen.

0 Likes
Message 30 of 33

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

So after along bit of experimentation in Fusion 360 and ZW3D I've again come to the conclusion that for all shapes involving lofting, keeping  it simple is key to success. Success means that sometimes one simply has to make compromises.

The center loft uses two profiles, G2 tangency weights and 2 side rails. The rails are needed so the loft at least  appears to be symmetric. With compromise I mean that one must not pay attention to the iso curve analysis. 

Trying improve by control a loft with more rails profiles etc. is simply not going to work well. Curvature map looks OK. Zebra stripe analysis is meh...OK.

 

 

The workflow in the attached file is what I ended up with: Not great, but not too bad either. The tip can certainly use a little work. None of it was done in solid lifting, even though the center portion could probably have been.

 

TrippyLighting_0-1623873741049.png

 


EESignature

0 Likes
Message 31 of 33

ReeceEngineering
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

I tried lofting it in sections using common rails like you had suggested earlier, and wow I dont know why I didnt do it then. The resulting shape is very simalar to the one you posted here, with some more room added in the lower section as thats where the battery will sit.

 

Ive broken it into the 3 needed sections and completed most of the features. Theres a few things that Im not sure how to do:

1. In the Nose section how can we get the battery tray extrusion to go all the way to the next surface and close off with the inside of the nose's cone shape? Its extrusion #2

 

2. In the center section what is the issue with sketch 28? I cannot figure out what has caused its yellow highlight.

Extrusion 8 & 9 are there to reinforce the holes that will be tapped for M3 screws, the wings bolt on here. I did a test print of this section and found its much to easy to bend the entire section sideways. If we could recreate these shapes in Extrusions 8 & 9 rotated 30 degrees to each side, and have them extend downwards at 30 degrees until the meet the inner surface it would be a great improvement to strength. Is it possible to convert the part file at this point to a surface and then add new surfaces at those locations to get this effect? What is the easiest way?

 

3. In the Tail section Sketch 18, the last one, it will not let me properly dimension that sketch into the center of the thrust tube. This sketch will extrude the hole for the motor wires to exit between the fins. How can this be properly set in the center?

Also for extrude #7, the sketch used here required me to offset a plane any distance from the part itself. I initially tried doing this sketch directly on the leading face but when I went to extrude it Fusion would only select an 83mm circle and ignored sketch 17 entirely. I tried going back into sketch 17 to mark all unneeded geometry as construction lines & it had no effect. So I had to re-do it on a plane offset by 5mm and then add 5mm to the depth of the extrusion. This is very odd is it not?

0 Likes
Message 32 of 33

davebYYPCU
Consultant
Consultant

1. Extrude to object, change the options to match this (select inside wall)

 

efwtd.PNG

 

2. Can't say why, just have to follow the error message (missing face?) and Redefine the Sketch Plane, select the Origin plane for it.

2A.  Not sure what you mean, a pattern of / or radial ribs? even if a change of shape, ribs or webs will be easier to make - if I have picked up on your question.

 

3.  Use Horizontal constraint on arc centres, 

3A.  Because you have fixed it, can't see what happened.  But yes unusual.  As you have many sketches there, you may not have been selecting correct sketches, as a guess.

 

Might help....

0 Likes
Message 33 of 33

TrippyLighting
Consultant
Consultant

@ReeceEngineering If you are happy with the model, then that's OK with me.

I personally would not be satisfied with the surface quality.

You missed several important details in the designs I attached and if you really want to learn how to create higher quality surfaces, then you need to take a step or two back and observe my designs a lot closer.

 

If you're interested, let me know. Otherwise I'll just move on!


EESignature

0 Likes