complex surface shelling

 From: malvin 21 Jul 2008  (1 of 17)
 I need to give thickness to the complex surface (please see the attachment). I have tried "shell" command It did not work exactly for the thickness I need (2 millimeters). I understand why - according to some of the explanations in other topics the planes/radiuses are too small to calculate a certain thickness. Is it possible to produce something like "smart shelling" - to give some thickness to this or similar surface? So that planes that interfere with each other would merge and create one solid. I need at least 2 point thickness (millimeters) The overall task is to reduce a jewelry piece to minimum weight so I have to cut out and remove 3D areas in a ring/pendant/bracelet that are too thick. Ideally every wall has to be 1.5-2 mm thick. Narrow areas would merge. -Olga- Attachments:

 From: DannyT (DANTAS) 22 Jul 2008  (2 of 17)
 1802.2 In reply to 1802.1 Hi Olga, > I need at least 2 point thickness (millimeters) Yeh, 2mm thickness seems extreme for shelling considering the size and shapes involved with this piece. I gave it a go in another app that is very strong in shelling and the best I could get was 0.5mm, so what you are asking for is like a type of rough shelling/coring out operation, I think that would be a tough one. In this situation you could try to hollow the back and reduce the weight by boolean difference with a combo of different shaped solids. Cheers ~Danny~ Attachments:

 From: malvin 22 Jul 2008  (3 of 17)
 1802.3 In reply to 1802.2 Thanks Danny I appreciate your suggestions. It will try to do it by boolean difference If the shelling works for 0.5 mm for this surface, can’t it make “smart shelling” – instead of creating a thin wall – it would simply solidify the areas where thicker wall (like 1.5 mm) interfere with each other. Another way I tried it: I blew up the surface in 4 pieces, then shelled each and tried to join / boolen/union them. It did not work. Could you try that approach please? Thanks Olga

 From: Frenchy Pilou (PILOU) 22 Jul 2008  (4 of 17)
 an another approch will be that Use plan whith the bottom loop contour ouline for close the solid then Scale copy as you want (even 0.999) Make the good alignment and make boolean difference With that I believe you can have in theory 0.001 unity difference (max of precision of Moi ;)

 From: DannyT (DANTAS) 22 Jul 2008  (5 of 17)
 1802.5 In reply to 1802.3 Hi Olga, I might not understand what you want to achieve, but thickening up all those surfaces by 1.5-2mm almost comes back to the boolean suggestion that I recommended. This is shelling at 2mm but without the sphere and cone detail, did you want 1.5-2mm on all faces ? Cheers ~Danny~ Attachments:

 From: malvin 22 Jul 2008  (6 of 17)
 1802.6 In reply to 1802.5 Danny It does come back to the boolean suggestion you recommended but it is more precise because the thickness of the wall remains constant If you do the same with sphere and cone and join/boolean union them together to create one solid - will it work? It does not for me - I might be doing something wrong -Thanks - Olga -

 From: Michael Gibson 22 Jul 2008  (7 of 17)
 1802.7 In reply to 1802.1 Hi Olga, > Is it possible to produce something like "smart shelling" - to give > some thickness to this or similar surface? > So that planes that interfere with each other would > merge and create one solid. It's possible in theory, but unfortunately it is a very difficult task. When you start using "smart" to describe an operation it can often be something that is very difficult to translate into a software algorithm. Software unfortunately is totally not "smart" - it only does exactly what it is told and it is very difficult to translate things like human judgement into the kind of explicit instructions that are required for program code... - Michael

 From: Michael Gibson 22 Jul 2008  (8 of 17)
 1802.8 In reply to 1802.6 Hi Olga, > If you do the same with sphere and cone and join/boolean union > them together to create one solid - will it work? It does not for me - > I might be doing something wrong Do you have the .3dm model file for this that you can post please? It's pretty difficult to follow along just from the descriptions alone. This may be something that will confuse the booleans and you may need to switch to a more surface style of modeling - that's where you use Edit/Separate to break solids down into individual surfaces and work on trimming surfaces one at a time to produce what you need. It's kind of a more "low level" approach than the boolean type operations, but it can let you make progress if you are having problems with the booleans. Similarly you may be able to make some progress by breaking things into individual surfaces and then using Offset to build some pieces to work off of to do further trimming, etc..., instead of trying to use Shell which will get confused by the sorts of overlapping pieces. - Michael

 From: DannyT (DANTAS) 22 Jul 2008  (9 of 17)
 1802.9 In reply to 1802.8 Michael, > Do you have the .3dm model file for this that you can post please? That's the one in the first post. Cheers ~Danny~

 From: Michael Gibson 22 Jul 2008  (10 of 17)
 1802.10 In reply to 1802.9 > That's the one in the first post. I guess it sounded like Olga had done some other steps to the sphere and cone and was having a problem with booleaning after those steps? If so then it could help to see that result more specifically... - Michael

 From: DannyT (DANTAS) 22 Jul 2008  (11 of 17)
 1802.11 In reply to 1802.10 Hi Michael and Olga, > I guess it sounded like Olga had done some other steps to the sphere and cone and was having a problem with booleaning after those steps? That's the bit I don't get, if you do a offset/shell at 1.5-2mm with this piece the main walls of the triangle piece would engulf the offset of the sphere and cone so the offset of those features wouldn't be necessary, or I am missing something here ? Cheers ~Danny~

 From: DannyT (DANTAS) 22 Jul 2008  (12 of 17)
 This is what I mean, I took a section and offset the curves at 1.5mm (highlighted) the result would be a small pocket in the center of the piece as shown in between the red lines because the sphere and cone offset would be trimmed to the bottom of the piece, is this correct in what I'm saying ? Cheers ~Danny~ Attachments:

 From: Michael Gibson 22 Jul 2008  (13 of 17)
 1802.13 In reply to 1802.12 Hi Danny, yeah I think that is correct. I'm just not quite following along so well with some of the later stages being described there, having a model to look at to go along with a description is always helpful to clear things up. - Michael

 From: malvin 23 Jul 2008  (14 of 17)
 Hi Michael hi Danny I attach the file where I tried to shell the surface of my design for a pendant I could not shell the whole thing so I blew up the surface and shelled it in parts but could not join them together and remove extras (I tried Boolean union, merge) I did not shell two small top corners so this has to be fixed also Please take a look – you might have an idea how to merge them together and remove extras Here the thickness is 1 mm. -Olga- Attachments: