cavity feature

It keeps crapping out on me. I will make a totally un-related revisions to a mold design and then whammo-a cavity feature way up the tree all of a sudden
gets a re-build error. The error message says something about inconsistent geometry and changing the scale factor. Well for one thing-I don't use a scale factor when I make cavities. I couls rant on, but must go back and try and save the model that SW is trying to ruin for me.
SW05,sp0.1 on Win2K.
jk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jk wrote:

revisions to a

sudden
inconsistent
use a

and try

John, all I can say is you need to get with your VAR and this needs to get ironed out quickly in the next Service Pack (hopefully SP 1.0 due out soon).
Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John, it just may be that putting in a cavity with "0" shrink is what might cause the problem, if SWks programmers didn't consider that some people do NOT want to use shrink in that way.
Worth checking.
Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bo,
You never have been able use it because it works as an offset and not a scale. It makes the cavity the right size, but the core is 2X the factor too small. I guess they'll never fix it at this point.
I've been scaling parts and using "0" shrink for years, never had a problem. I think it has more to do with some rebuild weirdness myself. 2005 rebuilds way to much when it doesn't need to, and not at all at times when it does. Go figure
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Damn! What in the heck is wrong with SolidWorks programmers if "Scale" doesn't work right? I mean, how basic a task is that. In fact why leave it in if it is NOT right?
I obviously do not understand what is wrong with the Cavity Feature! This is scary.
Can you describe easily how you get a non-equal scale when using Cavity?
There is more going on here than I thought. When I have checked, my cavitie's scaled sizes came out right when I embed a model in a block and use the cavity feature.
Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In my 2nd sentence "...if "Scale" doesn't work right?", I obviously wrote too quickly and it should have been "Cavity Feature's Scaling" doesn't work right.
Obviously the stand alone Scale feature is working right.
In some situation Cavity Feature's Scaling does NOT, but I am confused on that part.
Thanks - Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bo,
I was talking about the "shrink factor" in the cavity dialog. It uses offsets so the female cavity gets bigger (right), and male core gets smaller (wrong). It's only half right. It's been this way forever, and is totally usless for mold design.
What I've allways done is apply a scale to the part, and subtract the core/cavity features usink "0" shrink factor.
Non-uniform also doesn't work right with regards to molds. It turns bosses with circular cross sections into ellipses. We both know an ellipse isn't going to shrink into a circle. You have to manually edit these features to make them circular again. This was probably just a generic Parasolid function that they simply turned on, without taking the time and effort to make it usefull. It's also very sensitive to marginal geometry. Your model has to be clean.
Regards
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cavity Feature's Uniform Scaling when a model is put inside of a single "block" seems to work correctly.
Hence, I am still unsure how to do the "male core gets smaller" routine.
Thanks - Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bo,
Well,,, I guess I gotta eat my words on this one, they fixed it (sorta). I don't think I've tried it since SW99.
It still has problems though. If your subtracting the whole part from a solid block, and then cutting away the parts, it works correctly. This , however, will only work for very simple parts. If you build up the core and cavity inserts from two seperate pieces, like I do, it becomes a problem because the "cavity with shrink" operation wants to extend the edges of the parting line. Much easier (for me at least) to use a scaled configuration of the part. There's alot fewer potential rebuild errors.
Another possible source of our mis-communication would be if your using "mold tools". I don't use them. I played around with them in 2004 and 2005, but couldn't see any benefit. Mold tools creates to much unnecessary geometry, (surfaces), and most of what I did with them was prone to rebuild errors. I guess they figured that most mold guys are used to working with surfaces that way, and designed the tool based on these ASSumptions. The truth is, I can (most times) create cores and cavities without using surfaces at all. Sometimes reference surface for the parting line, but that's about it. This results in a much more robust (hate that word, to "geekish") mold assembly, that rebuilds correctly when changes are made to the model. This is important to me because, sometimes, I'll have to design the tool before the parts are finalized.
Regards
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark, that bit about more stability using the cavity feature vs. surfaces is exactly why I don't like the mold tools.
They basically now have a tool that doesn't do anything well except demo well with a pre-selected part. I bet there are some pretty frustrated new users who thought they were getting automatic core/cavity generation.
jk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JK,
Yea,, It's pretty useless for real molds.
For years mold designers have been have been shouting for better "surfacing" tools to design molds. Most of these guys were probably used to designing molds in CAM packages like Cimatron, Mastercam, or Powershape. They responded to the shouting litteraly, instead of taking the time to think through a "smarter" way that took advantage of the SW environment.
You have to be carefull what you wish for I guess
Regards
Mark

single
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
getting pretty far from my original topic here, but SW has indeed improved it's surfacing capability in areas that I regularly take advantage of. Untrim is a fantastic tool. I also use `replace face a lot. I am starting to use the `move face' function too. All of these little tweaky features weren't around until recently and I appreciate having them.
It's the full-on surfaces approach to core/cavity split that I think is being applied wrong by SW. On the other hand SplitWorks also uses a surfaces based system and it works pretty well. It's all in the way the application is implemented.
jk

"surfacing"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JK,
I agree. Surfacing has improved alot, and I do take advantage of it when appropriate. I look at it as more wrenches in the ol toolbox.
As far as thier implementation, it is pretty lame. Myself, and others, have offered to collaborate in the development of usefull mold tools. Never got a response. I kind of get the feeling that ther person responsible has read books, and had molds carefully described to them, but has never seen one first hand.
Regards
Mark

designing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sporkman wrote:

That has to be the second most absurd excuse I've ever seen for top posting next to "that's where my cursor is so that's where I start typing".
<sigh>
Part of the blame for that though, I will lay on the bumbling halfwit who originally combined an email and news client into a single program.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the whole Anarchy on the Usenet thing. I'm hip to it, but...

So your common sense tells you to read from the bottom up? It also tells you not to delete that which you're not responding to for the sole purpose of wasting bandwidth and making posts hard to read? You've got some weird common sense there, Sporky.
A: People who top post.
Q: What is the worst thing about the Usenet?
--
Black Dragon Joyfully killing Google Groups posts since late 2004.

That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Black Dragon wrote:

So, what do you give for a reason to eschew top posting? Tradition?

That halfwit made it possible for many people who don't use Unix to enjoy the benefits of Usenet. Of course if that halfwit and others like them had avoided Windows in the first place we wouldn't be where we are now . . . without both the benefits and the disadvantages.

But what?

I typically delete everything except what is relevant to my reply, unlike most who post. That's in direct contradiction to your accusation. But I often top post because it makes more sense to do it that way.

Give me ONE good PRACTICAL reason, there BD. What's so horrible about it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sporkman wrote:

I already gave my reason. I don't know about you, but I read from left to right and from top to bottom. Top posting forces reading from the bottom up, which is usually a good enough reason for many people to simply ignore such posts. And quite often I do.

What is with your fixation on Unix? It has nothing to do with top posting or software. Usenet news and email are two different things with different common practices and behaviors and most software that tries to incorporate both into a single program usually does either one or the other, or even both, rather poorly.

...do follow along now, children...

It never makes sense to do it, on Usenet. Email is an entirely different matter. Hence one of the reasons combination news and mail clients were not a good idea.

It should be obvious to those with some common sense.
Here, these will help, if you let them.
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html
--
Black Dragon Joyfully killing Google Groups posts since late 2004.

That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:56:47 -0500 (EST), Black Dragon

Give a guy a whistle, badge and hat and ya get a netnanny. Who gives a shit where someone types. Figure it out, it'll come to you in time.
Malcontent
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What's what about?
Cliff wrote:

--
Black Dragon Joyfully killing Google Groups posts since late 2004.

That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cliff wrote:

Hmmm... maybe it's about Friedrich Nietzsche?
--
Black Dragon Joyfully killing Google Groups posts since late 2004.

That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & John, I pretty much agree with you guys. My plastic parts I design gain nothing from using sophisticated tools which are more prone to errors or limitations of one type or another. I, too, virtually never need to use surfaces for my types of parts.
I don't design molds any more, but I need to be able to accurately plan layouts for all sorts of things (some indeed 'weird') with multiple sleeves and core pins and removable inserts, water jackets, etc. and need to be able to 'rough out' a cavity set layout before I take it to the mold maker. I would look real foolish if my use of Cavity Scaling for shrink were off for simple parts.
As a side note, I have watched the use of "organic" cell phone shapes come, and, now somewhat surprisingly, receed into the background. I suspect the manufacturing issues and costs associated with making weird shaped cell phones weren't worth it to consumers and the manufacturers listened.
I don't care what software package a designer uses, it is going to take a lot more worki creating all those off-beat curvy 3D shaped mating parts with all their little mating, assembly and locking devices.
Bo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.