Full Version: bent sheet metal 3D model for SendCutSend

Show messages: All  1-11  12-19

Hi Michael,

Now we're getting somewhere. The washer works if it's exported with analytic surfaces:

WriteAnalyticCurves=n
WriteAnalyticSurfaces=n
- fail

WriteAnalyticCurves=y
WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y
- success

WriteAnalyticCurves=y
WriteAnalyticSurfaces=n
- fail

WriteAnalyticCurves=n
WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y
- success

But, going back to the bent part we started with, .stp files of your "119 R063 sendcutsend3.3dm" and "119 R063 sendcutsend2.3dm" exported from MoI with WriteAnalyticCurves=y and WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y fail with the same error when uploaded to SendCutSend.

If I try uploading a .stp exported from "119 R063 sendcutsend.3dm" that I originally posted with the non-analytic planes generated by Sweep, but now exported with WriteAnalyticCurves=y and WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y, I get a new error "This STEP/STP file has an inconsistent thickness and cannot be manufactured."

Re:
> Does "good.stp" come from sheet metal mode in SolidWorks?

I downloaded it from McMaster-Carr. No idea of the software origin beyond what's in the header.

- Peer

---

Hi Christian,

Re:
> the "losses" when folding and the unflattening parts depend from the
> folding tools witch will be used and the material quality

Yes that's exactly why I want to send the manufacturer a 3D model. I want the manufacturer to calculate the bending losses for me.

- Peer

---

OK I got to the bottom of the problem. Surfaces generated by Sweep are non-analytic. Not just planar faces, but also the cylindrical faces at the bend.

Attached is a model made with Extrude and Revolve that works. Should have thought of this earlier since it's not the first time that a non-analytic result from Sweep has tripped me up.

- Peer

Attachments:
full analytic bend.3dm
full analytic bend.stp

---

That's great Peer! It would be cool to see some of the metal parts when you get them made.

- Michael

---

Hi Peer,

Does full analytic bend.3dm and full analytic bend.stp exported with this NURBS Export settings?
WriteAnalyticCurves=y
WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y

Hi Michael,

I would like to deeply understand of NURBS Export settings, may I ask you for your explanation in which case we should use "y" or "n" parameter in MoI ini file?

Thank you very much.
Mik

---

Hi Mik,

re:
> I would like to deeply understand of NURBS Export settings, may I ask you for your explanation
> in which case we should use "y" or "n" parameter in MoI ini file?

The case where you could benefit from switching it is if a receiving application works better with one or the other.

It depends on the behavior of the application you're sending it to.

When WriteAnalyticSurfaces=n then surfaces will be written to STEP format as a general B_SPLINE_SURFACE entity. When WriteAnalyticSurfaces=y then surfaces that are planes, cylinders, cones, or spheres will be written as a specialized entity type like PLANE, CYLINDER_SURFACE, etc...

Most of the time if the receiving app cares about analytic geometry they will examine general surfaces and automatically detect if they are actually planes, cylinders, cones, or spheres so it doesn't make any difference. But in certain cases (as Peer encountered here) that might not be how the importer works.

- Michael

---

Hi Michael,

Re:
> It would be cool to see some of the metal parts when you get them made.

Sure here's a pair of sheet metal brackets I made by hand using MoI dimensioned drawings.

- Peer

---

Hi Michael,

OK, I understand.

Thank you.
Mik

---

Show messages: All  1-11  12-19