Hi Janne,

> I wish that we could do a inverted fillet.
> So we could create a weldseam.

I'm not quite sure if I understand completely.

If you have a box like this:



Then a regular fillet will look like this:



And I guess an inverted fillet would be like this? :




Unfortunately the fillet infrastructure is not set up to produce stuff like that, I think it would take quite a bit of work to add this in, so it will probably take a while before I could make that happen.

As an alternative, one thing you could do would be to build some tubular surfaces with sweep and then boolean them out, kind of like in this example:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=817.8

- Michael

Hi Marco,

> Important GROUP object because is difficult to move
> much obgetct in decisive situations.

That's definitely an area that will be coming for MoI in v2.

- Michael

Hello Michael...

"That's definitely an area that will be coming for MoI in v2."
Will you cover weight calculation on the object organization ?

Hi Anis - weight calculation will be a separate thing than object organization, but it should get added at some point as part of an "Analyze" set of tools. I'm pretty sure that this will get added in to v2 but probably after the object organization tools are complete.

It actually probably won't be a "weight" calculation, but rather a volume one, and then you can calculate weight by multiplying the volume by the material density.

- Michael

Good News....

Volume Calculation is enough :)
So this mean that MoI will only support color and or texturing, not Material correct ?
Keep on track Michael !!!

Thanks

Hi Anis, yes at least at first MoI will be focused just on setting stuff like colors for objects and not things like physical materials.

I'm curious, do you have another program that does physical material properties?

Most of the time CAD programs are focused just on things like volume, area, and length...

- Michael

Hi Michael,

>.........at some point as part of an "Analyze" set of tools.

You did mention "Analyze" set of tools, I've got proof now.
What have you got in mind, if you don't mind me asking ?

Cheers

Hi Danny, well I was thinking of:

Distance (pick 2 points and report distance between them).
Point (readout of x,y,z coordinates of a point that you pick).
Length (pick a curve and report length of the curve).
Area (pick a surface, solid or maybe closed planar curve and report surface area)
Volume (pick a solid and report volume).


I figured that would be a pretty good starting batch.

Is there anything else that you had in mind?

In the future I could add more advanced things like a curvature graph, etc... but I think a basic set would be best to start with.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

> Is there anything else that you had in mind?

Well, I don't know how involved it would be, but I have mentioned this before.
With the more complicated models where I have to create features using more of a surface modeling approach and then joining those surfaces to create a solid, sometimes it doesn't become solid, a simple test I do is when joining the network of surfaces after I finished I create a cylinder through that model and do a boolean diff, this shows me if it is a solid or a sheet body. If it is a sheet body then I have a hard time trying to find the offending surface which has a gap at the boundaries somewhere, at the moment it's trial and error and if I get fed up I'm forced to bring it into another cad package and do a boundary analysis and most of the time it is a tiny gap just out of tolerance, that's why you can't pick it up visually in MoI.
So a basic tool that would show where or which is the offending surface or gap between surfaces so it can be corrected and move on.

.

Hi Michael,

> I'm curious, do you have another program that does physical material properties?

In NX you can set density and material properties, you can also have a database of materials and assign those to your model, so when you do a mass properties analysis it spits out the info, as attached below.

Is this what you mean ?

.

Hi Michael,

I think the Angle (by picking 4 points which define two line) was aked many times.

Also the geometric center of the object (centroid) is quite useful for example for positioning a set of closed planar curves or as "centre of mass" for solid.


Petr

Hi Danny - I think what you want there is a "show naked (unattached) edges" type thing.

I haven't quite decided whether that would go under "Analyze", or as a "View" type thing to show naked edges in a different style somehow.

But one thing that is really easy for me to do is to add some scripting properties so that those edges can be identified to a script, then it will be possible to make a keyboard shortcut script that selected all naked edges and that would be a quick way to get this function enabled in a basic but useful way for the next beta.

re: solid versus sheet determination - that is something that I want to show in the object properties panel, so that one is part of the batch of object organization tool work.

- Michael

Hi Danny,

> Is this what you mean ?

Yeah, that's the kind of thing that I probably won't have for quite a while. I was curious if it was very common nowadays for programs to do that, it is sort of a classic approach for CAD programs to focus just on the slightly more abstract geometric properties rather than stuff for a specific physical material.

- Michael

>> finding a gap

There are two nifty commands in Rhino to find a gaps & cracks: _ShowEdges with naked-edges option and especially _ZoomNaked :)

Hi Petr, I guess I could add angle in there... I was kind of thinking of leaving that out since I also at some point want to have some dimensions too, which are then kind of starting to replicate many of these things.

Like is it really necessary to have both an Angle dimension as well as a 4 point angle command?

- Michael

Also just as note from me so you dont have to do such an involved test to see if you've acheived solid. This script with a shortcut tells if it's solid.

"script:moi.geometryDatabase.getObjects().getSolids().setProperty( 'selected', true );"

Ignore if not pertinent.
Burr

Hi Petr - re: center of gravity point - I think this will probably be included within the area/volume commands.

- Michael

Hi Burr, yes that is actually a good tip - that is the way you can currently tell if an object is a completely closed solid or not.

But I do want to make that information more easily accessible so that you can tell just by selecting an object and looking a display panel.

The other thing is that once you determine that an object is not a solid, you don't really have any way of seeing which edges on it are responsible for it not being closed off - that's the other part that Danny is talking about.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

From my point of view, the Point, Distance, Angle analysis tools are unnecessary. I can replace it by using different regular commands and construction line together and reading feedback in the input boxes on toolbar at the bottom.

It might be better to have a basic dimensioning capabilities as soon as possible to make such data like point coordinates, distance or angle more persistent/permanent....(?)


Petr

Hi Michael

Your last point there is a good one. I would say that one could use dimension tools to permanently measure things, or just to check things as you go.

angles, length, area, volume etc:
Could there be a kind of situation detection; like clicking on a line will give a horizontal dimension if the line is horzontal, clicking two angled lines would automaticly make a angle dimension, etc?

A solution to the "redundancy problem" is also to have a "make permanent" checkbox, so if you just want to check things as you model but don't want dimension objects you can just leave it unchecked...?

Do you have plans for some type of draft angle analysis tool?

Cheers
-Fredrik