Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox

eobet

Members
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eobet

  • Rank
    Level 3

Previous Fields

  • Status
    Student

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.eobet.com/
  1. If all of the above fails (which happened to me), ask yourself this: What is it you really want to do? What is it that really interests you? What is it that YOU personally want to accomplish? I found that, subconsciously, my latest projects basically went against everything I believed in, so I found it incredibly difficult to complete them... until I managed to put my own spin on them and guide them in the direction I felt I could stand behind.
  2. I can't remember is version 2009 had the "boundary surface" tool, but that and the "fill surface" tool are the tools you need to use to build the car with, cause they are the only ones that can do curvature continuity. The worst thing is that curvature continuity on splines is a very late addition as well, so support is very basic, which means that behavior currently quite unpredictable and difficult to control. If you want to do it properly, you also need to use the zebra curvature display mode to check the direction and flow of your highlights, and I'm also not sure if the detail quality slider for that was available in 2009, because the default settings are far too poor to check anything with (I don't think the image quality in the document settings affected the zebra stripes). I've built a few vehicles myself with Solidworks and it's not fun.
  3. What do most students want to do with their CAD models? 3D print them of course! That Solidworks has removed this functionality in their student version (while Alias hasn't) is baffling to me.
  4. I'm modeling a car in 3D and it's the biggest project I've done yet, with over 100 sketches and 200 features. Here's some quirks I've encountered: 1. After mirroring half of the surface model and stitching it together into a solid, and then going back in history to have a look at the surfaces again, Solidworks reports that it can no longer stitch it back into a solid, even though I did not do anything to the model! I just looked. 2. After moving a curve at one end of the model, a feature breaks on the complete other side of it. The feature claims that it can no longer convert an entity, which is a projection of an edge. I try to delete the curve and then convert it again, but it refuses to convert, even though I've done it before and the edge hasn't changed. However, if I just delete the relation, and keep the old converted curve, the feature will still do exactly what it did before, without breaking. 3. After moving a curve at one end of the model, a feature breaks on the complete other side of it. This feature claims that it can no longer merge two surfaces in a mutual trim, even though they haven't changed. I am forced to do two single trims and one stitch, in order to do exactly what it did before. 4. I've projected several straight line sketches onto surfaces to create split lines. I want to sweep cut with that line, but Solidworks refuses, because the line isn't XXX. However, if I sweep cut each segment at a time, it works. So, I know Solidworks original claim is bullshit. 5. I've built a boundary surface and then split a line across it, in order to be able to draw a curvature continuos spline from its edge. However, sometimes it works, and sometimes it gets over-defined (how it can get over-defined just from selecting the curvature relation on a spline in a 3D sketch is beyond me). There is no pattern to this. Further, sometimes I can convert the split line into the 3D sketch, but then the curvature continuos spline freezes and looses its editing capabilities. I love that Solidworks is parametric, but I hate it when it breaks for no obvious reason. I love that Solidworks is finally able to do curvature continuos stuff, but I hate that it's so limited. EDIT: Attached a nice little screenshot of two split lines across a single boundary surface. Notice the grey 3D sketch in the background? That's a curvature continuos spline attached to the split line of that surface. Notice the RED sketch in the foreground? That's a curvature continuos spline attached to another split line of that surface. Both split lines are straight lines projected from the top plane. WHAT ON EARTH MAKES SOLIDWORKS BEHAVE THIS WAY??? EDIT 2: Btw, that cyan line? I have no idea. It's not a split line, sketch or anything. It just appeared after the surface was re-built the last time.
  5. eobet

    Some Of My Sketches

    You're a bit uneven still. Some sketches are absolutely wonderful, and some are just "meh". I've attached an image that particularly had me curious: At first, I thought you were using a low-poly 3D model as underlay, because you made the same mistake in several different angles. But then I saw the angular edges and thought, "@#$@#$ he must be using the polygonal lasso tool"! I'm still not 100% sure which technique you're using (though I'm betting it's the lasso), but if it is the first, it would be very interesting to see the 3D mock-up, and if it is the second one... please, please, please switch to the path tool instead. The mistake, btw, is that the curvature in the C-pillar pinches together at one point close to the bod:
  6. eobet

    Lexus Lf-a ( Reloaded 2)

    I feel I should share with you some of what I've learned so far in vehicle design: First of all, never ever post a Photoshop of a car photo ever again. I believe it is very difficult to be taken seriously with such work (there are some who do "underlays" but if you do, it is very important to change every single line of the car, and if possible, the proportion). Second, judging from your other threads, you seem to be very fixated with subordinate volumes and details, when you should be focusing on the dominant proportions and the silhouette of the car first. Again, if you want to be taken seriously, don't design a "body kit". Consider the character, the expression of the whole car instead. Third, I think you seem to be a bit too fond of looking at other cars, and a bit stuck in the 80s when it comes to styling. Don't look at other cars for styling, look at other things, like nature, sculpture, abstract photography and art. What I'm getting at here is lines, and line quality, which you must learn. There is an excellent book about lines (and volumes) that is called Elements of Design. Buy it, read it, and take a course in the structure of visual relationship at Pratt Institute if possible. Then about line quality, there are several excellent videos you can buy at the Gnomon Workshop. I especially recommend the ones by Feng Zhu and Scott Robertson (of Art Center fame). Do NOT get the high resolution or Photoshop stuff! You know that already (learn how to use paths, though). Get the pencil and paper ones. If you get the book and videos above, and practice for at least an hour every day (more if you can) and come back in a year, everyone here will be able to give you feedback and criticism that will actually be about the design, and not the technique. I personally can't even begin to critique your design, because to me it is all over the place and nowhere at the same time. Here is a quick illustration of where you currently are, and where you need to be:
  7. Thank you for all the help and tips, people. I really appreciate it. Very insightful!
  8. Thank you for identifying the problem areas. What is NX? Also, I found no way so far to increase the tolerances (I found options for it in the document settings, but they didn't seem to have any effect... I think they're for measurements only). Hehe, maybe. The idea was to do a silhouette and extrude it, then cut away where I wanted the next curve to begin, and use that for the next surface, until there was nothing left of the straight surfaces of the original extrude. That way, I didn't need to use 3D sketches or projected curves (though I did use a 3D curve in a few places). To me, though, the fact that SW isn't "forgiving" (in that it cares about how an edge I'm building off of was created) is to me a software issue. So, sigh... I guess it's finally time to move away from Solidworks and learn Alias.... *shudder*
  9. I thought I found a "great new way" (for me at least) to create models which doesn't have a single planar surface in Solidworks. Oh, how wrong I was. The attached model is 100% boundary surfaces and filled surfaces, all built using adjacent edges. One would think they then would knit together perfectly, but they do not. Which means that I can't offset the surfaces together outwards, which I need to be able to do. Apart from modeling surfaces in something called SOLIDworks, anyone know where I went wrong? surfaces.SLDPRT.zip
  10. Interesting that you found source of the problem, but not the actual location (if you know what I mean). Thank you! Also interesting that for once, I managed to produce a surface where individual offsets could be stitched together again... 90% of the time when I try to do that, they intersect (for example, the faces in the thread I linked in my first post can't be offset individually).
  11. Yeah, Alias Design/Automotive must be one of the most counter-intuitive applications in the history of software. Apart from the terminal based Emacs, I've never seen anything as focused on existing users as Alias.Nothing seems to have been done to cater for new users at all (I could argue that the radial menu is also for existing users), and the UI looks and feels like it's from 1991, even when running under OS X. I made an interesting thread about this phenomenon on another forum, and though people came to its defense in that thread I discovered that 1) several of them are Alias employees and 2) some complain about Alias in other threads. Thanks, though.
  12. Since I received absolutely great answers in my last question thread, I thought I'd try my luck at another one: I've built a seemingly simple (sort of) surface in Solidworks, and I can't offset it no matter how I rebuild it. I've tried to rebuild the surface in various different ways with, for example, lofts in various directions, boundary surfaces with more or less ribs for support and various sized gaps in both ends which I then fill. Nothing seems to work. This is currently the my biggest gripe with SW, when it simply refuses to perform simple commands without telling you the reason why or how to fix it. Even more amazing is that the preview works, as you can see in the attached screenshot: offset.sldprt.zip
  13. EDIT: Damnit... I had to kill a very entertaining post. Sorry to rain on your beautiful solution, but this is about as inaccurate as the regular fillet when I tried it:
  14. Absolutely bloody wonderful! Thank you for that solution! When measured, the distances only differ about a fraction of a millimeter, and that's good enough for me right now (Solidworks doesn't do proper Class A surfaces anyway, I believe). As long as you can offset the stiched surfaces, the solution works. If anyone can find a complicated enough surface where it fails, I'd be interested to see it, but as far as I'm concerned: Solidworks now has "chordal fillets", just like Catia V5 and Alias Automotive 2010.
  15. Really cool, that's the second new thing I've learned today. Thank you! However, it is really unfortunate that you are using an old version of Solidworks, because while it works on your example, it doesn't on mine. See, my example is deliberately extremely wavy and twisty (see attached images... I call it "wave surfacing" ) and any surface offset I attempt either self intersects or intersects with the other surface. Now, I instead tried to draw a normal at the center of each surface (using the face curves I've just learned) and move a copy of them using that as a workaround, but even though it to the naked eye looks rather good, when measured it's still off. I'll continue to experiment to see if I can find a correct solution, but again, thank you for all your tips so far!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.