Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Am looking for a nice, concise, precise and basic description of what Solid Modeling actually means - something your Grandmother could read and understand.
I tell people solid modeling is making a real part in the computer. The part is 3 dimensional, has volume, and mass rather than a bunch of lines drawn 2 dimensionally in multiple views to represent a real part with volume and mass.
Solid modeling is simply a set of macros that automate the surface creation, trimming, joining functions, typically using boolean operations which are transparent to the user, and a rule: a volume definition must be maintained throughout serving as an integrity check. An arbitrary density can be associated with the volume definition for mass calculations.
I just tried that on my mother, she now has one very strange blank look on her face. Unfortunately my ma doesnt quite grasp computers yet! ( she doesnt even know who Pac-Man is!!!). Laser guy pretty much simplified it as much as possible, it is also how i would normally describe solid modelling.
The creation of computer models in which complete definitions of physical objects are created. The resulting 3D model is based on solids and parameters rather than geometry only.
3D CAD modeling technique that accurately represents all physical characteristics of a component, including volume, mass and weight.
Think actually the best one I've come across is the one listed in SolidWorks documentation. Seem to remember it begins The most complete form of computer modeling..
Jeff4136, your Grandmother2376 must be a special lady..
As I understand it, Pro/E is a boundry representation modeler (B-rep) as opposed to a Boolean modeler. I don't think it makes a bit of difference but used to be a point of hot contention back when Pro/E was the new kid on the block. Pure boolean systems only use the intersection of simple primative shapes like spheres, cubes, torroids, etc. I don't think there is a pure boolean solid modeler left. None of this matters to the end user or to the definition of solid modeling.
You gents are correct in a strict sense and certainly correct as to relevance. If I were to guess what's happening behind the curtains, though, when creating any of the solid base features it goes something like: the feature is created as a discrete solid, intersections found, surfaces split, appropriate surfaces discarded and finally the remaining quilt stitched into the existing solid body. Essentially a boolean operation.
Re accuracy... it is relatively simple to find accurate intersections between analytic or primitive surfaces but doing the same for higher order surfaces is not a job for the faint-hearted or casual developer. Even more so dealing with fuzzy tolerant edge intersections. I think that may be what was abandoned.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
