Hi Steve, I'm sorry but you're not making very much sense here...


> It may be OK for hobby stuff,

Wow, you mean anybody else other than what you work on must be doing "hobby stuff" ? That's a quite patronizing attitude.

There are all kinds of people producing professional work that would like to simply get a good looking result for that case. Just because they want something quickly that looks good does not mean that they are doing "hobby stuff".


> but the model you posted, it would be rejected in my
> work, as there is error of between 0.025/0.05 in the
> position of the angled profile (I only bothered to check
> the first.)

So would the result posted from NX with the self intersecting geometry be accepted as a proper result for your work instead?

Or is there no CAD program that can automatically generate a result for that which you would consider acceptable? If so then MoI is no worse off than any other CAD program since none of them can do what you seem to want there.

You will probably need to do some custom modeling instead of using an automated tool to get what you consider to be correct.


> As you now have it in your head, due to the bad geometry
> posted from the output of NX by another member, and you
> appear to believe that calculations can only be made from a
> single bisector, I will not waste my/your time further.

Well, it's not just NX in particular, but rather that whole technique of morphing just the end control points of the sweep to the miter that is prone to that kind of self-overlapping error.

It's something that would be quite difficult to avoid with an automated algorithm without spending a really long time with heurstics or almost artificial intelligence type of analysis of the spacing and shaping, etc...


It's really curious that you say the method I used is not good, yet here is a simple case where it produces a result that the original poster would have most likely considered to be a great result...


- Michael