Sweep works on 1 hole but not on another one

[joshua.franklin]

Hello, I am running across a weird situation where I can make a sweep cut work on one hole but on 2 other ones it switches to a join instead of a cut and seems to just jump through the body. I have listed the holes 1, 2 and 3.

Hole 1 lets me go 0.010 mm deep and does a recess but holes 2 and 3 don't work. I even make separate sketches to separate them to see if that was the problem. I suspect it has something to do with the base body but I'm at a loss. I am sweeping it along the axis that is currently turned on.

Screenshot 6.JPG

 

[joshua.franklin]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum but it seems like bug but probably just something wrong in my design logic.

[TheCADWhisperer]

I recommend that you turn on Capture Design History and start over.

Do you have a picture of the real part?

How would you cut the edges at an angle like that?

TheCADWhisperer_0-1677157953506.png

What tools would you use to drill and counterbore the holes at an angle?

[joshua.franklin]

I just created a sketch and then did a sweep along a path. That's how I got the extrusion to move on an angle that is not normal to the plane.

[davebYYPCU]

I can confirm the Sweep Tool really weird behaviour, can not set depth in one direction, but works all the way through,  Path length arrows do not work correctly.

I found a duplicate line in the Path sketch, and deleting one of them did not help.

Will leave the why you want this to happen to the Whisperer.

Might help....

[joshua.franklin]

ok so I'm not crazy then lol...well unless you talk to my wife haha! Thanks

[g-andresen · Accepted solution]

Hi,

try an extrusion from a plane on the path

günther

[davebYYPCU]

Interesting, the op file has no timeline.

Can you tell us why the Sweep Tool is not working as expected?

[joshua.franklin]

Once again Guenther you made a very simple task from an over thought out process. 

2 questions: 

1- how did you create the original path in the hole from the axis (I believe I can figure it out if I watch it a few times)

2- What would be the best way to do this for all of those holes? would i need to do them all individually or is there a way to address them all at once as they are all the same depth and the same angles.

[joshua.franklin]

There is not timeline because when I originally started the design I imported a file from AutoCAD. When you start from an import, the timeline is turned off and I didn't turn it on. That was strictly user error. I am still trying to understand why the timeline is so important. I think my problem is that I am lacking a couple fundamentals that are blocking my understanding of how to effectively use this software. I am basically teaching myself as I go and probably need some formal class on this software that I can ask questions in but I need to find somewhere that I can get this training

[davebYYPCU]

So to be clear, you want what you asked for, a Sweep result, (which is bugged) or an extruded result?

Doesnt matter about the timeline, as my comment to Gunther, is that there is no rivet in the original file, so he changed the topic from Sweep to Extrude to be helpful in understanding the Whisperers question.

For new people the Timeline should be used, immediately after the import.

There are self paced tutorials provided under the Help Tab (question mark) top right of screen.

Might help.....

[joshua.franklin]

Thanks Dave, you are correct. The original question was not really answered. In the long run, what he showed was something that I was actually looking for but the weird bug that allowed the sweep extrude to work on some of the holes and not the others is still in fact an issue. I suspect that it probably has to do with the import file but can really be sure.

I got lucky that he showed what he did as that's what I wanted to do overall. 

[davebYYPCU]

Yep, the sweep counter bore you talked about was bugged.

The complete file is backwards.

You should Extrude the Base plate, and then the counterbores As Extrude or Revolve cuts would work.

Add the inclined Pipe, separately.  Cut the pipe as desired.

The original sketch being imported was not a short cut, and done properly would not need a base feature, and or the Timeline would be there from the beginning.

Might help....

[joshua.franklin]

Agreed. It was a starting point that I used for the profile as its a very specific geometry. I was able to perform all of the needed features once I used Gunther's method and it worked out perfectly. It was weird that 8 out of the 11 holes worked for me to perform the extrude and 3 of them acted wacky. 

[davebYYPCU]

You do know that you don't have a round pipe?  

Sweeping the circle makes the pipe shape an ellipse when you cut it across it's Axis.

This all comes back to not answering the Whisperer questions, we both didn't think what you had was what you wanted.

[JDMather]

---

@joshua.franklin wrote:

I am still trying to understand why the timeline is so important. 

---

Remember back in HS math class where the teacher would insist that you show your work?

If you say the answer to a math problem is 9.867 and the answer is incorrect (or perhaps even correct but copied from your classmate) the teacher has no way of knowing where you are going wrong.

The Timeline records a history of everything you do in the order that you do it. Plus it is just plain easier to edit the model.

I am absolutely certain that your model does not match anything in the real world, and not really really what you want. It is obvious enough that I am kind of surprised that you do not see the issues.  At the risk of offending, is this a school project? How much manufacturing experience do you have?

I will post what I think is your true Design Intent tomorrow (with complete Timeline History after import of sketch.  We will get through this, but it would be soooo much easier if you would post image of something that already exists in the real world that is similar to what you are designing. (Or is this a completely novel design, different than anything ever seen before by man, woman, or beast?)

[joshua.franklin]

@Anonymous

Little backstory. I build and race Prostreet motorcycles that make around 800 HP on a turbocharged motorcycle on methanol with a street tire and no wheelie bars. We drag race these bikes at over 230mph in the quarter mile so in order to go that fast, you need to design and make your own parts. We have to use OEM motors and a lot of wild parts to go that fast. We have RPM driven lockup clutches that have to be gone through after every pass. The design that I am making is for a quick access clutch cover for a new Kawasaki ZX10 with a slider clutch(another one off design). Unfortunately this is a bike that not a lot of folks make parts for, unlike the Suzuki Hayabusa which we have already made one of these for. The stock cover is made out of Magnesium and we cannot just weld the aluminum ring and cover to it so we are reverse engineering one to be machined out of aluminum.  The one we made was just an epoxied ring and cover but it is already leaking. I took a photo and lined it out in AutoCAD as I was going to just make the base ring and produce a carbon fiber mold to make this but after all of the work it was going to take I just wanted to make a full aluminum part like what is already out for the Hayabusa. You will see that I made a DWG file and water jetted the part out and it fits up perfectly. That being said, instead of redoing the file for that very weird shape, I imported it into fusion and began making the rest of the cover off of the file I made originally. I have already gone through a couple revisions and 3D printed them to make sure all of the geometry works. I am not just doing the final touches like the recessed holes that mount to the engine cases. I have 19 years of engineering and operations experience in Aerospace manufacturing but I'm not a design engineer so I'm doing this for fun and to meet a needs of a good friend. I may not know the best way to perform the design specifics in a 3D modelling software but I have a lot on 2d AutoCAD experience and manufacturing on parts. I am in the business of managing the manufacturing process of jet aircraft and rocket aerospace parts so I'm not a novice by any means. I know what I'm looking for conceptually  but the hands on design is where I'm very green. This is just a personal project and I believe for a guy that is just doing this one the side with only the help of the team on here, I think I'm doing pretty **** good lol. All in all this is a very basic design albeit with a bunch of funny draft angles.

PXL_20230224_005001420.MP~2.jpg

 

PXL_20230224_005017392~2.jpg

 

PXL_20230224_005028557.MP~2.jpg

 

PXL_20230224_005346968.jpg

 

PXL_20230224_005432125.jpg

 

joshuafranklin_0-1677203828454.png

[TheCADWhisperer]

@joshua.franklin 

I reckon I have been taking things apart and putting them back together for more than 55 yrs.

In all of those years I do not recall seeing a flange that is not perpendicular to the clamping face and fastener holes at an angle.  Your images do not seem to support that design decision either.

What follows will be my analysis.

First, as noted by @davebYYPCU your "cylindrical" feature is not cylindrical.

Note the top and bottom of this circle relative to your "cylinder"...

TheCADWhisperer_0-1677242477998.png

You never answered my question about how you are going to manufacture the sides of the flange at an angle (same with holes)?

TheCADWhisperer_0-1677242624274.png

I understand that you want the cylinder to be at a compound angle, but the flange should be perpendicular in my experience (and from what I can tell from your images).

TheCADWhisperer_1-1677245494693.png

See my rough interpretation of what you had done so far.

I have zero confidence in the original source geometry and did not try to complete to image you show.

My advice would be to examine the Attached file and then start over natively in Fusion 360 asking questions after each and every step.

I would use multiple orthogonal images along with calipers to get started.

I must confess that I am still completely confounded by the angled base and holes - not what I have ever seen in any flange design like this.

[TheCADWhisperer]

@joshua.franklin 

Did my perpendicular extrusion make logical sense, or am I missing something?

[joshua.franklin]

Yes they made perfect sense. Originally the question for this post was "Why would the sweep work on some holes but not others". As you noted, a sweep counterbore for a hole would not make sense in the real world and I would agree. I was actually looking to figure out how to perform a counterbore that was perpendicular/parallel to the axis of the bolt hole but as I mentioned, this was an evolution of not only the design but more importantly how to perform the functions in the software to get my final result. As a result of the questions I asked I was provided the information that I was ultimately looking for. One of those stepping in dog doo doo and coming out smelling like roses, or like in calculus getting the final answer correct but not coming to that answer through the correct method lol. 

While this post never really answered the question that was initially asked, I got a ton of great information on ultimately what I was looking for and I appreciate all of the help of the folks that responded to the question.

It would be nice for the Autodesk team to at least look into the question asked and provide some sort of formal response or answer but I am very thankful of what I learned through this post.