Modeling challange -

[muadib3d]

there is shape to be made

View attachment 2590



and I failed while trying to make it in easy and clear way. Well I
tried some ways, and I still think that boundary blend is the key-
right way,as it is shown in the bottom

View attachment 2591



View attachment 2592



but let`s leave it now in Yours hands.

The challange is : make it with all deatils and with less features as it is possible

 

[dougr]

What are the lines floating in space ?? - Trajectories ??


If so the upper one is nonsense...


"Modeling challange" - just as well this isn't a spelling "challange"
Edited by: dougr

 

[dojo]

the transition between the two shapes?

 

[dibloff]

HI <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:State><st1lace>Man.</st1lace></st1:State><?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


I spent acouple hours trying to create the geometry, but unfortunately I have only rough estimation for that. If you have a look on my model, you can see that with your constrains it's pretty much impossible to model this piece. From my previous work experience this could be a some kind of connector, which was in your system as a 2D print, and now you guys try to model it. If you have an actualpiecetry to follow that geometry, and use the old 2D print as a reference only.


Regards


A.


2006-08-18_232601_blend.prt.zip


View attachment 2595


View attachment 2596

 

[djmartins]

Hi,

You need to add the two foldovers after you blend the two profiles.
In the 2d print I also see that the inside edge of the end has a sharp corner,
this can not be done in the real world, you need a radius.
Post a picture of the real part and you'll see what I mean.
This isn't a hard part to model, one just needs the correct data to do it with.

regards,
DJ

 

[bhanavase_vijay]

Hi,


Please see attached JPG image.I think this will be your Solution.


Please suggest changes if required.Also see JPG image of model tree.


View attachment 2597





View attachment 2598

 

[design-engine]

10 years ago I would say less features is better. now
that I am past the 30 thousand hour mark I suggest less is not always
best. For example.



You can model that form in one feature but there are many steps all wrapped up
in one feature. If you break the form up into very simple easy to
understand curves and surfaces you win in the end.



More features may be better.



Many managers hate Surfacing because non of the permanent employees know
surfacing. The consultant made a surface and the employees complain
because they cant modify the thing. One manager asked me to teach a
surfacing class but use Solids to do it.



I never called him back because that goes against my entire principle of
keeping it simple. The manager's idea of keeping it simple was to do it in one
solid feature.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


A challenge would be to do it in Sheetmetal








Edited by: design-engine

 

[dougr]

10 years ago I would say less features is better. now that I am past the 30 thousand hour mark I suggest less is not always best. For example.


"Economy"offeatures is always better...

You can model that form in one feature but there are many steps all wrapped up in one feature. If you break the form up into very simple easy to understand curves and surfaces you win in the end.

More features may be better.

Many managers hate Surfacing because non of the permanent employees know surfacing. The consultant made a surface and the employees complain because they cant modify the thing. One manager asked me to teach a surfacing class but use Solids to do it.


Why does PTC never push surfacing ?? The 3 "food groups" of any cad system are:

1. 
   <LI>Datum ("construction") features.
   <LI>Surfaces (more"construction" features).
   <LI>Solids - always the desired final result.

1. 
   I never called him back because that goes against my entire principle of keeping it simple. The manager's idea of keeping it simple was to do it in one solid feature.</LI>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



A challenge would be to do it in Sheetmetal


Why??? These are "closed" sections, to do this in sheetmetal would require "open" sections.

Edited by: dougr

 

[design-engine]

Hey, it is in sheetmetal.

 

[design-engine]

View attachment 2603

 

[dougr]

Is this something like you're looking for:
View attachment 2604
View attachment 2605
View attachment 2606
PS You were right on the money with "Boundary blends"
Edited by: dougr

 

[dibloff]

Dear design-engine


Can you post your model please?


Thanks


A.

 

[design-engine]

I have two. One in Sheetmetal and one not in Sheetmetal.

 

[dibloff]

Just send me any of them.

 

[muadib3d]

hello all


First sorry for such long brake - I was on holiday


Second - well I like all I see in this topic, specialy those ones from dibloff
and bhanavase_vijay


dougr - you missed those shapes on the top and bottom


design_engine - could You sent me both models?


the piece comes from automobile industry, in fact it is a piece of windshield wiper

 

[design-engine]

I will upload my model today. I need redbul *ugh* my head hurts for some reason.

 

[mjolley]

I really like this discussion. I've started learning surfacing and there is an art to this. Please post your picture and or model so I can learn from your techniques.


Thanks.

 

[mjolley]

design-engine,


For my own understanding, why did you create this part in sheetmetal. Can you flatten this part? Does is create a better surface contour?


Thanks, Dr. Pepper

 

[mjolley]

Can this gap be fixed? I get a "Geom Check" message.


Thanks, Dr. Pepper


View attachment 2656

 

[design-engine]

I did it in sheetmetal because it looks like a sheetmetal part to me. It would be easy to do in Surfacing.