| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
 |
|
A little confused, little verklempt.
Talk amongst yourselves.
I'll give you a topic.
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=687492 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:26:23 -0600, "users-er-snusers..." <no@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | A little confused, little verklempt.
Talk amongst yourselves.
I'll give you a topic.
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=687492
|
There should be original CFD input data available someplace
if this is an authorized design change I'd hope.
Get it and use cubic splines to interpolate the sectional
data then use the sectional data to create cubic spline
surfaces. You don't even need NURBS at this point IF
that's all there is to it.
But check with the original design firm to assure that they
are using cubics as their design intent. Should be specified
someplace but it's typical for this application IIRC.
HTH
--
Cliff |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zxys
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
Is this what you wanted to do?
http://www.zxys.com/misc/Abb_zxys.zip
..
On Aug 24, 2:26 am, "users-er-snusers..." <n...@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | A little confused, little verklempt.
Talk amongst yourselves.
I'll give you a topic.http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?threadID=687492 |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zxys
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
try the same file again... I added X_T, STEP and SAT.
..
On Aug 25, 5:59 pm, "users-er-snusers..." <n...@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | Is this what you wanted to do?
http://www.zxys.com/misc/Abb_zxys.zip
If the first step was to untrim the outer surface it will be
precisely what is needed IMO.
Sorry to have to ask, Paul, but would you put up a neutral of that?
I'm truly interested in seeing the results. If it's what I think
it will be then I have to wonder if any of the WunderButton yammers,
as well as other assorted self styled Authorities, have the first
clue about what Solidworks can and cannot do. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:58:12 -0600, "users-er-snusers..." <no@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | Should be specified someplace
If it isn't just the product of an Inventive imagination.
|
I give you 50 points.
How are you going to interpolate an *accurate* (to design intent)
curve based on them?
There are LOTS of such curves possible but which one
should be used?
| Quote: | However,
"You have everything you need to do your extensions ... simple
untrim, offset, trim and fillet or blend operations."
|
While you *may* be able to do such & get a picture/graphics/etc.
it may not be accurate to any design intent or functonality.
You also assume that the surfaces were trimmed in the first place --
possible at fillets to them but probably not much beyond that.
| Quote: | That's meat and potatoes b-rep modeling done every day by people
with a basic understanding of b-rep geometry. No WunderButtons or
calculus are needed.
|
I've actually developed surface models of turbine blades in
old CADDS III from the original CFD/design point data sets
so I asked about things before even starting so as to be on
the right track <G>.
| Quote: | users: 0
snusers: 1
but thanks anyway. <G
|
Ask for the data. Cannot hurt. Hack-N-Whack is a last resort.
--
Cliff |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
| Quote: | Should be specified someplace
|
If it isn't just the product of an Inventive imagination.
However,
"You have everything you need to do your extensions ... simple
untrim, offset, trim and fillet or blend operations."
That's meat and potatoes b-rep modeling done every day by people
with a basic understanding of b-rep geometry. No WunderButtons or
calculus are needed.
users: 0
snusers: 1
but thanks anyway. <G> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
| Quote: | Is this what you wanted to do?
http://www.zxys.com/misc/Abb_zxys.zip
|
If the first step was to untrim the outer surface it will be
precisely what is needed IMO.
Sorry to have to ask, Paul, but would you put up a neutral of that?
I'm truly interested in seeing the results. If it's what I think
it will be then I have to wonder if any of the WunderButton yammers,
as well as other assorted self styled Authorities, have the first
clue about what Solidworks can and cannot do. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
| Quote: | I added X_T, STEP and SAT.
|
That's it.
users: 1
snusers: 1
Thank you.
Any more actual CAD software users around? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:59:23 -0600, "users-er-snusers..." <no@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | Is this what you wanted to do?
http://www.zxys.com/misc/Abb_zxys.zip
If the first step was to untrim the outer surface it will be
precisely what is needed IMO.
Sorry to have to ask, Paul, but would you put up a neutral of that?
I'm truly interested in seeing the results. If it's what I think
it will be then I have to wonder if any of the WunderButton yammers,
as well as other assorted self styled Authorities, have the first
clue about what Solidworks can and cannot do.
|
Being able to easily make pretty models does not assure the
proper results. About anybody (except jb) can extend or
untrim surfaces/faces I'd think. This is not new stuff. But is
the result *correct*?
If the design intent was for cubic surfaces to fit the points
perhaps that's because that's what the CFD software used in the
analysis process did the design for, not 15th degree NURBS or
somesuch.
Get rejections later from the CMM & see ...
There are other factors too.
--
Cliff |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
| Quote: | Being able to easily make pretty models does not assure the proper results.
|
Well said, Sherlock, but who said it's "easy"?
| Quote: | About anybody (except jb) can extend
|
People don't "extend" surfaces. Software does.
Correction: Some software does. Some software does not.
| Quote: | or untrim surfaces
|
Not the same thing as extending in case you are confused.
Don't think.
Do or do not.
After you've done or failed come back and there will be something to discuss.
| Quote: | This is not new stuff.
|
Correct.
| Quote: | But is the result *correct*?
|
Ask Anbrian.
When you get an answer come back and there will be something to discuss.
| Quote: | If the design intent was for cubic surfaces
|
Then the person that originally modeled it did so incorrectly. I'll leave
you to ponder that. There are man readable clues in the STEP if that's all
you have to go on.
You are apparently confusing "fit points" and "control points".
Have you looked at anything other than the pretty picture? Which are shown?
| Quote: | rejections later from the CMM
There are other factors too.
|
Among them a point deviation check before going to CAM?
What program are we talking about?
Why are you always going off about 15th degree NURBS or somesuch when there
is no applicable context? Are you running interference for jb or is the
mind getting mushy?
| Quote: | Ask for the data. Cannot hurt. Hack-N-Whack is a last resort.
|
Absolutely. But that is not the point of this discussion or the game. Nor
is Hack-N-Whack applicable as we are not altering the customer furnished
surface. If this was not a game I would surely verify the surface beyond
the existing, on receipt, trim boundaries is valid for whatever the
intended purpose might be. The intended purpose might be fixturing or
tooling. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with modeling for
manufacture. Not in Inventor and certainly not by someone that posts to
that forum asking how to extend the UG created solid body. Maybe a student
trying to use something found laying around or a crank that knew there's
no hope of accomplishing the stated task but wants to see which resident
snuser will suggest proper training is all that's needed or someone like
you or jb or I that don't have the software just wanted to see what comes
of it. Which brings us back to the point of the discussion and the game ...
I appreciate Paul's contribution. I learned something. One little
bit of interesting / useful information pulled from piles of trash.
CAD dumpster diving for fun and profit. I love it!
I can offer that I'd be dead in the water using Pro/E. It shrinks*
surfaces to trim boundaries on import and I'd have to go back and ask for
the untrimmed version or <G> ask them to model as necessary to support my
task. I'd have to be a little masochistic to do that particular "job" in
Pro/E anyway. Nor am I sure I could complete it in any kind of straight
forward manner. Doing it in Rhino is relatively painless. Took about an
hour and a half but I ended up ignoring the trailing edge split due to
lack of sufficient existing geometry to define it. Maybe a mean curve
trace surface? I wonder if that feature is "design intent" or UG sheet /
body management driven? Anyone know or venture a guess? In addition to
importing without shrinking to trim boundaries, being able to offset
surfaces through self intersection and split them on isoparametric curves
contributes to the effort. (If anyone wants to examine the results I'll
post a neutral somewhere.)
* Web search for (Rhino command) ShrinkTrimmedSrf for info.
Hey! Ken Grundy? Know any Solid Edge users that would care to contribute? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:36:10 -0600, "users-er-snusers..." <no@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | Being able to easily make pretty models does not assure the proper results.
Well said, Sherlock, but who said it's "easy"?
|
It can be.
| Quote: | About anybody (except jb) can extend
People don't "extend" surfaces. Software does.
|
Needs user. Don't do the wrong surfaces <G>.
| Quote: | Correction: Some software does. Some software does not.
|
??
| Quote: | or untrim surfaces
Not the same thing as extending in case you are confused.
|
Why did I use "or"?
| Quote: | I'd think.
Don't think.
Do or do not.
After you've done or failed come back and there will be something to discuss.
|
You are new at this?
| Quote: | This is not new stuff.
Correct.
But is the result *correct*?
Ask Anbrian.
When you get an answer come back and there will be something to discuss.
If the design intent was for cubic surfaces
Then the person that originally modeled it did so incorrectly.
|
Could easily be the case from the sound of this so far.
Such are defined & controlled by CFD data or other
primary math model, usually.
CAD models are to be models of that. Not of something
else.
| Quote: | I'll leave
you to ponder that. There are man readable clues in the STEP if that's all
you have to go on.
|
<Sheesh>
And that came from where, exactly?
| Quote: | to fit the points
You are apparently confusing "fit points" and "control points".
|
Last I knew the engineering control points are on the desired surfaces.
| Quote: | Have you looked at anything other than the pretty picture? Which are shown?
|
I did not look at your "pretty picture".
| Quote: | rejections later from the CMM
There are other factors too.
Among them a point deviation check before going to CAM?
What program are we talking about?
Why are you always going off about 15th degree NURBS or somesuch when there
is no applicable context? Are you running interference for jb or is the
mind getting mushy?
|
How am I to know what your random hack-n-wack might end up
with?
| Quote: | Ask for the data. Cannot hurt. Hack-N-Whack is a last resort.
Absolutely. But that is not the point of this discussion or the game. Nor
is Hack-N-Whack applicable as we are not altering the customer furnished
surface. If this was not a game I would surely verify the surface beyond
the existing, on receipt, trim boundaries is valid for whatever the
intended purpose might be. The intended purpose might be fixturing or
tooling.
|
You don't know?
| Quote: | I seriously doubt it has anything to do with modeling for
manufacture. Not in Inventor and certainly not by someone that posts to
that forum asking how to extend the UG created solid body.
|
Try UG?
Both GE & P&W use it for their engineering & design of such, along
with other software ....
| Quote: | Maybe a student
trying to use something found laying around or a crank that knew there's
no hope of accomplishing the stated task but wants to see which resident
snuser will suggest proper training is all that's needed or someone like
you or jb or I that don't have the software just wanted to see what comes
of it. Which brings us back to the point of the discussion and the game ...
I appreciate Paul's contribution. I learned something. One little
bit of interesting / useful information pulled from piles of trash.
CAD dumpster diving for fun and profit. I love it!
I can offer that I'd be dead in the water using Pro/E. It shrinks*
surfaces to trim boundaries on import and I'd have to go back and ask for
the untrimmed version or <G> ask them to model as necessary to support my
task.
|
Tried IGES for just the surfaces?
You can somewhat easily edit an ASCII IGES file too.
| Quote: | I'd have to be a little masochistic to do that particular "job" in
Pro/E anyway. Nor am I sure I could complete it in any kind of straight
forward manner. Doing it in Rhino is relatively painless. Took about an
hour and a half but I ended up ignoring the trailing edge split due to
lack of sufficient existing geometry to define it.
|
Again, go back to the original design intent.
| Quote: | Maybe a mean curve
trace surface? I wonder if that feature is "design intent" or UG sheet /
body management driven? Anyone know or venture a guess? In addition to
importing without shrinking to trim boundaries, being able to offset
surfaces through self intersection and split them on isoparametric curves
contributes to the effort. (If anyone wants to examine the results I'll
post a neutral somewhere.)
* Web search for (Rhino command) ShrinkTrimmedSrf for info.
Hey! Ken Grundy? Know any Solid Edge users that would care to contribute?
|
At least they use the same kernel. Don't know what SW
put on top of it that restricts stuff.
--
Cliff |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
users-er-snusers...
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
| Quote: | At least they use the same kernel.
|
< plonk > |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Solid Edge or Synchronous Technology? |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:59:59 -0600, "users-er-snusers..." <no@no.mail> wrote:
| Quote: | At least they use the same kernel.
plonk
|
<Snort>
Button pushing newbies.
--
Cliff |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
