CAD/CAM discussion forum > 3D CAD/CAM > Work needed on dome command

Work needed on dome command

    
  Subscribe Topic

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 1 of 11

 Work needed on dome command
30-11-2004 01:10 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
See attached file.

I added 2 sketches (unconstrained) to the top surface of a box shape. One sketch defined a circle, the other an ellipse. I applied the new dome command in 10.5 but note the position of the resultant domes - it previews up there as well. I don't understand this. Is this correct behaviour - surely not? Apart from this it works well - nice options for crown control!

Kevin

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 2 of 11

01-12-2004 04:30 . am   |   View his/her posts only
In experimenting more with this command it is pretty much rock solid when using the FEM mesh method - domes up some really complex boundaries, but I think I'm right in assuming that this generates individual surfaces only as opposed to integrated features - which may have something to do with the offset plane creation of my previous post. Is there a simple way to say, have a solid cylinder, apply an elliptical sketch to the top surface and add a domed ellipse feature to that which could then be patterned radially, then shell the solid out?

The domed surfaces I've tried have all been able to be thickened into solids BTW - no mater what the boundary, and this is a feat in itself. I will be experimenting with this to design bathtubs. Dome then morph - sound like a good combination to me!

Kevin

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 3 of 11

02-12-2004 09:11 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hey Kevin,

You are right. It is not correct behavior. There is another word for it but this sounds better.
I will make sure it gets fixed.

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 4 of 11

02-12-2004 01:22 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
FIXED (A transfor matrix was applied twice but only when using the sketch option.)
Look for this in the next version.

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 5 of 11

02-12-2004 02:46 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Thats quick work Mike! This really is a great tool - given the control you have of tangency at base and crown, and even the position of the crown. I'm experimenting with using it for electronics enclosures instead of using the QuickSurf command. A couple of years back i had a bugger of a job to do for a customer who wanted a specific shape which was very hard to achieve in Cobalt and imposible to achieve in ThinkiD (even with 3 app engineers , 2 e-seminars and a beta to work on!!). I think this might be the tool I've been after all this time......if only I had the time to experiment with it! Back to finishing off the septic tanks now - seriously!

Kevin

Rank: 1

Mike

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2002-8-28

Message 6 of 11

03-12-2004 11:27 . am   |   View his/her posts only
No problemo!

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 7 of 11

03-12-2004 02:14 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Kevin

If you complete the tanks before we release v10.6, you can work around the Sketch profile problem by using the Sketch curves as the basis for 3D curves.

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 8 of 11

04-12-2004 07:26 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Thanks Chris, good idea. I'm actually using 2D CAD (Ashlar-Vellum Graphite) to do the tanks and not VX . Just a lot faster and the customer only wants pdf and .dwg drawings anyway. Maybe when Architects get into using 3D more then building services companies will be able to break the clutches of Autodesk! What I have got coming up are some more bathtubs and this is where this new v10 stuff will really start to shine - I hope.

Kevin

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 9 of 11

07-12-2004 05:45 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Oh don't mention that word "Architect" ! This is the industry that made Autocad so "popular". In fact, they mostly bought the software and then left it on the shelf collecting dust . Oh, the number of times you find totally impractical features in today's buildings - I'm sure a lot of this is to do with 2D drawings "looking right". I'm born out of the aircraft industry. When we only had 2D to work with, we were dreaming of what we would do when 3D became a reality. You know, if you did do those tanks in 3D, mistakes are less likely to go unnoticed. Plus you can produce 2D layouts with auxilliary views that make it much easier for the constructors to understand the design. I expect the PDF files will not only be for the constructors, but for non-technical staff too - a shaded view or two would help their understanding. Superior information (even without direct access to the 3D geometry).....it's what VX is all about.

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 10 of 11

07-12-2004 06:35 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Chris,

You are preaching to the 3D converted of some 20 years! I started using 3D solid modelling at Strathclyde University in 1984 on ROMULUS - did it as my final year project in fact! As for Architects....well...lets not go there eh :-)

The interesting thing about this septic tank job/contract is that I was asked to draw up about 30 tanks for the customer in 3D for a product CD. At the time I used ThinkDesign and carefully constructed a spreadsheet driven system where all I had to do was key in major sizes, number of shafts etc and the model would be made and all the drawings done (dimensioning never worked though). I thought it was a one off job as they had another company do 100's of 2D drawings. Not so, this year they asked me to do all the 2D drawings as well. These are based on the drawings done by others (in VectorWorks).

So you see the dilema, all the original 3D stuff was now useless on 3 fronts - I no longer used ThinkDesign, and all the TD files I produced were converted into neutral formats like STEP and dwg.

All the tanks we now draw are all custom ordered so we have to adapt the existing drawings and add details. Trust me when I say there is neither the time or the money available to model up every configuration! Knocking out a quick 2D drawing in Graphite using the dwg files as the basis works fine. Horses for courses, as they say.

Getting back to architects again, I do get involved with a lot of building projects and more and more are asking about modelling complex 3D forms. I think the work done by Gehry and Fosters has had a big influence on the profession. Also, with the explosion of use of a great little 3D app called SketchUp! more and more architects are getting into 3D. I even know of cases where Autodesk have entire practises using the Autocad based stuff and Inventor side by side so they can handle 3D. Autodesk also do Revit, which is a parametric 3D system but it is not proving popular (I think they sold about 5 seats in the UK last year).

Dassault is also getting in on the act with CATIA, having teamed up with Gehry Architects to produce a new building design environment for CATIA v5 - see www.gehrytechnologies.com

They are getting there, and there are opportunities for all 3D software producers to tap into this market.

I attended a seminar amonth or two back given by an architect who used to work for Fosters, explaining how they used parametric 3D to drive the design and produce all production documentation and supply sub contractors with 3D data for manufacturing purposes.

Kevin

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 11 of 11

07-12-2004 06:41 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Kevin

If the Architectural Industry has money to spend on 3D CAD, then I guess they are nice people really

Seriously though, I am amazed at the number of professionals across many industries that have not invested in 3D technology (or, indeed, not invested in CAD at all). You still hear of cutting-edge products that the inventor defined and developed on paper only, so the forests are not yet safe. I think there are many companies also that have failed to re-invest, using older 2D CAD instead of 3D and wondering why their competitors can get better products on the market, faster. This is often down to the Design Office Manager being afraid of change (even though they are "creating change" in their own market), or the Account who cannot see that he is saving a relatively small amount of money by not investing, yet potentially costing the company a huge amount of lost revenue as they slip and slide behind their competitors.

See also
X