basic training
 1-12  13-32  33-38

Previous
Next
 From:  Jesse
510.13 In reply to 510.12 
Hi Michael,

I was working with a similar idea yesterday...:-)
You can get some interesting variations depending on the shape of the scale rail
and where it's placed.

I noticed something that I thought you should know about...
it could be a bug or just the way sweeps work with the scaling rail,
but it could be an issue if you wanted to put more than one profile on a ring.
which is often the case when designing for actual production.
It works great if the profile curve isn't touching the drive rail.
If it touches the quad point, it sweeps only half the circle with the scaling rail.

I don't have the last beta to make a comparison, but it seems like
with the addition of the scaling rail option, sweeps take longer,
even if you're doing a regular sweep without the scaling rail.
Am I only imagining this?

Jesse

EDITED: 1 Apr 2007 by JESSE


  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
510.14 In reply to 510.13 
Hi Jesse, that looks like another interesting result from a very low number of defining curves.

> If it touches the quad point, it sweeps only half the circle with the scaling rail.

Can you please e-mail the bad one to me? I'll see if I can fix this up.

What is happening is that when you have the profile off to the side, MoI uses the "auto place" mode, where it places the profile for you sort of centered around the rail. MoI does this automatic placement thing any time you have a a planar profile curve that is located outside the bounding box of the rail.

As soon as you move it to the quad point, it is no longer completely outside the bounding box of the rail, so MoI does not mess with the location of the profile in this case, it uses it from where it currently is located.

Then I think the issue is the scaling rail not working right when the profile has a straight vertical line coincident with the line between the spine rail and the scaling rail.

The auto-place works because the line connecting the spine rail and scaling rail ends up intersecting the profile through the middle of the profile in that case instead of grazing along the flat side. If that makes sense...


Re: sweeps slower

They probably are a bit slower now because they now use the cancelation mechanism. There is some overhead to using the thing that allows for canceling stuff in mid-calculation. But the benefit is that you don't have the danger of possibly getting stuck unable to do anything else if you are in a long calculation.

- 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:  Jesse
510.15 In reply to 510.14 
Hi Michael,

I'll email you the file...here's something interesting, by tipping the scale rail at
an angle, it will taper the ring, while conforming to the shape of the other curves.
This design isn't the best application of the technique,
but I can definitely think of some that are.. :-)

-Jesse

EDITED: 1 Apr 2007 by JESSE

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:  Jesse
510.16 In reply to 510.15 
Scaling rail ring.

-jdk-

EDITED: 1 Apr 2007 by JESSE

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:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
510.17 

Very pretty!
Does a "generic transformer tool" like "bend, fold" can be imagined in Moi?
(for this image http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=510.15 for example)
Some forms can yet be made by the "Scale Tool" but it's not very easy, some pass with some different axes are necessary :)

---
Pilou
Is beautiful that please without concept!
My Gallery

EDITED: 1 Apr 2007 by PILOU

  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
510.18 In reply to 510.16 
Hi Jesse - wow, very nice result!

So let's see - is that a one-rail sweep + scaling rail?

How would you have done this without the scaling rail? I guess maybe NetworkSrf with 4 curves in each direction, or it looks like 2 rail sweep with 2 wavy rails.

I suppose if you have a one-rail sweep where the central spine rail is on the mirroring plane of the object, then a one-rail sweep + scaling rail is actually equivalent to a 2-rail sweep between mirrored rails.

- 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:  Michael Gibson
510.19 In reply to 510.17 
> Does a "generic transformer tool" like "bend, fold" can be imagined in Moi?

Hi Pilou, unfortunately these are quite difficult to do on solids.

It is difficult to bend the solid in an accurate way so that the different surfaces that make up the solid are still connected together properly at the end, with no gaps between what are supposed to be shared edges.

So this won't be possible to do in MoI for quite a while. Rhino V4 has some cool new tools to do this stuff, and it is easy to share data between MoI and Rhino so for a while you will need to use Rhino along side of MoI to do these kinds of operations.

- 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:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
510.20 In reply to 510.19 
<won't be possible ...
So imagination must replace it (for the purists) :)
In general there are always many ways for make something :)
---
Pilou
Is beautiful that please without concept!
My Gallery
  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
510.21 In reply to 510.20 
> In general there are always many ways for make something :)

For now what you can do is draw it in the "bent" shape from the beginning instead of thinking about bending it later on.

- 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:  Jesse
510.22 In reply to 510.18 
It is a 1 rail sweep with a scaling rail.

>>How would you have done this without the scaling rail? I guess maybe NetworkSrf with 4 curves in each direction, or it looks like 2 rail sweep with 2 wavy rails.
<<

The last method is how I'd do it in Rhino.
It would be a 2 rail sweep with the same cross section profile as I used in MoI.
a circle for the finger hole and a wavy curve offset outside
of it -which would be more complicated to draw than the scaling rail curve.

The result of this kind of sweep in Rhino is somewhat unpredictable.
The waviness is an effect of the sweep, rather than a predetermined shape that
you can easily control,

-Jesse
  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:  Joe (INNERACTIVE)
510.23 In reply to 510.16 
Hey Jesse this looks great, I'm learning a lot of tips from this thread, thanks.
  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:  Tim (BLADEST)
510.24 
Hi,
I am a jeweller and am at last getting the hang of the workflow to make the sort of ring like the one of Jesse's above, building up one section on the circumference with booleans and then arraying it around the ring . I also got carried away with sets of boolean difference holes. When I come to add and subtract these decorations , if I do them all at once it never seems to finish calculating. If I do them one by one it still takes a long time for each.
Is ths what I should expect? It seems to be a fundamental ingredient of ring design, to gradually build up more and more complicated units and then build them together by using mirror or array, so do I expect it to take a long time?
I have not got the newest system but it has over a Gig of memory and a reasonable graphics card, so am I just over impatient!!

regards Tim.
  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
510.25 In reply to 510.24 
Hi Tim, yes unfortunately the booleans do quite a lot of calculation so you can expect that they will tend to be slow.

> but it has over a Gig of memory and a reasonable graphics card

The boolean calculation speed is entirely dependent on your CPU speed, unless you run out of memory but I think you'd be fine at more than 1GB. What CPU speed do you have for your computer?

One thing you can do to speed things up if the speed is really getting in the way of doing your work, is to work on surfaces instead of solids, and then use Trim to cut only the surfaces that you know are slicing into each other.

Booleans basically do a lot of automatic Trim and Join operations for you, but they will tend to do a lot of checking for any intersections between 2 solids. You can kind of get more of a "fine-tuned" control over the process if you do the trimming and joining between surfaces yourself. But it is a lot less convenient, it is probably better to just wait a few minutes until the booleans finish.

- 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:  Colin
510.26 In reply to 510.25 
Hi Everyone,

I've been playing at making a fitted wedding band, but not getting the results that I want.
No doubt it's more to do with my lack of knowledge of how all of this works?

I've been trying to do it as a sweep, as that seemed to me to be the logical choice??
But I kept getting splits in the sweep where the band turns.
Here's 3 different versions that are progressions of each other.
Could someone please advise me of the best way to go about this kind of construction.

regards Colin
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:  Jesse
510.27 In reply to 510.24 
Hi Tim,

Just ask on the forum if you have questions about jewelry modeling in MoI, I may not have the answer, but someone will, so it will help others who want to learn, too...and then if enough jewelry designers ask questions, Micheal will know what tools to make for us! ;-)

I'm not sure if this is correct, but it seems that Boolean-ing parts in small groups seems to go faster (towards the end result) than doing them all at once.

Since many jewelry models are symmetrical, you can Boolean subtract things like azures for stones on one side of a ring and then trim away the other half of the model, slicing it right down the middle with a cutting plane, then mirror over the finished side and join them together. I've also build just a quadrant of a model and then mirrored or circular arrayed to complete it.

Another thing to keep in mind,- if you're CNC milling your models, Boolean unioning may not be required at all. I use ArtCAM which handles STL's that touch each other as one entity, so when you import the file to make a tool path,,it doesn't matter if the model was Booleaned unioned or just an assembly of parts before it was meshed.

Hope this helps.

-Jesse
  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:  Jesse
510.28 In reply to 510.26 

Hi Colin,

I took a stab at your model.. I drew a planar curve approximately following your
3d curve. it consists of an arc, tracing the center of your curve and a freeform curve (through points) for the side section,
snapping to the end of the arc and then placing the second point of the freeform curve so that it lined up tangent to the arc.
That relaxed the bend where the band was crimping up and breaking.
It's off by less than 1/10 of a mm from your original curve.

Then I drew a circle for the finger hole, extruded a cylinder and trimmed the cylinder with the planar "profile".
I copied, pasted and joined the edge curves of the trimmed edge of the cylinder,
and then trimmed the copied curves at the 3 and 9 O'clock positions
of the ring. (quad points). I also trimmed the circle at 3 and 9, removing the top.

From there it's just one rail sweeps for each the top and bottom parts,
without capping the ends. Join both sections and you're done! :-)

Jesse

EDITED: 2 Apr 2007 by JESSE


  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:  Tim (BLADEST)
510.29 
Hi Jesse,
thanks for helping, I hadn't thought abbout cutting away half or three quarters and then mirroring , that is the sort of approach I am asking about. I am now quite comfortable with the basics it is just what happens when you start to make your models more complicated that I find I have problems. I am milling these so I will try one as a group and see what happens.
I think the thing that would be the most help is groups, I seem to end up with a lot of stuff over 0,0 and have to zoom in very close to find it. Maybe a button that gave you 0,0 in a view would be a thought.

many thanks Tim .
  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:  Colin
510.30 In reply to 510.28 
Hi Jesse,

Thanks very much for doing the file & explaining how you went about it.
Just so that I understand correctly, this particular shape of ring "doesn't" really work with a straight forward sweep?
If so, I gather that's all because of the tight curved section at the top of the band??

Also, if doing this same design in Rhino3, would you construct it in the same way as you have in MoI?
Sorry for the questions, just trying to get a better understanding as to "what, how & why" works.

Thanks again.

regards Colin
  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:  Jesse
510.31 In reply to 510.30 

Hi Colin,

You're welcome.

If you mean by a "straight forward sweep", a two rail sweep, it will
work that way as well. It would also work the same way in Rhino.

It wasn't so much the tightly curved section that caused it to break,
your curve has a kink where it transitioned over the shoulder towards
the side of the ring. I just tried it again with your curves as a two rail sweep.

I <separated> your curve and replaced the kinky section with a <blend> line that
makes a smoother transition (with tangency) and the 2 rail sweep works better,
but the surface still has a little bump in it that you could easily fix with a hand file in the wax.

If you drew the curve completely over, you could get it to be smooth as a 2 rail sweep. (see 2nd file)

If the design was a more complicated free form shape, perhaps you'd have more
control over it with a two rail sweep, but for this one, a one rail sweep worked OK.

Since everything was in place after I did the trims, I just swept the two sections
as one rail sweeps and joined them, but if you did it as a two rail sweep
it would take about the same amount of steps and accomplish the same thing.

The thing to always remember is, good construction lines make good surfaces. :-)
The key to making good construction lines is to let MoI "draw" the hard stuff
with blends or tangency or whatever other feature that seems most useful and appropriate.

-Jesse

EDITED: 3 Apr 2007 by JESSE


  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:  Jesse
510.32 In reply to 510.29 
Hi Tim,

Yeah, making a component that needs multiple Booleans and then duplicating it with
mirroring can save some time. You could also cut a ring up in small pie-wedges (going out from the origin)
if the section was complicated to Boolean and then array it around a ring and join up the surfaces.

I can think of one ring I did like that that turned out pretty good. It was an antique eternity band
with marquise stones and lots of little filigree that someone wanted in order to replicate their great-grandmothers ring,
which was all worn out. If I had to Boolean out all those little holes, I would would have had a melt down, if my CPU didn't first! ;-)

What do you use for your CAM program?

ArtCAM converts STL's to reliefs before it runs a toolpath,
so I believe thats the reason it can combine meshes on the import.

I'm not sure about the stuff over 0,0.
I have a script for Rhino3 that locates the lowest "Z" point of a model,
would that be what you mean? I use it to place the ground plane for a rendering.

You can assign a keyboard shortcut or an alias to 0,0,0 in Rhino as well,
if that's any help.

-Jesse
  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:  1-12  13-32  33-38