Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

Surfaces - crappy

L

ledo

New member
Why are the surfaces in Proe so "crappy"?


What am i doing wrong? Is there some kind of tutorial to improve my knowledge or is these the best Proe can do?


If idraw 2 rectangles on 2 datum planes. (The rectangles have round edges.)


One is big and other small. Then i use insert -boundary blend


I get these:











Really bad surface. There is a small point to move arround that has some effect on surface but never perffect.


What am idoing wrong!? Thanx for answers!


P.S. some nice tutorial on these subyect would be great if somebody knows where to get it.
Edited by: ledo
 
Thanx for ansfers i made it work better now. I wasnt aware of these rules:
<UL>
<LI>At least two sections are required.
<LI>The sections must either be parallel to each other (a parallel blend), or they must all have a common axis (a rotational blend)
<LI>Each section must be created separately and constrained to either the existing geometry, or a previous blend section.
<LI>Each section must have the same number of line (or arc) segments, and the same number of vertices
<LI>Each section has a starting point - these must be placed properly on all the sections or else the resulting geometry will be twisted.
<LI>For a rotational blend, the sections can be no more than 120 degrees apart. </LI>[/list]


But that is with insert -> blend -> surface


What about insert -> boundary blend. (these is how i made first picture in the post. What are the rules there. The same?



Edited by: ledo
 
you really need to start using it and have a good go at the surfacing, have a look a some other posts in the forum, some users Maudib (i think) have done some very good post's outline how he is learning and what mistakes he made along the way.


Paddy
 
When you edit the definition of the feature look for a small white circle on the curves. You will also see two larger ones with boundary conditions. I suspect these are not lined up on the curve chains. Try to select one of them and move it so it lines up with the other one.
 
I must be doing something wrong with BOUNDARY BLEND feature. (insert -> blend -> surface works fine)


Why do i get 4 eges (arc is automaticly split in to2 parts)and not 2 edgeslike you on the last picture? I think these will solve what i am doing wrong.











And these is the sketch:








Is the problem that i only draw 1 quadrant and then i use mirror or should i define points for edges at the ends of arc and if i must do that how do i do it.






Edited by: ledo
 
I just triedyour method and believe that mirroring the geometry is causing the problem. ProE is having to assume constaints and it doesn't necessarily pick the ones you want. Try editing your sketches so that they appear in the following picture. The way I initially made my sketches was to make a square and fillet the edges. I then made all the radii equal, applied symmetry constraints to the center points of the arcs, and used dimensions for the width and height. For your case, apply tangent constraints for all the arcs and make the radii equal. When you get the conflicting constraints dialog box start removing the symmetry constraints on the edge end pointsand arc end points and keep the ones on the arc centers.
 
After working with the way you created your sections a little more you will probably need to define control points to get the effect your after. Use the control points tab and specify the points on each section that correspond to one another.
 
Search Help for "piece to piece".
smiley2.gif
 
Another thing is that if your dimensions controling the sketches are not all scaled by the same value you will get what you are seeing. If you are going to have different scale values for the dimensions use control points. In the first two pictures the three controling dimensions are scaled by the same value of 1.5. The next two show what happened changing the arc radii scale to be different than the width and height scale. The last one shows the use of control points.
 
I found the option. Was the option in WF2 or was it new to WF3? When I took the class they were still using WF2.
 
I discuss control points in the first hour and mention that most classes don't mention it. Very important to control. I call being able to control that flow of the surface as striation.

Surfacing and understanding how to wield the tool is so darn important. Its the difference between 200 hrs and 20 hrs. And since there is no real metric or measure from a managers perspective there is seldom a demand for training. Some managers get it however most don't. And from what I've seen users chosen to work on the ergonomic or stylized surfaces at a company are already the best in the organization... How can they ask their manager for more training? They are already the best. Thats why we teach plan of attack and place learning the tools secondary. the Certified classes cant teach that way. Secondly a Var (or PTC for that matter) can't afford to keep someone who is seriously experienced at surfacing (they cost too much) which is probably another reason why instructors don't mention the control points options.

Surfacing people demand big dollars next to Mechanica people of course. Those Mechanica folks demand the hi-est dollars.


Edited by: design-engine
 
Nothing wrong whatsoever with surfacing in Pro/E - apart from the eternity it takes to make your mouse-clicks in selecting curves with boundary surfaces.


PS Should've used a "general blend" from the outset on this one.


I tend think in terms of "food groups" in CAD and there are usually 3:


1) Datum/construction features.


2) Solids.


3) Surfaces.


Without knowing surfacing it's not possible to be anything more than a 67% modeller.
 
I beat the Alias and Rhino modelers in our office using Pro/E (in terms of speed). Our Alias instructor gives me a run for the money tho and they got tools we don't have. But I still beat em.

Now with WF 4.0 and the SE (surface Edit) tools the cant tell me I modeled it wrong. Expect to see youtube videos on that...


Edited by: design-engine
 
crappy surfaces eh...


usually possible in most cad packages
smiley36.gif



Think carefully about about boundary conditions before launching into a crappy surface
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top