Improve Loft Surface

[Anonymous]

Please improve loft surface to work more like the loft surface in solidworks.

Also I wish to be available to select an edge by default so we can work faster, wait for options to show up everytime we need to select an edge just slow us down.

See the differences of Surface Loft in solidworks compare to the Surface Loft in Inventor.

Here it is another example of Surface Loft with Tangency in Solidworks.

 Inventor gives an error whe you apply Tangency. ( Edge should be the default instead of Loop )

[PaulMunford]

Inventor is certainly less intuitive when it comes to surfacing. 

I think that Inventor isn't giving you tangency in your example because the take off and landing edges are flat. I did a quick test, and Inventor would only give me tangency when I used a curve to built the take of and landing surfaces instead of a straight line.

Technically correct - but in your case not helpful!

PS. What inventor picks first depends on your approach. Sidle up on the edge first, and you should see the edge highlight before the face does.

PPS. I tested spline tangency against straight lines and that works.. I don't know why!

[Anonymous]

Can you please verify how you are doing the Loft Surface command? I don't have the same result you're showing in Inventor when doing the Loft command:

[Anonymous]

Hi Paul,

I really did enjoy your infiniteskills tutorials about inventor surface, I did learn couple good things that I did know. 

About the tangency? I wish I was more clear on what I was trying to say or explain, but I see is not that clear. I didn't mean to say Inventor can't create tangency or blend between two surface, yes Inventor can create tangency and blend between two surface and you show that in the image you attached, but it have to be done with rail to get the right results. I just think it could be a little better and easy if it could be done like solidwork does. I don't think an improvement could hurt anybody 😉 at the end is just a suggestion,

About an the edge? you are right, but it is just hard to get it to work, I also think this could be improve.

Loft with Rail

[Anonymous]

joflaherty yes this could be done with a rail but no without, did you get this to work witout a rail? if yes can you please show me how, i would like to know if there is another way. thanks.

[Anonymous]

Paul,

I think you could answer this for me, can this result be done with the blend surface in autocad without have to use a rail feature? if you answer is yes, then I think that Blend Surface is what we need in inventor to get this done in a easy way.

Thanks.

I took this from a website

[Anonymous]

I always use a rail or centerline when lofting, especially if I want to control the loft. How else would you control it? Doing a loft without some sort of guide simply does a loft directly from one point to the next. You must have some sort of condition or rule set in order to control the loft to react in a different manner.

In other words, when you do such loft in SW, how do you control the, for the lack of a better term, "radius" of the bend? It obviously doesn't simply put one in, what if I didn't want the raduis and wanted it direct from point to point, or what if I wanted it in at a different radius? See what I mean? What are you using to control that bend in SW if not a guide curve or centerline?

[Anonymous]

That what I thought tha you did, use rails. But this is not my point, as you can see I provide the surface in the images done the right way by adding rails, I know rails it is the best way to control the surface, I know that and I use them "when I need them", so you are not teaching me anything here, I just need to get thing done in the fastest and easiest way just to get a visual, solidworks can give me some of those feature tha help me without have to be so specific but im not a fan of solidworks and that is why I still using inventor, most of the times I have to make all this different digital mockups just to get Ideas and they don't need to be well design at first, "just need the look", after it is approved I worry about making it the right way, we all have different needs, what work better for you it might not work well for me, I prefer inventor over solidworks but there are couple good things from solidworks that I like to have in Inventor, so why not? if they can be add to inventor without affaceting any users, then lets request them to autodesk, and see if we can get them. I'm not asking to have thing remove from Inventor im asking for more options, you can still have yours and I can have mines and we all happy, we all have are own preferences and needs. I don't see how more option could affecting you, so thank you for your help but it does not solve my needs.

[Anonymous]

Why the hostility? You asked to have Inventor Loft Surface work like SW. You didn't specify you were throwing a random bend in there. Considering such, there is actually nothing wrong then with the result Inventor gave you. It can't read your mind, it too put in a random curve, it juste wasn't to your liking or your expectations. If you want a 2" radius, specify such and it'll put it in the way you want/need, otherwise it's going to be random and thus give you the results you see and frankly, any other number of results.

I was simply asking how you were creating such in SW without the needed specs that Inventor requires? Is this "radius" set as a system default somewhere?

If you are simply designing "what ifs", look into using Inventor Fusion, that's it's main use (some of its functionality is now in 2016). That might very well offer what you need whereas Inventor is requesting the specific info.

But still, my main concern is how does SW justify the curvature that you show with no control? Does it simply put in some arbitrary value for the curve? If so, in my book, that's very worrisome (I'm sure you know as well as I do, you'll have users that'll fudge things where they can).

Again, if you want to work in "what ifs", look into using Fusion

[Anonymous]

Thanks again joflaherty have a good day.

[Anonymous]

hello, you are right. I never noticed that behaviour! I tried to resolve your issue and found that if the two surfaces are not parallel somethig happen 

but is anyhow wrong

lok at that! what's that belly!!!

anyway I suggest you to explore the freeform tools that are very powerful. convert the two surfaces and use the bridge command to join them

hope to be of any help..

bye

[Anonymous]

Thank you diego.dorta, 

Don't know why but when two surface are parallel in a horizontal or vertical position it will fail to create the blend, it must to have a rail in order to work, but if the two surface are not parallel then will work, also the two surface can be parallel but no vertical or horizontal, that work too, let me show you.

Vertical and Horizontal position will fail without a rail.

None-Paralllel, just like your images attached will create the blend but with the belly like you call it out.


Parallel but None-Vertical/Horizontal position will also create the blend but still have the belly looking.


your idea about convert to freefrom will no work for me because I will lose the constraints on the other end of the surface, but you did give me another idea, without convert the nurbs surface just create a plane with t-splines and then use match edge tool will create the surface blend with tangency and no need of a rail and without the belly looking. ;), thank you one more time.

[Anonymous]

Another example that I found strange, for some reason? I don't know why?, but whe the surface are parallel and the edges are in a horizontal or vertical position the same it will fail to create the blend, but just by make a small change in position or size will work.

the first two circle at 2" each are constrained vertical, surface loft will fail to add tangency without a guide rail.


But just by changing one of the two circle to 2.1", in this cace the top one, then the loft surfce will create tangency between the two.

[PaulMunford]

Great work guys! I'm really impressed with what you've done here 🙂

[Anonymous]

So I take it you either can't or won't explain how you put in the radius in the loft for SW without using a guide of some sort.

Seems to me then that you were simply posting something to rattle a cage or incorrectly claim Inventor can't do something SW does in order to point fingers and say na na nee boo boo, but were caught doing such. Please, prove me wrong, I want to know how you can do such in SW and still have some sort of control of what that radius or bend is. If you can't fess up and say so. So far all you've done is lash out at me for pointing out the correct process.

[Anonymous]

great job Unknow, tha's what I call collaborative thinking!!!!

@Anonymous: I can't design in SW and I don't want to blame on Inventor... we are here just to discuss and hoping to help Autodesk developer to do best.

these strange behaviors of the surface tools come out when you really stress the software and don't just extrude a circle or a rectangle...

[Anonymous]

 I found the way to resolve your last post 

loft between the two sketches rather than the two circular surfaces

set the conditions as shown

result

you are welcome 

[The_Test]

.

[Anonymous]

Thanks You PaulMunford, it was a "collaborative thinking" like diego.dorta said.

diego.dorta Thanks for your help, I learn something new that I didn't know with your last post and does work just like you show in the images. 

@Anonymous Im not going to keep answer your question, I don't see the point, first of all I never say that Inventor can't do something that solidworks do because it is a lie, they do the same thing just different ways. seems to bother you when someone compare inventor to solidworks, but if you want to keep comment on which is better, here it is a link of something you create Don't, just DON'T! , I didn't make this to star a war between the two, so have a good day.

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous, you have yet to answer my questions. Please show me where you explained how you control the radius shown in your first example? There are numerous claims here by you and others that state either "inventor can't do this like SW can" or "Make Inventor do this like SW does".

It doesn't bother me when ppl compare the two, please show me where that's the case. What bothers me is when someone, such as yourself posts something, claiminf Inventor can't do it or needs to do it more like SW does (which by the way is exactly what you posted here) and then when called out on how you would do such in SW such as controlling the radius without using a guide of some sort, then fails to explain such and then gets all hostile towards the person asking for info such as you did towards me.

Again, I wasn't looking for a war either, I asked you for clarification and you attacked me...go look on the first page of this thread if you forgot.

Let's face facts, you need proper training as do many here. Yes, there are flaws or things each software can't do or needs to do better. Make the suggestion on how to fix such as opposed to asking it to be just like the other one. That's all I've ever been saying but you, for some odd reason took it personal when I asked you for more info so I could understand and hope to address the issue you posted. I came here to help but I can't help you if you won't offer up what the problem is and how you ran across it or whatever the case may be.