I have some trouble with a surfacing job as in figures below and the attached .prt file. I think I have good knowledge about Through Curves and Studio Surface, but really feel frustrated with working out a smooth surface successfully.
All the blue curves are input curves. I have checked to make sure the top spline is smooth/tangent.
Great thanks in advance for your help!
ps: I don't know why a prt file can't attached and always lead to a message "The contents of the attachment doesn't match its file type." Then I upload the the prt file by changeing the extention name to jpg. So you would need to change the file extension name back to prt before openning it. Sorry for that.
Solved! Go to Solution.
there is a list of file that you can attach, you have to zip the file with extension .prt.
The problem with your file is how you built the through curve mesh.
If the initial and/or final string is reduced to a point, the through curve mesh, in this point, becomes 'shrinked'.
A workaround is to cut the surface with a four-sided cut and then rebuilt the cut.
@surfactant; If you think this is the answer, mark it as a solution, and also you could give some Kudos for the efforts. This way everybody benifits.
@Cesare; Apprently we don't have Studio Surface licence but Through Curves only. How would you do without it?
Having NX MACH 3 Product Design package, it's very frustating to understand that we were denied some basic surfacing needs of NX.
You do not need the Studio surface for the "trick" that Cesare showed, that is done with the lowest license.
He did use Studio Surface though for the final surface, a surface that in principle is a swept surface with added tangency constraint.
The alternative to this studio surface is to draw an extra boundary curve and use the Curve Mesh feature.
In my version of this, i created a through curves in the bottom, extracted the edge of that as a spline, deleted that surface and created a through curve mesh.
But yes, i dislike two freeform licenses. it's kind of greedy from Sie...
My version is slightly smoother than Cesares, In my perspective using points as sections in surfaces is taboo.
The "wobble" that the point might/will induce is hard to control.
Did you try editing the Studio Surface feature? Last I checked, one could still edit a Studio feature regardless of whether they had the licensing. That might have changed since I was last able to check this, but if it hasn't, it might be a way (albeit a bit backwards) to gain some insight into how things were done. I'm sure since the OP used a Studio Surface, that's why Cesare continued with it so as to avoid muddying the waters by completely changing direction.
I'm not sure if I would call the Shape Studio features basic surfacing needs - most of the commands go beyond basic modeling and fall into the realm of industrial design and/or Class A surfacing, which isn't basic to most mechanical modelers as it requires a deeper understanding of how to model and achieve a predictable output and understand how to build clean geometry starting with the curves. However that point is only my opinion and I'm sure you will probably not agree with it 100%. Yes, it would be nice of Siemens to throw a few of the Studio commands into the basic modeling/surfacing bundles (like Studio Surface, maybe some of the blending tools) but I do see where that might muddle the marketing ideas between the 2 products if that were done....a bit greedy, yes, but not completely foreign to some other CAD softwares (I-deas has Imageware that is extra cost, CATIA also makes you pay for similar bundles with added cost, Autodesk doesn't include Alias for no cost with AutoCAD or Inventor).
Can't really address your frustrations because no one here but you can find out what why your company chose the bundle you have and Shape Studio/Freeform Shape or whatever label it has now was possibly left off the menu. If it was overlooked/not offered as a solution, then I'd suggest contacting your salesperson and getting a trial license to see if all the commands are going to make that much difference to your current needs....that's what I did when it first came out. It will probably add to your costs and maintenance fees though.
I totally agree with you, and if I had to make these surfaces from the beginning I would do as you did: I would use swept, for example, to obtain edges on which I build the final surface.
I totally agree with you also on the Mach3 Bundle, with NX you can achieve some result with a lot of workaround.
I disagree with you only when you mirror the surface, the continuity will never be perfect.