SW Corp, you're regressing again!! Lofts are now screwed up!

Also, lofts using "Start Tangency Length" have a greater influence/weight!!!!

IT'S SCREWED UP!!!!

..

Paul Salvador wrote:

That is one of the worst things I've seen.

Caveat: I presume your section are continuous, and not made up of a lot of tiny little segments? And I presume that the preview you show translates into faces in the final feature, and that it is not just a preview of the flow lines? If both of my presumptions are true, that's some really scary shi*. - And its still pretty darn scary if even the first presumption is false and everything in your sections is tangent.

To be frank, I loathe when I have to train our guys on lofts and sweeps (and fills, come to think of it) because one can't simply communicate how these things work - because those features still , really, don't. I am tasked with simultaneously arming new guys with dozens of exceptions and special cases, three ways to finish each task, and some kind of guidance on which route to take when (not if) they run into a problem. The mercenary in me might appreciate the freaky fun because it makes me 'important' and keeps me in demand - I somehow always find a way to beat the system, even when it makes for late nights and bloody knuckles from all that wood knocking. But darn it, in really honest moments I just wish to be a designer and hang all of this CAD stuff.

Thanks for sharing. I'll keep an eye out, report it if/when I come across it, and miracle out some kind of workaround because that is all that we can do.

'some kind of workaround because that is all that we can do.'

really?!!.......dodgy installs...broken functions... I want a sp1.1 asp

Your hard earned dollars at work for SW! My slow modem speed has kept me from downloading SP1 and maybe that is OK for now. Will keep plugging away on SP0 for now and follow the posts.

Kman

The surface edge and gc(surface edge) and sketch are all continuous. After scrutinizing my model, which honestly is/was not that clean initially (I've clean it up more with the same results).

Later, I tracked it down to a "constraint curve", used in a fill surface which is later trimmed with a continuous spline and/btw that surface edge is clean/continuous. But removing the "constraint curve" removes the segment problem. Then, after looking at the "constraint curve", it's comb is not bad, a slight jog, fairly clean but all on one side, nothing suspect imho. Then, I clean the comb slightly and... reapply the "constraint curve" to the fill surface and the loft segments go away? So, it's that "constraint curve" which effects the loft later, but only in SW2004 sp1?

Everything was/is tangent and it works fine in SW2003 sp5, originated from SW2001plus.

Yeah, my issues with this program continue to be it's inconsistency per release and it blows me away that a CAD company gets away with putting out this stuff every release. Seriously, any other company who did this would go out of business... which says something about how the software industry has this barrier of acceptable mistakes. Otherwise, yeah, it's like every release the user has to apply maintenance to the model data because of the inconsistency, that is not productive. Or, become conservative by keeping all the data frozen in the version it starts with and not upgrading. Seriously, I can to this day open the majority of my Pro/e files without failing. (regardless what some pro/e haters say) I can only guess that the rules within Parasolid and the rules used by SW Corp change too give inconsistent results per sp?

I'm not one to give up easily but I've been thinking about stopping this business personally and getting into something else. One of my goals this year was/is to think about alternative ways to make a living (and that is because this business is becoming more and more about money or cheap clients).

Anyhow, I've sent the segmented loft to the VAR and hopefully it will be fixed or seen as an example where that condition results as such or why?

later..

File was sent to SW but if anyone of you want to look at it...

(320K)

..

Paul Salvador wrote:

Paul,

It gets even weirder. I opened the model in 2003 SP5 and did a cntrl-Q, and it segmented. The note says you cleaned it up in 2003 SP5 ???

I'm emailing you a screen shot

Regards

Mark

Hey Mark,

Yeah, got it. Hmm, 2003sp5!? Do you have verification on?

I just tested with verification on and it still is fine, no segments, looks the same.

Thanks for looking at it,.. I guess,... now I'm more confused.

later..

MM wrote:

Paul,

Obviously "something's" different, but I don't know what. I'm running SP5

Verification was off

I'm confused too......

Mark

Mark,

Sorry, about the off-line sp5 question... duh! Yeah, saw your ng message and responded here..

Man, that is weird!! I'm going to upload another version, basically the same but a tad more cleaner. (originally this file was a test layout part from SW2001plus, never was that clean.)

And, this one is also fine, no segments, in my SW2003 sp5 version but...

.. this one whacks out more in SW2004 sp1

Could you see if you still get the problem in SW2003 sp5?

Anyhow, it really should not do this, imho.

Thanks..

MM wrote:

Paul,

This one seems to be OK. I notice you removed the influence curve from the fill. I did this on the first model and it still segmented (only two though)

Regards

Mark

Paul,

Nice shape! I'm amazed that the final loft worked in the first place. How did you know that you could loft a shape from an edge to an intersecting sketch and have it work? I would never have thought to try it, assuming that it would fail at the corner where the sketch and the edge meet.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems

Jerry,

Glad you like it, btw,.. here is what the shape evolved into...

may recognize what car body it is similar too?..

It's not uncommon to use the loft that way, imo. How do I know,.. experimentation and I've used it it in similar ways using other tools using boundaries. The one problem with that face is the singular condition and offsetting or shelling that face is sometimes a problem.

..

Jerry Steiger wrote:

Paul,

I must say...... I have learned how to surface complex shapes just from looking at most of the stuff you post. I don't by any means model complex parts that often, but I must say, I have used many of your techniques when I have had to do so. Your surfacing models rock Paul! It's no wonder why your models have challenged the soidworks software and it's kernal capabilities only to bring it to it's knees...... you can probably almost hear the your SW begging you NOT to REBUILD your models!!!! I will also admit that I participated in the SW Beta testing and even won an mp3 player for my efforts. However, I probably had a lot more free time that you at the time. I remember making a comment in the beta newsgroup saying something quote "I sure hope Paul S. is testing

2004 on his surfacing models because I sure don't have anything as complex as his stuff." But..... oh well, I can understand your take on beta testing if your not being supplemented for your hard efforts.. Anyways, I just want to give you a special kudo's for posting some of the problems with their software. I, and I hope others, hope that SW only listen to these problems and truly make it better. It's a win-win it the long run!

By the way..... you wouldn't by any chance be willing to share the complete surface model of that car body would you????? I must say that I'm a fan of your work!

"It's no wonder why your models have challenged the soidworks software and it's kernal capabilities only to bring it to it's knees...... you can probably almost hear the your SW begging you NOT to REBUILD your models!!!!"

To claim that this fault lies with the Parasolid kernel is patently ridiculous.

Since you claim that this problem is related to the Parasolid kernel (and it most certainly is not) can you tell us why Unigraphics has no such problems ? SolidEdge also does not have these kinds or problems.

Looking forward to your explanation of how you know that this is a issue with the Parasolid kernel.

jon

To be honest I don't know how the heck you guys come up with this stuff. Your example is interesting enough that I'm going to spend some time fooling around to better understand. I always appreciate the examples some of you share so that others like myself are challenged to look at other techniques we don't normally get involved with. Can't find examples like these in the SW help files `>)

Nice!

Kman

I wasn't going to post anything to you at all but.......

jon, I'm sorry if your childish, misunderstanding mind always reads black and white. Guys, I am NOT personally putting the sole blame on the SW kernal for these errors. However, I expect everyone else, with the exception of jon, to see the humor in my previous post post. I don't think anyone who isn't an inside programmer can tell us why there are so many inconsistancies. (But some how, jon knows where they stem from, and.... I bet he knows how to fix them!)

Seriously, when did computers become widely available to monkeys with opinions? GOD D*M! Please, if you want to post something remotely usefull, do the this ng a favor and douse yourself with gasoline. After you've waited a minute or two for it to soak into your skin and clothes, take a lighter and set yourself on fire. Be sure to record this on some digital media and then post this to the ng. Only then will we truely understand how seamless, and unified the hellish combination of gasoline and a lighter!

Paul, take a look at file:

ftp://public.ideo.com/blind/2004_segmented_loft_zxys-3b-biasotti.zip

This file will be removed in 72 hours.

I'm still on SP0 but as NG has determined SP1 is not the issue. The endpoint of your spline in Sketch35 was not merged with your intersection curve. The those kind of ripples you see in Fill are caused 95% of the time by constrain curves that are not properly connected. As for Loft19, SWX shouldn't behave that way and its in error in creating the isoparm lines. It can be corrected however by changing the direction of the loft to use sketch46 and edge1 and picking at there ends furthest from there converging point at the rear of the car.

Of course, you can not offset this surface, and should use 3 sided loft when the final product will be shelled (or thin sheet as in the case of car body).

Nice model.

Mark

"I wasn't going to post anything to you at all but......."

You basically didn't and you certainly didn't answer the direct questions I asked you. I'm still waiting for those answers. Perhaps after reading this your answers may now come easier. :>)

Lets take a look at what you just posted because it contains more errors.

"Guys, I am NOT personally putting the sole blame on the SW kernal for these errors."

SolidWorks does not have it's own kernel. Parasolid is the main modeling kernel used in SolidWorks.

"However, I expect everyone else, with the exception of jon, to see the humor in my previous post post."

I'm sure plenty of people saw the humor... just not for the reasons you think.

"I don't think anyone who isn't an inside programmer can tell us why there are so many inconsistancies."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the most robust solid modeling kernel on the market (Parasolid) is not the cause of these problems as they don't happen in SolidEdge or Unigrahpics. They also don't happen in other packages that use the Parasolid kernel. Based on this it's not hard to realize where the problems are. That would be the layers of code above the Parasolid kernel. Who writes that code ??? :>)

"But some how, jon knows where they stem from...."

Anyone using some common sense can figure out where they come from and who is writing the code that is causing these kinds of errors.

"and.... I bet he knows how to fix them!"

Sure do. I've said it for years in this newsgroup. Implementing ACIS would be a great start. ACIS includes many surfacing functions that Parasolid does not. It should be obvious by now that writing code for surfacing is not SolidWorks Corp. specialty... and that's being more than kind !!!

The most interesting thing about your posts is that you somehow think that one needs to be a full time CAD expert to create very pleasing aesthetic shapes. I'd describe this notion as being akin to being brainwashed.

Instead of hero worship, have you ever considered using a tool that had a different philosophy so you could easily see that you could create these kinds of pleasing aesthetic shapes for yourself ?

jon