Please, go somewhere else to post your stupid thoughts!
***Ok, cheap shot... but frankly, I don't care...
Mike Tripoli
Hi everybody,
>
>I have a question. I have a part I received from a customer which I try
>to modify to fit my job. For clarification you could find the part
>attached to my posting. The question is:
>How the hell was the Cut-Loft1 feature done. I tried to edit it and
>after that it cannot rebuilt successfully. It's driving me nuts!
>Any ideas would be appreciated!
>
>Thanks in advance.
>Stefan
Thank you very much. I didn't think about using surfaces. Very clever! Thanks again. Stefan P.S. I still wonder how the original feature was created. I recently did a lot of work using surfaces and found it very convenient too, although SW is presumably for solids mainly.
Sketch 4 = 1 arc, 2 vert lines and 1 hor line Sketch 5 = 1 arc, 1 hor line
The horizontal lines of the two sketches were coincident and the sketches were at right angles to one another. The loft connectors can be tricky to redirect when sketches are set up this way. You can actually get the loft to work if you make all the connectors on each side go down to a single point. It works, but this is fairly careless design practice for 3 reasons:
1) lofting from 2 segments to 4 segments can be done and sometimes doesn't give you any trouble, but when you have the chance to do it a more stable way, why take the chance?
2) lofting from profiles that touch is another risky practice. At least he wasn't using tangency controls.
3) using a solid cut loft feature rather than a surface cut is pretty inefficient. A solid cut only cuts one face, but creates 6 faces to do it. A surface cut only creates a single face. The surface loft and then cut also has the advantage that it removes both of the objections above.
SolidWorks has a decent arsenal of surface modeling features, but most users tend not to use them for whatever reason. Given the option, all things being equal, I prefer to use solids, because I need to wind up with a solid in the end, but there are times when surfaces are a better choice. Like this one.
Good luck,
matt
Stefan wrote in news:%lxce.670246$w62.258612 @bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Other than your inclusion of the part file as an attachment (this practice is generally discouraged - people prefer you provide files via the web or FTP sites), your question was very appropriate for this newsgroup. I know that many of the regular readers enjoy meaningful questions/discussions, seeing samples, etc.
Please ignore Mike's comments and continue posting any time you wish.
There is absolutely no question that my comment was small minded, ignorant and possibly childish. But, if it made "Stefan" for even one second know how Mark must have felt seeing this exact same comment addressed to him, then I accept my role of "asshole" in this thread.
I think that it's up to all of us regular users and readers to keep it cool between ourselves.
This is a discussion after all and if someone has a different idea about something it's not fatal.
The real enemies are those who spam, don't use the software or have any reason to post but do.
We don't ever need to attack a person to get an idea accross - "winning the argument" is never the issue here.
It's here to help another user and gain their knowledge in the process. Like an osmosis.
When we get nasty we all lose.
Mike there is one 1% of me that had a "you go Mike" feeling on your counterpost - I took the original "take you stupid thoughts . . ." post as the original cyber-faux-pas, but the more of this we do the more we let the group descend into worthlessness (this post included). Then the real morons win. I noticed that the more we ignore the banter and keep the group on focus (solidworks - the good, the bad & the ugly), the sooner the crap drifts to the bottom of the stack.
We can discuss, we can disagree, we can help each other and share our knowledge.
I agree with you totally. I hesitated to post what I did, I really didn't want to start the whole thing over again. I'm always impressed with the knowledge and helpfulness of people on this NG. I guess that's why I got upset when I first saw "Stefans" response to Mark. It was almost a non-sequitur; it seemed like it came from left field. I'm not going to respond as I did any further, to anyone's stupid remarks. I'm going to ignore them and get on with things. Just, in this particular case, I couldn't let it go...
I get the feeling there's some history here that I don't know about.
Mike, when I read my posting again this morning, it seemed more personal than I had intended. When I wrote it, I was trying to encourage postings like Stefan's not criticize you. (Plus it was late and I was tired.) I know you are a good guy and that you are completely entitled to your opinions. For all I know, your posting was completely justified.
I understand. There is history, look back a couple of threads, specifically "Re: Yes, SW2006 will be better!"... Mark had asked in a previous thread ("SW 2006 better???") a valid question, with some good information behind his opinion. "Stefan" attacked Mark with the quote that I posted, without any constructive input. Mayhem ensued... My remark to Stefans post was his remark to Mark thrown back at him... as I said, stupid and childish...
Let me place my opinion here and let's go back to that thread you're referencing. In that thread that guy Mark posted his opinion and his conclusions (most of them not accurate - for example the number of bugs not solved in each of new releases). I'm not an advocate of SW (thought I like it a lot (have some experience working with ACAD, MDesktop, ProE, Euclid and I-DEAS and can compare). So to make things shorter if you read Mark you may get the feeling that people should be still living in the caves (as in the Stone Age) trying to make the cave walls smoother instead of moving forward. I agree 100% with John (I don't know him at all and he's probably on the other side of the globe) that it's better to see "...meaningful questions/discussions, seeing samples..." instead of fruitless threads as those of "jon_banquer".
So, no bad feel> I understand. There is history, look back a couple of threads,
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.