×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Split Body ... could be a little more powerful if...

Split Body ... could be a little more powerful if...

Split Body ... could be a little more powerful if...

(OP)
...it behaved like Spit Face, in that you can conduct a split face directly from a curve NOT located ON the face.  With Split Face, you can select a remote curve, specify a projection vector, and you're all set.

In contrast, Split Body forces you to use a plane or surface to split the body.  It would be quite handy if one could have the option to simply specify a projection vector and create a Split Body using only a remote curve.

Thoughts?

RE: Split Body ... could be a little more powerful if...

Granted, it would be possible, but these two functions are quite different in how they work once you look at them closer.

In the case of Split Face, what takes place is a simple Projection where an 'imprint' is performed defining the edges of the new face, which it turns out there is a Parasolid command which performs this task in one call.  All we had to do within NX was define what we call the 'feature method' which captures the ID's for the parent objects, the options selected and how edits and updates are to be done.

With Split Body, to do something similar we'd have to actually create a sheet body by extruding the curve far enough that it completely bisected the body being split and then perform the rest of the function as if the sheet body had already been created except that we would have to 'hide' it afterwords so that no one knew it was actually there.

Now I'm not saying that this would NOT be useful, after all we do allow you to define planes on the fly, so if you'd like, please contact GTAC and they will be glad to up an ER (Enhancement Request) for you.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
NX Design
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Cypress, CA
http://www.siemens.com/plm
http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 

RE: Split Body ... could be a little more powerful if...

(OP)
John,
This raises another, related (I think), issue... I've never understood why there is a difference in the options for Extrude with Sheet vs Solid bodies.

For example:

A Solid Extrude can be limited to "Selected", or "Extended", etc.

but, a Sheet Extrude is only allowed to be defined by a "Value".

Why?  Can this be changed, so that both Sheet AND Solid Extrudes can be assigned the same type of extent constraints?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources