logo
NOTICE:  This is the new PunchCAD forum. You should have received an email with your new password around August 27, 2014. If you did not, or would like it reset, simply use the Lost Password feature, and enter Answer as the security answer.
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Jolyon  
#21 Posted : Monday, February 05, 2018 12:14:09 PM(UTC)
Jolyon

Rank: Guest

Joined: 9/27/2017(UTC)
Posts: 108

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
In that son of 'butter dish lid' file - I can delete all solids and surfaces (including those hidden), but they still exist in the history tree ... why would that be ?

Jol
NeuTechFLA  
#22 Posted : Monday, February 05, 2018 12:15:54 PM(UTC)
NeuTechFLA

Rank: Guest

Joined: 12/14/2017(UTC)
Posts: 110

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Jolyon Go to Quoted Post
In that son of 'butter dish lid' file - I can delete all solids and surfaces (including those hidden), but they still exist in the history tree ... why would that be ?

Jol


NeuTechFLA attached the following image(s):
Noooooo.jpg (11kb) downloaded 0 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
NeuTechFLA  
#23 Posted : Monday, February 05, 2018 12:19:09 PM(UTC)
NeuTechFLA

Rank: Guest

Joined: 12/14/2017(UTC)
Posts: 110

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I do not know the inner workings of the code to be sure. But are they Ghost remnants of surface work? Can you click on them in the tree, RMB and "Show" them to see if they are hidden, then delete them?

Ahh...didn't read "those hidden"...mea culpa.

Edited by user Monday, February 05, 2018 12:21:49 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

BillB  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:31:43 AM(UTC)
BillB

Rank: Member

Joined: 9/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 83
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Jolyon Go to Quoted Post
OK - even simpler example

(The more an example of a fail can be distilled - the easier it is for the dev teem to fix, right ?)

Here is a square polygon with a cover surface

It's split by a surface (which is extruded from spline A)

(Hide half of the split cover)

Then extrude a surface (call it B) from the split edge of the remaining half of the cover

Associativity DOES NOT EXIST between spline A and extrude B

This is fundamental !


This works as expected if the same spline is used for generating both surfaces. Obviously the common spline has to be trimmed to the edges of the cover surface.
Bill Bedford

Viacad Pro 10 (1354)

OS X 10.13.1
Jolyon  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, February 06, 2018 6:27:51 AM(UTC)
Jolyon

Rank: Guest

Joined: 9/27/2017(UTC)
Posts: 108

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Hi Bill - what you say is true

However, my point is that whilst you CAN drive geometry directly from the split edge of a split surface ... you CANNOT drive associative geometry directly from the split edge of a split surface.

Why is this an exception to the rule ?

It's surely an omission !?

The only way to do it is to also do a 'surface intersect' - and drive your associative geometry from the intersect curve

If this is as intended - the 'split surface' help docs should sate that you cannot drive associative geometry from the resultant split edge

I'm only making a fuss about this cos I've been using this software since year 2000 and I didn't get this ( ... and I really needed to).

So, devs - is it a problem or not ? - will it be fixed, will it be ignored - I'd really like to understand

Jol
BillB  
#26 Posted : Thursday, February 08, 2018 3:18:54 AM(UTC)
BillB

Rank: Member

Joined: 9/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 83
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Jolyon Go to Quoted Post
Hi Bill - what you say is true

However, my point is that whilst you CAN drive geometry directly from the split edge of a split surface ... you CANNOT drive associative geometry directly from the split edge of a split surface.



But why would you want to drive geometry from a derived entity when the original is available? It seems to me that using a secondary entity would always be a source of potential errors.
Bill Bedford

Viacad Pro 10 (1354)

OS X 10.13.1
Jolyon  
#27 Posted : Thursday, February 08, 2018 3:52:57 AM(UTC)
Jolyon

Rank: Guest

Joined: 9/27/2017(UTC)
Posts: 108

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
So you're advocating that a history tree should be no more than 2 levels deep ? OK

A different example ... Imagine slicing an 'infinite plane' through a surface tube - in order to cap it with a 'cover surface' at a certain height or a specific angle.

Well you can !

But if you later change your mind about what height or what angle that cap should be (ie you move the IP) .... you're out of luck !

(Example attached)

This is an associative modeller - each function is built on the results of the previous function.

That's how it's supposed to work ! ... or am I wrong ?

If some tools do not and cannot play the 'associative' game ... fine ... let's call them out - put it in the help notes, make them bright purple - something.

However, if this is simply an oversight on the dev side - let's get it fixed !

If I'm being stupid - also fine, but make me understand why

But for heaven's sake let's get rid of all these inconsistencies and misunderstandings - then perhaps we can spend more time modelling beautiful things and less time debating the tools !

File Attachment(s):
split.sfx (13kb) downloaded 2 time(s).
Jolyon attached the following image(s):
split.jpg (29kb) downloaded 0 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
murray  
#28 Posted : Thursday, February 08, 2018 2:44:41 PM(UTC)
murray

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 9/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 149
Australia

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 20 time(s) in 18 post(s)
ACIS was originally a solids/physical kernel. Associations are more persistent through solid Booleans, in my experience. Surface interactions SEEM more direct, less work required, but maybe that perception's a false economy?
BillB  
#29 Posted : Friday, February 09, 2018 3:21:25 AM(UTC)
BillB

Rank: Member

Joined: 9/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 83
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Jolyon Go to Quoted Post
So you're advocating that a history tree should be no more than 2 levels deep ? OK

A different example ... Imagine slicing an 'infinite plane' through a surface tube - in order to cap it with a 'cover surface' at a certain height or a specific angle.

Well you can !

But if you later change your mind about what height or what angle that cap should be (ie you move the IP) .... you're out of luck !

(Example attached)




This works as expected until you put the cover surface in place. Then the end of the cylinder freezes.
Bill Bedford

Viacad Pro 10 (1354)

OS X 10.13.1
BillB  
#30 Posted : Friday, February 09, 2018 3:23:21 AM(UTC)
BillB

Rank: Member

Joined: 9/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 83
United Kingdom

Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: murray Go to Quoted Post
ACIS was originally a solids/physical kernel. Associations are more persistent through solid Booleans, in my experience. Surface interactions SEEM more direct, less work required, but maybe that perception's a false economy?


That's what I have found. Using 3D primitives seems to be a lot more robust than deriving everything from sketches.
Bill Bedford

Viacad Pro 10 (1354)

OS X 10.13.1
Jolyon  
#31 Posted : Friday, February 09, 2018 3:33:18 AM(UTC)
Jolyon

Rank: Guest

Joined: 9/27/2017(UTC)
Posts: 108

Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
I take your point Murray - for example, you could never extrude a solid from a rectangle with a radius'ed corned - and later change the value of that radius. This was never an issue as you generally don't radius an object until - at least until it's a solid.

I think changing a radius value (as the driver of a solid) was possible when we had constraints - if I remember correctly

Either way - in an associative modeller, perhaps it would be smart to define objects that can't update associatively in the History Tree with an Asterix or something - as from this screenshot ... it looks to me as if what's below the radius can be updated if I change the value of the radius.
Jolyon attached the following image(s):
rad.jpg (16kb) downloaded 0 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (8)
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
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.