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

5 Pages<12345>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
jol  
#41 Posted : Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:23:28 PM(UTC)
jol

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,156

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I'm keen too to know what the plan is to remedy this tool. Together with perspective, presumably - it's right at the top of the developer's list by now.

Match is a tool absolutely fundamental to patch surfacing - please let's fix it !
Steve.M  
#42 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:48:46 AM(UTC)
Steve.M

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 978

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
On checking with the latest build 856, the Match surface is actually producing worse results than before.
zumer  
#43 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:22:38 PM(UTC)
zumer

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 11/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 515

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I think the trouble with this tool is that we've got an expectation that one surface will blend into another autonomously. There's no provision to state how far the blend will extend into the second surface. If you take that into account, the match surface tool becomes the loft-between-surfaces tool, or face-to-face in the case of solids, which we have. The surface match is dependent on how far back you trim the second surface. Do you guys see it working differently?
Steve.M  
#44 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:04:14 PM(UTC)
Steve.M

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 978

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
You do not trim back a surface before using match surface.

Match surface is used to match (G1/G2) 2 touching surfaces, not to loft a gap.
In the case where a loft has been made, then that should produce a G1 surface, however, at times a G2 is required, so you would then use match surface on the loft/connecting surface, which does not work in VC/Shark.

Probably the reason Tim has not taken time to fix this tool, it looks like very few actually know how it should work.
zumer  
#45 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:33:00 PM(UTC)
zumer

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 11/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 515

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
So if you've got two mirrored halves of, say a boat hull, that meet at the centreline but don't have zero tangency, instead have an edge, match surface would do what? Adjust the surfaces both sides so that the centreline maintains the same curve, but with zero tangency side-to-side through the centreline? Is the difference that a loft wouldn't necessarily pass through the centreline profile? Is the problem with the match surface tool that it doesn't adjust the shape of the first surface? I'd like to understand it better.
Steve.M  
#46 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:49:01 PM(UTC)
Steve.M

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 978

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Its easier to show than explain:-

See attached mov.

I have created 2 surfaces (similar to what is shown in the VC user manual for match surface). I make G2 match surface first in VC pro which is incorrect result, I then perform G2 match surface in Rhino (on same geometry) with expected result.

http://dc179.4shared.com/downlo...4dd066/match_surface.mov
zumer  
#47 Posted : Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:48:20 PM(UTC)
zumer

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 11/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 515

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks for the explanation.
jol  
#48 Posted : Friday, April 16, 2010 6:47:09 AM(UTC)
jol

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,156

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Needs fixing as a priority !!!
ALBANO  
#49 Posted : Saturday, April 17, 2010 4:12:11 AM(UTC)
ALBANO

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 2/20/2007(UTC)
Posts: 279
Man
Germany

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 12 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Jol is right!
Please pay attention to this function! Its way more important than many new features we have seen.

!

ALBAN
Mac Pro, 2010, 6 Core, 3,3Ghz, 32Gb, Radeon RX 580
Mac Pro, 2013, 6 Core, 3,5Ghz, 32Gb, Dual AMD FirePro D500
SHARK V10, V12
Steve.M  
#50 Posted : Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:23:42 AM(UTC)
Steve.M

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 6/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 978

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Unfortunately it does appear to be the way with this product, that tools are party implemented, then they can be added to the list of "functions" to make it look good. But using it is another matter.

As Tim stated he "Will check this out shortly.." and then went on to "but I understand what's going wrong and need to set aside a couple of days to fix. It's definitely got my attention.", that being 18 months ago, I do start to doubt his ability to correctly implement this tool.
mat  
#51 Posted : Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:38:39 AM(UTC)
mat

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 30

I am on shark fx ver7 , I seriously expected this basic function to be working , the ability to use g1 /g2 surface match is critical to the modelling process.What is being done to fix it ???
nabed  
#52 Posted : Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:01:24 PM(UTC)
nabed

Rank: Member

Joined: 2/18/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

I have to agree, this imho needs to be on the very top of the priority list.
It needed to be fixed ages ago.

At least in Version 5.5 there was some functionality, although quite limited.
In Version 7 it just stopped working alltogether.

Please have a look into surface matching in Rhino, where for instance position-, tangential- or curvature matching for adjacent edges can be chosen seperately when creating a net surface.
If you want to obtain a matched surface like this in Shark 5.5. you would have to match every edge one after the other, oftentimes leading to bumpy uneven surfaces at the end of the process (matching matched surfaces doesn't really work that well).
If You want to try to obtain this match in Shark 7, well.... just forget about it.

Instead of improving functionality and fixing bugs, we are moving backwards in an area where Shark/CU already was quite weak.
mat  
#53 Posted : Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:41:48 PM(UTC)
mat

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 30

Originally Posted by: nabed Go to Quoted Post
I have to agree, this imho needs to be on the very top of the priority list.
It needed to be fixed ages ago.

At least in Version 5.5 there was some functionality, although quite limited.
In Version 7 it just stopped working alltogether.]

Yes - it was bad in 5.5 and badder in 7 ???
heres an image of the weirdness when I try to g1 the net surface with the reference surfs - Please tell me I am doing something wrong!!! - and if not than surely it is a major issue.
[ATTACH]3263[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]3264[/ATTACH]
mat attached the following image(s):
surface before .gif (31kb) downloaded 6 time(s).
surf after.jpg (33kb) downloaded 6 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
mikeschn  
#54 Posted : Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:31:35 PM(UTC)
mikeschn

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 8/21/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259

I was going to upgrade my package to get the surface modeling tools, but if they still need work, then I guess it's best to wait.

Mike...
ViaCAD Pro 12
Windows10 ROG GL703 16GB RAM
mat  
#55 Posted : Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:01:21 PM(UTC)
mat

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 30

I think it is a real business issue for shark fx and are surprised their is not more action / communication on the issue !!! the product is sold as professional cad!!! - but is currently lacking good workflow from splines to surfaces to solids - with control of tangency.
nabed  
#56 Posted : Monday, April 26, 2010 8:01:31 AM(UTC)
nabed

Rank: Member

Joined: 2/18/2007(UTC)
Posts: 98

Tim, I think an update on the status of fixing the issues of surface matching would be appreciated.
It is not a good sign when users start to use older versions or other software (rhino) to do basic surface modeling operations that are bearly usable or broken in Shark 7 (that user would be me, btw.)

I don't expect a software to be perfect, but when there is a serious problem, I'd like to know that the developers are aware of it and working hard to resolve it.

Just to put things into perspective:
this thread is over 2 years (!) old, and the only thing that changed in this timeframe is that a tool that had users complain about its functionality stopped working totally.
go3d  
#57 Posted : Monday, April 26, 2010 7:25:26 PM(UTC)
go3d

Rank: Member

Joined: 4/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 60

I have recently purchased ViaCAD 2D/3D and am trying out a demo version of Shark with a view to purchasing it for my business.
I was so thrilled to find a robust solid modeller for my mac, at an affordable price and ViaCAD/Shark seemed to be ticking all the boxes for me. However this match surface issue is a serious concern to me as I have tried it out & it just does not work correctly. I am getting the same crummy results as previously illustrated by others on this thread.
In my opinion, this tool should be removed from the tool set on the next version until it is fixed.
It's going to have to be Rhino for surfacing and ViaCAD for solids, as a 2 year old thread makes me think this problem is sitting in the too hard basket at Punch!

Jeremy.
mat  
#58 Posted : Monday, April 26, 2010 7:44:01 PM(UTC)
mat

Rank: Member

Joined: 5/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 30

Originally Posted by: go3d Go to Quoted Post

It's going to have to be Rhino for surfacing and ViaCAD for solids, as a 2 year old thread makes me think this problem is sitting in the too hard basket at Punch!

Jeremy.


I think we will be hearing from Tim soon regards this issue, there are many of us who really want shark to be the modeller of choice - it has some great features and I really like the interface ( clean/ intuiative / mac freindly ) . I am also looking at rhino - but the interface is a turn off !!! lets keep plugging away on this issue as I am sure it is being looked at - Tim ?????
go3d  
#59 Posted : Monday, April 26, 2010 8:18:25 PM(UTC)
go3d

Rank: Member

Joined: 4/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 60

Yes mat, I agree with you that Shark has a nicer interface than Rhino, and I share your desire for Shark to be my modeller of choice. I have heard a lot of good things about Tim Olsen and I have not given up all hope yet!

By the way, if anyone reading this thread doesn't understand what this G0,G1,G2 business is all about, then you might like to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=...&feature=player_embedded
zumer  
#60 Posted : Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:55:37 AM(UTC)
zumer

Rank: Senior Member

Joined: 11/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 515

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I've watched the video Steve posted, and I watched the youtube example referred to. In Steve's video, there are two similar surfaces. When Shark's match surface is applied, it makes a hash of it. When he uses Rhino's tool, it achieves the desired result, but I can't see if there's user parametrisation of it. Steve used a ruled surface for his example, the tool arbitrarily created a compound-curved surface to match to it, with only the opposite edge remaining of the original. Does Rhino allow parametrisation of the surface? Can you specify the blend distance into the second surface? It looks to me as if the tool notionally creates a continuous blend entirely on the second surface, with zero offset into the first surface, is my understanding correct?
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
5 Pages<12345>
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.