Hello Ugmentalcase,

I had this issue frequently with helix shaped solids.
Sometimes, reverting to poly lines didn't even fix it...

Yesterday I sent a very bad case to Tim and he solved it immediately, (as far as I could test in a day).
I hope a new update will be issued soon for everybody.

Remember to always send a 3D file example for him to track the problem.

JL

Your curves seems to be real curves and no polygons, how made you this, i use always MTS with precise curves. But only the dimensions are real curves.

Edited by user Friday, July 10, 2020 7:31:26 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Considering that the drawing view is a graphical representation for a sheet view, not the actual mathematical technical definition that would be used in part production, what's the big deal? Pictures and printers are raster representations, not vectors. There's some missing visual information if you try to use precise curves, but when you print with polyline reps, can you tell the difference between them and the curves that are properly displayed?

You know I produced a tool for a company in NX. Some of the tool was surfaces some was solids.
The machine shop didn't have their pc set up correctly (as per customer requirements) and opened the model.
I get a call "why is there two massive holes in this tool" (They had made it)
me - "There isn't"
Turns out they didn't load it correctly and went straight to production. I then spent around 2 days "fixing" it for them. Producing bolt on chunks which they needed to fit in and machine up.

Cost somewhere around £12000 to fix, I had to work for nothing finding a way to fix it for them, to no thanks at all, plus the embarrassment with the large customer name. All because some knob didn't have some setting correct to customer standard. Which by the way is the first thing you are told when working in NX for this particular customer.

So next time you feel the need to say stuff like "what's the big deal" why don't you think a little and accept that not everyone in this world would look at that and say "ah yes, that's a little CAD graphics error" which I appreciate does happen from time to time, some people will simply produce what is on that sheet of paper.
Rightly or wrongly that is the way it is.
The attached two images are of an example file which came with shark pro. I can tell you now what would be produced by certain individuals looking at that. I wouldn't expect a PRO piece of software to not be able to produce a rounded edge properly.

Edited by user Saturday, July 11, 2020 12:14:36 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I agree with you .
In addition, Paper drawing is the place for tolerances, and instructions for the surfaces finishes + all instructions for the manufacturing process (part lines, Gates, sliders, ejectors...for plastic parts)
Doing 2D drawings is also a very important debugging operation for the 3D model :
I can see some issues in sections and detail views that cannot be detected directly on the solid.

It's because you come on here talking about moisture and stuff, talk about irrelevant?!?!?!?!!?

Have you never been to a machine shop that still uses drawings? Why even have a drawing module if that's the case? The drawing is completely meaningless so lets forget the whole thing?
Every time I deal with a programmer or engineer or whoever a drawing is asked for.
I get it some people put all this information in the model and supply that, but like Larry says it essentially is a legal document. The company I produce drawings for have legal statements all over it, it's not allowed to be shared, copied, manually altered and so on. You put a threaded hole in a model, does the programmer guess whether its a hole or a tapped hole? No they don't, they check the drawing which tells them what it is.

My example isn't irrelevant at all. It shows and proves that people don't look past the end of their noses sometimes, and they'll be the first one to point the finger when they f*ck up. "It shows me that on the drawing" type attitude is in abundance at the moment.
More and more companies are taking on semi skilled to low skill leveled people to save money, and because of that the engineers simply don't understand stuff. So they produce what they see!
If you'd like an example I'll give you one.
A sales guy got taken on to perform material ordering and quoting, in the last place I worked before the management messed up so bad they shut the doors because they ran out of money.
I produced a drawing showing 3 reference parts and 1 manufactured part.
The parts for reference were displayed in reference lines and the part to produce wasn't. You'll never guess what he ordered?
He then protested his case so I had to add a balloon next to each reference detail saying "REF". Then in the BOM I added extra notes saying "REF", I then added a written note on the drawing stating those parts labelled "REF" are not to be produced/ordered.
Then the excel document that went with the drawings also had the same information added to it. All because he was wasn't an engineer. The guys he got prices off even said, are you sure we are producing these? Yes yes, his decision went above everyone else.
Then it landed at my door and I essentially took the blame for his mistakes.

So your "piffle" as you say can lead to utter idiots doing stuff wrong.

My point here is this is Pro software. This has been discussed before. How does an upgrade of 'Pro' essentially mean you get a downgrade in quality? Yes printing off doesn't make much odds, in most cases, but sometimes where maybe threads are involved or other close nit detail yeah precise curves does display better.

It seems that every time you comment on something it's backing up Punch! "Oh leave them alone, they are doing their best" type attitude to it. Doing their best would mean producing software that doesn't have simple errors like this. It's like the testing of the program simply doesn't exist!
What is the difference (in the program coding) between precise curves and not which makes this happen? I don't know and I don't care, but I'd expect it to work right? Wouldn't you?

The do not scale drawing essentially comes from the fact that you can produce it on a1 and print it off a3 so scaling doesn't work. If you didn't put that note on, then some knob head would scale it and then it would be your fault for not saying "do not scale the drawing". Sometimes things need to be spelt out. You think that's extreme, I need to add "remove sharp edges" notes on my drawings, because if you didn't every edge would be like a razor blade. I'm not joking! To the point where one company has that note in the border as a standard, then we are told to add an extra note in bigger text because "they won't look at the border note".

It's not unreasonable to want a £2000 piece of software to work as it should.

"how-many-angels representation that you're crying woe about"
I provided an example of a round part, did you miss that?

A 2D drawing can't graphically represent precise 3D curves. Traditional and standardised sheet drawing representation of a tapped hole doesn't draw the threads, it has inset lines representing the thread's inner diameter, so again, the sheet drawing isn't the geometric representation of the feature, it's a graphical shorthand sketch. Some cutting tools are made directly from drawings, but the toolmakers work from the specified dimensions, they don't scale from the drawings.
I understand why you guys are pissed. Shark can't do what they claim it's able to do, and that's below par. What I'm saying is that as a print function, this is irrelevant because of the way that print drawings are used. Precise 3D data isn't taken from sheet prints because it can't be represented. If it could, the type of film it's printed on, the moisture content of the print substrate and the temperature it's used at, along with tolerances and expected deviations to THOSE specs, *would be specified on the sheet, with a chain of provenence through every print and subsequent copy*, as Jean-Louis describes for the SUBJECT of the drawing, not the drawing itself. It isn't, because it's irrelevant. The workshop drawing is a checklist and a reference for tolerances, finishes, materials as you say, but only ortho 3D data can be precisely represented on it, and then only numerically and dimensionally. Nobody measures from the drawing without looking at the specs, and if they're not there, that's not a Shark shortfall, and there's a specific instruction: "don't scale from the drawing". A print DRAWING is a sketch, not data.