Hi Val, I'll try to explain it more clearly here.


> I know the model is mangled and that you have stated it
> and I have stated it as well. the whole point is that the
> model is mangled. It is mangled because of the use deformer
> and the exporters.

It is mangled because of the deformer, not because of the exporter.

Once the deformer has made a mangled object then pretty much all bets are off as far as how other programs are going to deal with it.


> But I can't know that the model is mangled until I import it
> into some other software. if it is mangled the Moi should say
> that it is (as in saying it is a series of surface and not a solid)

This is not correct the mangled object is not just a series of totally separate surfaces, the mangled object is made up of joined surfaces but one area of its edge curve structure is messed up and it's got some kind of self intersecting squiggle back on top of itself right in the area of the pole.

This is where the additional kind of diagnostic tools that I was mentioning earlier would come into play - those could be some kind of tools that you could activate that would try to examine the model and look for corrupt or messy geometry that is going to cause problems.

But I don't know where you're getting this idea that the deformed object (the mangled one) is just a series of surfaces instead of having joining - that is not correct. If it ends up that way in some programs during their import, that is something that the importing program is deciding to do to the object when it processes it, and it's probably doing it in response to the model having a messed up structure in the poles.


> I send out my models to people who are using solidworks.
> They complained about the models failing.

The ones with the mangled spheres in them? Yes, I expect that you will not be able to get a proper output with those 4 mangled sphere surfaces in them.


> So it must also be Solidworks STP importer as well that has a problem
> I also get problems with Freecad and importing the STP
> I also get problems with 123D importing STP

Do you mean with the above model where I removed the spheres, or are you talking here about problems with importing the object that has the messed up sphere pieces in it?


> I'm asking that when I export the file the file behaves
> correctly on export.

That won't be able to happen if your object is damaged in the kind of way that the deformed sphere pieces are.

For this case in order to get a good export you will have to remove those pieces and model them in some other manner in order to get a non-mangled object.


> I originally asked a simple question "should I drop trying to
> use the deformer until it is fixed?" and it was answered by you
> in a round about way as "yes stop using it until it's fixed."

You should avoid it _for spheres_ you can use it for other stuff, like in the model that you posted if the messed up spheres are removed then the resulting STP file can be sent _as a solid_ to other programs other than Rhino which seems to have some other problem in its importer.


> But then you have basically said there isn't anything
> wrong with it and it is all the other software packages
> importers that are wrong. which I am disagreeing with
> you about.

The other importers are not wrong in having problems dealing with the messed up sphere - that is definitely a problem in the geometry.

You will not be able to get a proper export of those mangled spheres, they are messed up!

If those particular 4 surface pieces are removed then you will be able to get a good export to it - the STP file that I posted above goes into ViaCAD and Alibre fine and I also tested writing an STL file with it and that seemed to be ok too.

I don't know how many times I can go over the same thing, here is the clearest way I can describe it:


There is definitely a bug in MoI's deform commands when dealing with surfaces that have a collapsed-down "pole" type arrangement to them.

I am in no way denying that this is a current bug in MoI's deformers - in fact we already discussed this exact same bug in a previous thread.

The deformed result of such surfaces is messed up and will cause all kinds of numerous problems including problems with export, problems with further boolean calculations, etc....

In order to have a proper model which can be used for pretty much anything other than just a rendering, those mangled sphere pieces need to be removed and replaced with better geometry for just those pieces, before you will be able to get a proper export of that model into other CAD programs.

- Michael

I guess the part I don't understand is - if you know that the Deform tool is making a messed up object for those spheres, why is it that you're trying to export that messed up object and expecting for the exporter to produce a good result from it?

There's a saying: "Garbage in, Garbage out" - if the exporter is given some kind of mangled object to export, it doesn't understand how to unmangle it, the solution has to come in the process that generated the messed up object to begin with.

Given a messed up object different programs will behave in all sorts of different manners - some may try to repair it (like SpaceClaim seemed to), others may give up or in the process of giving up may instead try to just salvage what they can make sense of which could result in a bunch of separate surfaces.

In the future I would like to add some tools to analyze objects for different ways that they might be mangled. I'm not sure when that will happen, it's a lot of work to plan a good UI for that. In the shorter term I do expect to work on fixing up the deform tools so that they won't construct a mangled object for deforming spheres.

- Michael

Michael,


I'm saying regardless of the spheres the the exported STP fails. I've attached my own demo. there is a cube with it. there are no sphere shapes what so ever. If you try to combine the two in free cad the operation fails.
If you open it up in Rhino it still has problems with the letters
if you open it up in 123D the deform model doesn't show up.

I don't have Solidworks so I can't test it out in that.


I know it has to do with the deformer. That is obvious.

I wasn't saying it was a series of surfaces what I was trying to say was I would like it if Moi expressed some kind of clue that the function had failed just like it does now when you do a bad Boolean operation it turns the solid into a series of joined surfaces. You can find the problem within moi when you do a bad Boolean operation or do a poor joined surface. That was all that I was saying. No more no less. Just a suggestion.

Val

Hi Val,

> If you try to combine the two in free cad the operation fails.

So it seems to load it ok though in Freecad? Isn't Freecad in some kind of early Alpha release right now?

Why is it that you don't consider a boolean failure in Freecad to be a bug in Freecad?

It could certainly be possible that there is something about the deformed geometry that it does not like to handle very well, like some kind of lesser degree of accuracy between how UV curves and 3D curves relate to one another. It may be possible to do some tuneups in the deformers to help with this.


> If you open it up in Rhino it still has problems with the letters
> if you open it up in 123D the deform model doesn't show up.

For 123D I'd recommend trying SAT format instead, that may work better.

I tested importing your STEP file into Alibre and it seems to go ok into there.

ViaCAD seems to get stuck, I didn't wait for it to finish maybe it would after a while.

I also tried with CoCreate and it also seemed to go in ok there too.

It also works fine reading your file back into MoI as well.


Unfortunately it's not a particularly unusual thing for different kinds of CAD programs to have different sorts of peculiarities or problems with imported data. For some programs you may get a better result with a different file format.


> I would like it if Moi expressed some kind of clue that the function
> had failed just like it does now when you do a bad Boolean operation
> it turns the solid into a series of joined surfaces.

I don't see how just blowing up the deformed result into a bunch of separate surfaces would really give you a good clue as to what went wrong. Most likely it would just lead to the question "why is my result a bunch of separate surfaces, I did not expect that", without really conveying any particular information.

It's pretty tricky to do a good quality UI for actually making that kind of communication happen.

- Michael

For your Autodesk product, use the ACIS kernel....



I have several other packages that read in the "Solid" also, though I can analyze it down to having some issues...

Val, I think your answer is there will be some tools LATER, to analyze geometry differently, so you can see how things will react further down the road.