the easiest way to design this?
Hey Oliver,
Do you have a photo of the thing you're trying to repair?
Thank-you for the kind assessment Oliver. It was a fun challenge.
I always try to think carefully about the required geometry and whether there is some way to create it without leaving the Model workspace, just using sketches and the basic features. I much prefer the mathematically precise nature of this as opposed to pushing/pulling nodes by hand/eye. In my opinion it's worth putting in a few minutes of thought towards this goal before giving up and resorting to Tsplines and stuff.
After my video I put in a bit more thought, and revised as follows:
1. Edited the sweep. Swapped the path and the guide rail. Set the path as the wavy spline and set the guide rail as the flat inner circle. Then set the Extent setting to "Perpendicular to Path" and set the Profile Scaling setting to Stretch. This combination means that the slot profile follows the wavy condition properly, resulting in a wave that can have a mic put on it at any position and measure a consistent thickness, because the slot profile pivots as it is swept along the wave, and because as it needs to get longer/shorter to reach the circle perimeter it is stretching only in length instead of scaling up the thickness also as it was doing before.
2. Added fillets.
@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:
@TrippyLighting: Thx for the posting. As stated so often I haven't done anything in the sculpting environment. That doesn't mean I don't like to learn things 😉
What's the benefit of doing it this way instead of in the model environment. For me both ways starts somehow similar but your way looks more intuitive but less precise and the timeline is missing. Is the surface better?
Edit: Typo removed
That is a very good question!
the title was what is "the best" way to model this geometry. The matter of fact is that "best" often only exist in some specific circumstances.
The method used by @chrisplyler is definitely a good way to do this. But it does require some setup of sketches, splines, etc. And it is parametric, which is something I like.
However, I wanted to simply present a different way to create very similar geometry. The notion that T-Splines are not "precise" is very prevalent amongst traditional CAD people. Most CAD people never do anything but solid modeling and there are clear limits to that! One of these limits is surface quality in terms of curvature continuity. That is unlikely a requirement for this object, however, T-Splines are naturally G2 curvature continuous except at poles (vertices that do not join 4 edges, so either 3 or 4+n).
in this case there are no poles to the whole thing is G2 curvature continuous.
T-Splines are NURBS compatible and can be every bit as precise as a NURBS surfaces. There is a reason many AD competitors have developed tools similar and in some cases faster and more powerful that T-Splines so a quad-mesh model can be transformed into a CAD accurate solid model.
Another reason for me to work with T-Spliones is that you can very quickly explore forms. This shape can be very quickly edited into another form, which is unattainable with a sketch based solid, or surface model. If Fusion 360's T-Splone modeling tools would not be so clunky and functionally deficient I would probably use Blender less often, but the combination of Blender in conjunction with T-SPlines is very powerful.
Also, as @davebYYPCU mentioned, there is no timeline. Particularly when developing complex shapes (and not only there) the timeline can become a real burden.
@Anonymous What you are doing is really product design. Sometimes companies are very thankful for feedback. If you send them your findings and changed design, they might send some free products in return.
@lichtzeichenanlage no I did not perceive your question as rude whatsoever. I am German myself (Grew up on the outer fringes of the Ruhrgebniet, close to the Dutch border ) and can be somewhat rough around the edges. Call it German ruggedness 😉
Very nicely done Oliver.
Like I said I've barely ever played around with the sculpting environment, but having been inspired by Trippy, I created this in about five minutes....
I'm very happy with it. But I can't tell you what the radius is around the top of the cylinder, or whether it actually is a constant-radius arc fillet at all. I can't actually tell you many details about the shape at all, other than its outer diameter and height, because it was all dragged into place on my screen just by eyeballing it. As an artist, I would think I had done the job. As an engineer, I would be at a complete loss. My mind is most comfortable operating in the concrete, definitive world of sketching exactly what I want.
@TrippyLightingyou said that sculpting didn't have to be imprecise. Can you offer a bit of insight into how one might more definitively control the sculpture? Creating that mixing head was very easy, and has opened my eyes to exploring this whole sculpting world. But suppose you were copying an existing part exactly, and you had your calipers out taking measurements of thicknesses and radii and stuff, how do you establish same in your sculpted shape?
I think making the root three or four times thicker than the edge and filleting it as well will probably prevent it ever cracking off down at the root!
GOSH DURNIT all you morons are forcing me to go buy a drink mixer and a 3D printer. DANG YOU ALL TO HECK!