There is a basic rule in real life: The minimum internal radius of a sheet cannot be less than the thickness of that sheet. If the sheet is 3 mm, the external radius will always be at least 3+3=6. In reality, this is limited by the sheet metal forming tools and must be taken into account. In modeling, we can have more tolerance and we can make small external radii as long as the internal radius does not reach less than zero, because that is where we will have problems. There are programs that solve this problem by converting values less than 0 into edges or with a very small radius of, for example, 0.1 mm. In fact, I thought that Plasticity did it by converting conflicting internal radii into 0, that is, edges, but it is true that there can be a conflict with the continuity of the adjacent radii or joints. If you keep in mind not to reach internal radii of 0 mm, everything will be fine.
Thanks, this was so helpful - I couldn't figure out what was going wrong when I tried to thicken my geometric shapes. Now I understand I'm asking the software to do the impossible...
You need to make the initial structure and then make the opening separately and then join the two together after. Each need to be their own component and put together like an assembly.. 90% of the time in the real world you wont find the engine shroud made in one piece.. But this is an excellent way to by pass a situation where you just need to make it one piece for a model..
Avoid singularities in modelling. Loft into a point, brrr It pays off to cut the pointy edge couple mm back. So that curves/faces can offset. You showed that in the video. In sheet metal you have to obey the rule of constant material thickness. This rule can easily be overlooked if there is a slight chamfer on one of the edges. If you cut the cone without pinpoint end and SHELL it you will get horizontal edges top and bottom. Edges are not perpendicular to outer walls. Pays off to copy faces and THICKEN them. This way outer edges are allways perpendicular to the walls. Sorry if I tried to be a vise guy. Wasnt my intent. You do great projects 👌💪👏👏👏
That certainly looks a very nice designed nose cone cowling. I run another Parasolid program. I had a L shaped surface with a 2mm radius corner, then I offset the surface 3mm and it ignored that it couldn't make a -1mm ( or negative ) inside rad, producing a solid body with an internal sharp corner - doesn't Plasticity or Fusion do that?
I've been using F360 to model the lugs (joints) between tubes on bicycle frames - the thicken fails a lot also. I chose F360 because I wanted the parametric option to change frame dimensions, and the lugs would just update...yes I'm a silly summer child. Is plasticity any better - i discounted it because of limited parametric options, but it does seem more stable for surfacing/solid commands. Can plasticity do parametric like changes and remain stable? cheers
I feel your pain. Plasticity does Handle surfacing better but it is not parametric. So many say that's a deal killer. I understand that for some projects but for other things creative freedom has to take a backseat to parametric formulas and it feels to me like painting a Picasso with a sledge hammer. Thanks for commenting.
There is a basic rule in real life: The minimum internal radius of a sheet cannot be less than the thickness of that sheet. If the sheet is 3 mm, the external radius will always be at least 3+3=6. In reality, this is limited by the sheet metal forming tools and must be taken into account.
In modeling, we can have more tolerance and we can make small external radii as long as the internal radius does not reach less than zero, because that is where we will have problems. There are programs that solve this problem by converting values less than 0 into edges or with a very small radius of, for example, 0.1 mm.
In fact, I thought that Plasticity did it by converting conflicting internal radii into 0, that is, edges, but it is true that there can be a conflict with the continuity of the adjacent radii or joints.
If you keep in mind not to reach internal radii of 0 mm, everything will be fine.
Thanks for clarifying
Thanks, this was so helpful - I couldn't figure out what was going wrong when I tried to thicken my geometric shapes. Now I understand I'm asking the software to do the impossible...
Thanks for watching!
You need to make the initial structure and then make the opening separately and then join the two together after. Each need to be their own component and put together like an assembly.. 90% of the time in the real world you wont find the engine shroud made in one piece.. But this is an excellent way to by pass a situation where you just need to make it one piece for a model..
Avoid singularities in modelling. Loft into a point, brrr
It pays off to cut the pointy edge couple mm back. So that curves/faces can offset.
You showed that in the video.
In sheet metal you have to obey the rule of constant material thickness. This rule can easily be overlooked if there is a slight chamfer on one of the edges.
If you cut the cone without pinpoint end and SHELL it you will get horizontal edges top and bottom. Edges are not perpendicular to outer walls.
Pays off to copy faces and THICKEN them. This way outer edges are allways perpendicular to the walls.
Sorry if I tried to be a vise guy. Wasnt my intent.
You do great projects 👌💪👏👏👏
Thanks for the comments!
Looks great Rob
@@akschu1 thanks buddy
That certainly looks a very nice designed nose cone cowling.
I run another Parasolid program. I had a L shaped surface with a 2mm radius corner, then I offset the surface 3mm and it ignored that it couldn't make a -1mm ( or negative ) inside rad, producing a solid body with an internal sharp corner - doesn't Plasticity or Fusion do that?
Full Build?
I've been using F360 to model the lugs (joints) between tubes on bicycle frames - the thicken fails a lot also. I chose F360 because I wanted the parametric option to change frame dimensions, and the lugs would just update...yes I'm a silly summer child. Is plasticity any better - i discounted it because of limited parametric options, but it does seem more stable for surfacing/solid commands. Can plasticity do parametric like changes and remain stable? cheers
I feel your pain. Plasticity does Handle surfacing better but it is not parametric. So many say that's a deal killer. I understand that for some projects but for other things creative freedom has to take a backseat to parametric formulas and it feels to me like painting a Picasso with a sledge hammer. Thanks for commenting.
Can you please do a speed run of f16 design nose gear retractable....
I think that is a good idea