Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello,
I would first think that for a match surface that G0(position) would be enforced, but it appears that correct position is first needed. I also see that this only correctly works on curved surfaces (open/closed). If for example I have 2 planer (flat) surfaces set at an angle to each other, the resulting match is incorrect.
Simple example (G2):-
01 = 2 planer surfaces to match
02 = result from Viacad pro
03 = what I would expect from a G2 match
Maybe I am missing something?
Regards,
File Attachment(s):
G2.zip
(97kb) downloaded 5 time(s). You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 2,156
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Steve I've never been happy with the Match Surface tool It's a tool I try from time to time - but I've kinda given up expecting much from it ! I agree with you - it needs to be tested thoroughly in a range of situations It's actually a pretty important tool when it comes to surfacing The guys need to look at SolidWorks or ideally Alias ST for some new ideas
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/24/2008(UTC) Posts: 591
Hi Steve, I haven't looked at your files but have you tried 'Join' rather than match for planar surfaces ?. Hopefully I will get chance later today to open your files.... Rgds, --Paul--
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello,
unique wrote: I haven't looked at your files but have you tried 'Join' rather than match for planar surfaces ?.
The files are only pics to show the result, but "join" would only join/stich the surfaces together, whereas I am looking at "match" for either a G1(tangent) or G2(curvature) adjustment.
I am also still looking for a surface G0(position). There is the "connect" for line, but I dont yet see anything for surfaces.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello again,
What is interesting is that I can perform a loft from the top edge(line added) of the plane I want to match~ to the edge of the bottom plane and get close enough for what I want.
Steve.M attached the following image(s):
loft_match.jpg
(10kb) downloaded 5 time(s). You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 2,156
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Steve, have you found 'Modify Slope' ? If so - please ignore If not .. It's not immediately obvious .. but the 'Modify Slope' tool in the splines palette will help get curves to run tangent into other curves .. or surfaces .. or solid faces (via the 'reference' option) You'll always have to then flip your tangency as it's still the wrong way round by default since 10 years IMHO Clearly, getting curves to run nicely into other bodies is half the battle of getting good surface curvature of tangency connections In my opinion, if you 'match' surface .. this tool should better be called 'match slope / tangency' I've always thought that you should be able to invoke a spline's tangency to another body by right clicking at spline end .. alas not yet !
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/2/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,447
Was thanked: 501 time(s) in 353 post(s)
HI All, Will check this out shortly.. Tim
Tim Olson IMSI Design/Encore
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/24/2008(UTC) Posts: 591
jol wrote: Steve, have you found 'Modify Slope' ? If so - please ignore If not .. It's not immediately obvious .. but the 'Modify Slope' tool in the splines palette will help get curves to run tangent into other curves .. or surfaces .. or solid faces (via the 'reference' option) You'll always have to then flip your tangency as it's still the wrong way round by default since 10 years IMHO Clearly, getting curves to run nicely into other bodies is half the battle of getting good surface curvature of tangency connections In my opinion, if you 'match' surface .. this tool should better be called 'match slope / tangency' I've always thought that you should be able to invoke a spline's tangency to another body by right clicking at spline end .. alas not yet !
Hi Jol,
No, Steve is referring to surface matching. For example two surfaces (not coplanar) with edges at different heights. One should be able to match edges for G0, G1, G2 and so far it is not looking good on the tests I have done.....does anyone have any knowledge please.
When I try a G1 match it tends to bulge the surface and make a dense patch surface instead of just modifying the control at that edge:confused:
I hope you show us where we are going wrong Tim ?
Cheers,
--Paul--
unique attached the following image(s):
match.jpg
(26kb) downloaded 5 time(s). You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hi jol,
jol wrote: Steve, have you found 'Modify Slope' ?
I had briefly looked at that, but was currently concentrating on the advance surface tools within the pro version.
jol wrote: You'll always have to then flip your tangency as it's still the wrong way round by default since 10 years IMHO
I noticed that, as the problem not been reported, or as the problem simply been left?
jol wrote: Clearly, getting curves to run nicely into other bodies is half the battle of getting good surface curvature of tangency connections
I agree, but that is going back to basics, certainly I can construct all surfaces based on lines, and make the lines (even without a tool for modify slope) tangent match, certainly from control point spline. But following that path, would for me, then give rise to questioning a need for the advanced features I am currently looking at.
jol wrote: In my opinion, if you 'match' surface .. this tool should better be called 'match slope / tangency'
That it really what it is doing/saying. A "G0" is position (which appears to be missing from Viacad), there is then "G1" which is Tangency(+position) and G3 with is curvature (+position)
Regards,
- Steve
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 2,156
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I think we're all agreed .. this tool needs love !
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Steve.M wrote: A "G0" is position (which appears to be missing from Viacad),
OK, I have found this with the "Join surface"~ I had just missed the options (Maximum stitch/heal gap), but would prefer to have the extra options to perform G1/G2 within this command, as now with the joined surface at what appears to be a mix of G0/G1, I need to then split and attempt G1/G2, then join again.
Regards,
EDIT,
From the "Join Surface" I am seeing some attempt from Viacad(pro) to make G1,.. this is causing unwanted bulge within the surface.
I really think a "Match" is needed that does perform G0, to only actually move(position) the surface edge to matching position (scale where needed). I can see this as a bit of a nightmare at the moment.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/24/2008(UTC) Posts: 591
Steve.M wrote: OK, I have found this with the "Join surface"~ I had just missed the options (Maximum stitch/heal gap), but would prefer to have the extra options to perform G1/G2 within this command, as now with the joined surface at what appears to be a mix of G0/G1, I need to then split and attempt G1/G2, then join again. Regards, EDIT, From the "Join Surface" I am seeing some attempt from Viacad(pro) to make G1,.. this is causing unwanted bulge within the surface. I really think a "Match" is needed that does perform G0, to only actually move(position) the surface edge to matching position (scale where needed). I can see this as a bit of a nightmare at the moment.
Hey Steve,
I did mention the join cmd in my earlier post ??:D
I agree the "matching tools" need tuning up IMHO. I am finding bulges and creasing in the resultant surfaces when I try G1/G2 match :(
Im enjoying the solids side so far but the surfacing needs some looking at if Shark is to be Punch's premium package...
--Paul--
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hi Paul,
unique wrote: I did mention the join cmd in my earlier post ??:D
But it is a little confusing, there is a set distance of 12.7, anything outside that distance will not actually be moved(G0). I have attempted to change the distance, but it always reverts back to 12.7
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/24/2008(UTC) Posts: 591
Join surface is very strange in fact. It's a combination of edge matching/scaling & extending/trim rolled into one.....not very easy to follow either IMO. Technically, this cmd should also give you the option of matching by 'closest points' so that the edge remains same length and not just auto matching the target edge? If we can have better matching of existing G1/G2 and then add G0 that would be more in keeping with most other apps out there thus easier for people to convert themselves. Sorry for all my comments of late but there are a lot of things lacking in the surface area....at least for now it appears to make up for it in the solids area ;)
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
unique wrote: ...... there are a lot of things lacking in the surface area....
I always start with the basics when looking at programs, and to me a G0/G1/G2 matching of planes is very basic, but, it does appear that the program is fundamentally flawed and gives rise of too much concern to me at the moment.
unique wrote: .....at least for now it appears to make up for it in the solids area ;)
Well, one of the main points put forward to actually purchase the more advanced higher end/ higher priced programs is the surfacing ability, but with such simple construction of plane (correct) matching G0/G1/G2 not existing, well,........ very big question mark.
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC) Posts: 2,156
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Steve, I'm very glad you're on the scene ! I've been banging on about surface match for years .. and nothing has changed (sadly, much of my noise was left behind on the previous forum) Hopefully, there's enough steam here to force Tim to look again at the important role of this tool At present as you say - it is fundamentally lacking !!
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 4/1/2007(UTC) Posts: 1,583
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I'd have to now agree with both Steve and Paul now. Getting the surface and spline tools fixed is probably a lot more important than getting the history tree updated (which isn't too out of place- it's just confusing). I will point out that the way Shark already executes surfaces is already way ahead of Solidworks' surface geometry- which is horrible (I had to design a mobile phone casing in SW, and I almost threw the computer out of the window!!), but SW's (rainbow) Moldflow tools otoh, are second to none (or at least appear to be!).
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/24/2008(UTC) Posts: 591
Steve.M wrote: I always start with the basics when looking at programs, and to me a G0/G1/G2 matching of planes is very basic, but, it does appear that the program is fundamentally flawed and gives rise of too much concern to me at the moment. Well, one of the main points put forward to actually purchase the more advanced higher end/ higher priced programs is the surfacing ability, but with such simple construction of plane (correct) matching G0/G1/G2 not existing, well,........ very big question mark.
Steve,
When you say planes, do you mean planar surfs? because matching should cater for surfaces of all shapes & size not just planar. Matching planar surfaces for position G0 should be standard.....matching for anything else using planar will clearly produce surfaces with curvature or am I missing something here ?
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hi jol,
jol wrote: I've been banging on about surface match for years .. and nothing has changed
That does surprise me a little, certainly as the user guide show an example of surface matching. Was the example shown in the user guide done in another application lol
- Steve
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC) Posts: 978
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Paul,
unique wrote: do you mean planar surfs?
Yes,
unique wrote: because matching should cater for surfaces of all shapes & size not just planar.
I agree,.... this problem does have a knock on effect and causes problems on many types of surfaces.
Tim did post to thread and mentioned looking at this, so I do hope something is done to correct this problem.
- Steve
Forum Jump
Punch! CAD
ViaCAD & Shark
- News and Announcements
- General
- 2D Drafting
- Surface Modeling
- Solid Modeling
- Subdivision Modeling
- Rendering & Display
- Import/Export
- Tips and Tutorials
- Suggestions
- Gallery
- PowerPack
- Punch Lounge
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.