Can this be modelled in Moi?
 1-11  12-31  32-48

Previous
Next
 From:  Brian (BWTR)
1952.32 In reply to 1952.20 
Don't know if this is of interest/value.

My starting point was a sphere with thickness.

Does the pdf in the zip explain the MoI moves well enough?

I have enclosed the .car file for those who could use it.
I have fun!
Brian

EDITED: 30 Dec 2008 by BWTR

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.33 
Thanks again everyone for your input. The willingness of everyone here to help me out and explain things is greatly appreciated.

It is really frustrating getting my head around Nurbs concepts but I really want to crack it after several failed attempts over the years. Moi's user friendliness is proving to be my saviour in this aspect.

Anyway back to the case in point. I understand totally what people are saying but what I can't get my head around is how would I be able to create the shell (exactly how I want it) without doing it the way I have? Starting from a sphere I can't see how I would be able to precisely replicate the shell dimensions I want? Perhaps someone could try and do this and prove me wrong!? Use mine as a template but create it entirely differently?

As for how my model is currently. Danny, how did you achieve the result you had!? That's 'almost' exactly what I want! I'd just like the thickness of the shell to be less. As you said I've broken mine into a smaller part but how then am I to create the underside of it like you've done?

Thanks again in advance!
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.34 In reply to 1952.33 
Hi gizmo,

What version of MoI are you using, demo or V2 beta ?


Cheers
~Danny~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.35 In reply to 1952.34 
The demo. V2 is locked off to current owners isn't it?
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.36 In reply to 1952.35 
Hi gizmo,

>The demo. V2 is locked off to current owners isn't it?

Yeah it is , just wanted to know to see which version to use to try some things out , V2 has some new features which help reduce the steps.

Cheers
~Danny~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
1952.37 In reply to 1952.33 
Hi gizmo,

> Starting from a sphere I can't see how I would be able to precisely
> replicate the shell dimensions I want?

Actually the key thing is not that you have to start from a sphere, but rather that you start from a piece that is extended larger than what the final result will be.

The sphere was just one example of such an extended shape - you can use other tools such as revolve or sweep to build a customized extended shape instead of a sphere.

Here are some steps for how to do this kind of an approach with your shape.

To start with I used these 3 curves. Especially note here that each of these 3 curves are simple planar curves, that is one of the biggest benefits of this approach, it is a lot easier to control and shape curves that are just 2D. The model file of the curves is attached here as pad_extended_trim.3dm



Select the top curve:



Run Construct/Sweep and select the central one as the sweep rail. This will create the extended shape:



One thing to watch out for there is you don't want to have a large profile shape that goes through a tight bend in the rail, which can force the swept surface to bunch up and kind of overlap through itself, you don't want that.

Now select the shape, run Edit/Trim, and select that 3rd profile curve as the cutting object:



That will cut that shape up and then the Trim command will allow you to pick which pieces you want to keep or discard, select this piece to remove:



Now with that trim complete, it will give you your basic form:



Note how that was constructed without having to build curves that swoop around in 3D?

Also another big benefit of this kind of construction is that shapes that are built to an extended simple form and then trimmed back will tend to have a very evenly curved shape throughout them. When you try to surface something to a fancier outline directly it will tend to cause different amounts of curvature in the surface as it approaches corners and pieces where your curve framework comes together.

Generally surfaces constructed in this extended manner will be higher quality in their curvature characteristics.


Now you can use Construct / Offset / Shell to turn this surface into a solid by giving it thickness:



This will cause a piece to kind of jut out past the original trim outline - you can select the shelled solid and use Construct / Boolean / Difference to slice it with that same trimming curve, which will cut the shell into 2 pieces and then you can delete this piece:



That leaves you with this shape:



Now run Construct/Fillet to round off the edges:






So to use this method, you have to construct your initial surface to be somewhat larger than your final shape will be, then you use trimming or boolean tools to cut it back to your final outline, rather than trying to construct your shape initially to the actual final outline like would tend to do with a poly modeler.

It's a much different approach and it may take a little while to get used to it.

Hope this helps show you how this approach can work though!

Once you get used to it, you can create shapes using just a very small number of 2D curves though, which tends to be really quick.

- Michael

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Brian (BWTR)
1952.38 In reply to 1952.37 
And another slightly different approach.
Brian

EDITED: 30 Dec 2008 by BWTR

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.39 In reply to 1952.37 
Michael, thank you so much for taking the time to explain that to me. I would not have thought to model like that had you not.

However, one step I do not understand though is where you Construct / Offset / Shell and then use Construct / Boolean / Difference to give the model volume. I don't get how you've done this? The offest seems brilliant but it doesn't 'close' the model or give you the option to? Also using Boolean Difference I don't see how you've managed to close the object?

I hope you can spare me some more time to fill in these last parts of the puzzle for me!

EDIT! Hold everything, just seen the 'Shell' submenu in Offset! What an idiot.

Anyway thats sorted now. I've got my shell looking great with thickness and a fillet. Now I've sweeped a circle along the shells outside curve and then attempted to Boolean/Union the 2 objects. Unfortunately it doesn't work? I've applied ajoin to both object but it hasn't made any difference. Furthermore I can't seem to 'jion' the sweeped circle? It only stays in 2 halves?ve attached the current file.

EDITED: 15 Sep 2008 by GIZMO1990

Attachments:

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.40 In reply to 1952.39 
Hi gizmo,

> Furthermore I can't seem to 'jion' the sweeped circle? It only stays in 2 halves?ve

This is how I see it, the curve that is extracted from the model is quite complex as in, if you turn on the control points for this curve you will see there are a lot of points, so I think the auto solver for the sweep is having a hard time calculating a nice sweep, and if you zoom up into the joins, circled in red, you will see that the ends have gaps and are not square or plumb.

To get this sweeping more accurately, I again only worked on a quarter of the curve and placed the circle profile on each end of the curve 90 deg to each other, then swept it with no caps, then mirrored and joined.



I've attached your file with a completed sweep and one set up ready for sweeping on the model so you can see what I mean.

~Danny~

EDITED: 26 Jan 2010 by DANTAS


  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.41 In reply to 1952.40 
Thanks DannyT. Right I see, I didn't realise that the rail I extracted would be so messy nor that its messyness would have an impact on my sweep operation.

Danny how did you break up the rail into 4? I don't know how to do this?

Is there anyway to cutdown on the messyness of extracted curves? I just took it for granted that the curve I extracted (via selecting the shells curve and copy and pasting) would be okay? I get the feeling that once an operation is performed on a surface it automatically creates masses of points? This is certainly something I wasn't expecting with Nurbs. For some reason I thought Nurbs would be immune from this type of thing...
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.42 In reply to 1952.41 
Hi gizmo,

> how did you break up the rail into 4? I don't know how to do this?

Here's a quick video.

Cheers
~Danny~

EDITED: 27 Mar 2009 by DANTAS

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.43 In reply to 1952.42 
Thanks for that Danny.

Right I'm still struggling with the peculiarities of this stuff. I've created a loop and I want to sweep a cirle around it and then union jointhe result from the shell.

Unfortunately when I try sweeping the circle it creates 2 half sections!? Why is this? I don't understand it? It creates a tiny gap between the 2 and it seems impossable to join them up again, using the join command doesn't work? Is there no manual weld or something like that?

Beause it making 2 sections when I come to union join the tube with the shell its going nuts and even more so when I try to fillet it after!

Could someone explain to me what's going wrong? I just don't understand why it seems so picky!?

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
1952.44 In reply to 1952.43 
Hi gizmo,

> Could someone explain to me what's going wrong?

To get a smooth sweep juncture, it is not enough to just have 2 points touching one another. To give you a bit of an exaggerated example, here are 2 curves that touch each other at a common point just like points you have labeled in red above:



Even though these curves touch at a common point, if you sweep them you will get this result:



You can see more easily in this case why the pieces do not mate up even though the 2 curves connect at a common point. It is because the curves are not totally smooth with one another.

You are running into this exact same issue with your curves - your pieces do not share a common tangent similar to the above, although your one happens to be much closer to being smooth so it is harder to see it initially.

A curve's tangent direction is defined by the end point and the next point to the inside.

If we look at these 2 points:



And then these 2 points:



Creating 2 extended lines that go through each of these points (here I used construction lines to do this):



Initially that looks pretty much like they are aligned, but if you zoom in:



You can see there is actually a deviation there - those curves do not have a common tangent so they are causing the same kind of effect as in the 2 sharp lines that I showed above.

I've attached a version of this curve pad_trued_tangents.3dm, where I lined up all the points to be exactly along a straight line (I drew in an extended line and snapped them all to it), with this version you should now be able to make a sweep where all the pieces join up exactly.

- Michael

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.45 In reply to 1952.44 
Once again, thank you Michael for explaining that too me.

I'm beginning to feel that things like that really need to be made either more clearer or made so they can't happen? Perhaps adding a command which will automatically 'smooth' 2 selected points? I know that Align is available but imo this sort of problem shouldn't even come up. Again, I never thought I'd need to be as precise as this using Nurbs.

Ok so I've got my rail sweeped and the shell ready to be Boolean/Unioned together, which I do. I then select the top inside curve to apply a fillet to and... nothing. I can't get the fillet to work? I get the feeling that something isn't lined up correctly or there's a tiny part of the curve I'm unable to select? If so how am I able to get around this?
Here's what I'd like to fillet and I've included to file too.

Just in case people are losing heart in this thread and maybe feel its not worth replying to anymore.. please don't! I'm really trying to understand this and I promise to write up a explanation when all my problems with this are solved. After this I feel I'll have a lot to say that might make future versions better and also help other people understand Nurbs quicker.

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.46 In reply to 1952.45 
Hi gizmo,

Unfortunately Nurbs modelling does have to be precise but I've noticed more so in Moi, I had no problem filleting your model in another 3d app but the cost difference is about 50 times.

Where there are seams involved, I've noticed in Moi if they are not lined up exactly it has a hard time solving fillets, so as you can see if you zoom up to the area I've circled the seam of the swept piece is out a bee's prick to the main body seam, so the way you correct that is to line up the 2 points from the top view because they weren't exactly aligned and then the fillet will work up to 6 units.

You get used to the accuracy required once you've understood nurbs modelling, at work we model to an accuracy of 0.005mm which I think is too fine but I have to follow protocol.

I've attached your model corrected for reference.

Oh yeah, you can fillet the right side of the model you supplied because the seams are aligned but not the left side because of the misalignment as explained.

Michael, any comment on why we have to be so accurate in Moi and how other 3d solids/nurb apps are more forgiving or stronger in solving such issues, is the Solids++ kernel still in it's infancy, will it get better as time goes on ?



~Danny~

EDITED: 26 Jan 2010 by DANTAS


  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  gizmo1990
1952.47 In reply to 1952.46 
Thanks for that Danny.

Could you explain how you aligned that seam? I can't see how you can snap the rail point to the shells point?
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
 From:  DannyT (DANTAS)
1952.48 In reply to 1952.47 
Hi gizmo,

I just eye balled the alignment of the sweep from the top view then snapped the seams in line, it was just quick for the exercise, I didn't really know where you wanted the sweep exactly as long as I got the seams to line up.

Oh yeah, another point I wanted to make about the seams is that it would have filleted if the seams were further away as well, like if it was 5 or 6 units away from the main body seam, it would work also, it's just that when it is so close it gives MoI a brain strain ;) Michael might correct me on this.

Cheers
~Danny~
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
 
Show messages:  1-11  12-31  32-48