sheet - fold wide radius

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

So I'm waiting for the time to be wrong, but tell me you experts what difference between these 2 identical but different pieces on the corner board?
I press that I use swx 2010 sp4 if not mistaken.
I opened this post because today I found myself doing a similar piece and the air on the corner came of 5mm and I stayed of mer..! I trusted 100% software but from now on I will never do it again!!!! !
I'm waiting for news, thank you.

(who has the 2011 version can create a new file and check if the problem is there too?)

 

[sampom]

So I'm waiting for the time to be wrong, but tell me you experts what difference between these 2 identical but different pieces on the corner board?
I press that I use swx 2010 sp4 if not mistaken.
I opened this post because today I found myself doing a similar piece and the air on the corner came of 5mm and I stayed of mer..! I trusted 100% software but from now on I will never do it again!!!! !
I'm waiting for news, thank you.

(who has the 2011 version can create a new file and check if the problem is there too?)

the result obtained in 2 versions of the model 3d depends on the options you used in the treatment of edge.. and it seems correct.
If by doing the 4 "flanges" I had held a minor game (you left it at 5mm) the spigolo treatment would have been superfluous because the edges would have already approached with only the first operation. . except in the fold zone with wide radius where the edge remains open as you then happened "from the real".

rather:
how (and from which of the 2 versions) did you get the template developed for the cut file?
because to me the flat repetitions are wrong in all 2 cases (also put on the table); it seems that it does not take into account the spigolo treatment not putting the exhaust lacerations and the fold lines are all internal, it would not be possible the bending (before I emphasized the model 3d because that "visually" is correct).
the right figure I can only see it using distendi where the shape has the correct curved grooves. with flattening, placing on the table and export in dwg instead is all wrong.
I've never noticed because I always use knives and quarries for the normal fold "to edge"; the problem arises (amplifies) with wide bent rays.

I haven't tried 2011 yet, I'll do it in the day. .
We wait for mike's answers that have a lot more experience in the industry and in his work he's tried them all a bit.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

So I'm waiting for the time to be wrong, but tell me you experts what difference between these 2 identical but different pieces on the corner board?
I press that I use swx 2010 sp4 if not mistaken.
I opened this post because today I found myself doing a similar piece and the air on the corner came of 5mm and I stayed of mer..! I trusted 100% software but from now on I will never do it again!!!! !
I'm waiting for news, thank you.

(who has the 2011 version can create a new file and check if the problem is there too?)

the best method to perform wide-range folds is to use
the function "flangia corner cuts".
all other solutions need an intervention, as you had to do, to fix those discharges.
also "sheet converts" has that problem, maybe they were designed for ray folds
"standard" and not wide-ranging.
It is important, even using flange corner cuts, which in the tree to the voice
"flat repetition" remove from the "simplify piegature"if not the problem
it turns again, even if in a lesser form (draws the spline that creates to draw the profile).
Trust what you see on the monitor if you've watched the solid, on the monitor,
You'd be immediately aware of that defect.
from my long experience on the sheets, all you see on the monitor (as long as it sticks already in 3d) is how it will be once folded the real piece.
remember that each sheet metal object has its own problem, if it is not the radius, it is the discharge too small, if it is not the radius is perhaps the factor k to "shake" working the harmony with the fold radius that rarely imposed as the real one.
70% of my developments present something in common: the fold radius set at 0.01 mm, sometimes even 0.001 mm regardless of thickness.
comes from if that with such small rays you have to adjust or set by hand
discharges and factors k ad hoc (of which I have the values in a table).
99% of the problems in finding the development of a complex piece, fade as per enchantment.

I hope I helped you.
:finger:

 

[Mike1967]

the result obtained in 2 versions of the model 3d depends on the options you used in the treatment of edge.. and it seems correct.
If by doing the 4 "flanges" I had held a minor game (you left it at 5mm) the spigolo treatment would have been superfluous because the edges would have already approached with only the first operation. . except in the fold zone with wide radius where the edge remains open as you then happened "from the real".

rather:
how (and from which of the 2 versions) did you get the template developed for the cut file?
because to me the flat repetitions are wrong in all 2 cases (also put on the table); it seems that it does not take into account the edge treatment not putting the exhaust lacerations and the fold lines are all internal, it would not be possible to fold (first I emphasized the model 3d because that "visually" is correct).
the right figure I can only see it using distendi where the shape has the correct curved grooves. with flattening, placing on the table and export in dwg instead is all wrong.
I've never noticed because I always use knives and quarries for the normal fold "to edge"; the problem arises (amplifies) with wide bent rays.

I haven't tried 2011 yet, I'll do it in the day. .
We wait for mike's answers that have a lot more experience in the industry and in his work he's tried them all a bit.

greetings
Marco:smile:

removes the tick from "tracing the edge" in flat repetition1

 

[SolidUser]

So I'm waiting for the time to be wrong, but tell me you experts what difference between these 2 identical but different pieces on the corner board?
I press that I use swx 2010 sp4 if not mistaken.
I opened this post because today I found myself doing a similar piece and the air on the corner came of 5mm and I stayed of mer..! I trusted 100% software but from now on I will never do it again!!!! !
I'm waiting for news, thank you.

(who has the 2011 version can create a new file and check if the problem is there too?)

in the 'open sides' file you did not use the 'close angle' option in the 'closed edge' command and in the other yes, so the results are different.

the real result depends on which options you used in 'flat recetition'.

 

[Mike1967]

in the 'open sides' file you did not use the 'close angle' option in the 'closed edge' command and in the other yes, so the results are different.

the real result depends on which options you used in 'flat recetition'.

I quote you in full, but they are too "hidden" options, especially during a
later modification and perhaps by a colleague.
with flange corner cuts you avoid having to add the closure of the corner
and the various options placed in your intervention.
then it is only a matter of how, sometimes, you are forced to draw an object.
not always the fastest system is also the most reliable and less complicated.

 

[sampom]

removes the tick from "tracing the edge" in flat repetition1

Now I feel like I'm a ns. "Dear friend" often present here::
But where does that voice come out or not? ? :smile:

But it seems to me to remember that in past installations I had made "boxes" in sheet of that type and the development with the grooves was correct, without touching anything in the options. that it was set right by default while not anymore?

But now tell me where that is "pigol treatment" in flat repetition.

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

Now I feel like I'm a ns. "Dear friend" often present here::
But where does that voice come out or not? ? :smile:

But it seems to me to remember that in past installations I had made "boxes" in sheet of that type and the development with the grooves was correct, without touching anything in the options. that it was set right by default while not anymore?

But now tell me where that is "pigol treatment" in flat repetition.

greetings
Marco:smile:

Noooooo.... he would have asked me where it was flat repetition1.... hhahahah

dx button on flat repetition1... in the tree... logically.

Yes, it was, but sometimes it made you crazy dumps.

as you wanted to prove. . too many dispersions to achieve a unique result... :biggrin:

 

[sampom]

Noooooo.... he would have asked me where it was flat repetition1.... hhahahah

Here, I feel more and more "he":biggrin:;

dx button on flat repetition1... in the tree... logically.

Yes, I understood and it was logical. Of course, it's the first thing I've done/try. But I don't have that voice in the context, even in the Customize menu..frown:

I worry; Am I accusing and reconciling?

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

Here, I feel more and more "he":biggrin:;

Yes, I understood and it was logical. Of course, it's the first thing I've done/try. But I don't have that voice in the context, even in the Customize menu..frown:

I worry; Am I accusing and reconciling?

greetings
Marco:smile:

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


cmnq: like all functions, even that is editable, then after having
pressed the ts dx, click on the change icon (the first at the top left) in the drop down context menu... Keep me updated!

 

[sampom]

guard:swx 2010 again, eh..

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[sampom]

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


cmnq: like all functions, even that is editable, then after having
pressed the ts dx, click on the change icon (the first at the top left) in the drop down context menu... Keep me updated!

Oh, yeah, man. .
but I had to go in change function. I expected to find the right-handed voice in the first list that appears. .
You see I'm getting back?

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Mike1967]

Oh, yeah, man. .
but I had to go in change function. I expected to find the right-handed voice in the first list that appears. .You see I'm getting back?greetings
Marco:smile:

But no, that's what I supported a few posts back, too many hidden options
They just complicate life.

:finger:

 

[sampom]

Okay, here we go.
but the fact remains that the grooves in table development (but also in 3d) are wrong. missing those roundings that make the edge close once folded.. and should be the error that has found foldtoreswx:But you notice before sending to the cut simply looking at the design: Of course that "right" laceration leaves an open light in the rounded edge.

Mike, you got the right table you posted with flea tagliad?

Hello
marco

 

[sampom]

Okay, okay, okay.

missing to remove the simplify piegature.

And you said that. I was disregarded:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[re_solidworks]

Okay, okay, okay.

missing to remove the simplify piegature.

And you said that. I was disregarded:biggrin::biggrin:

today let it go, everything is quiet, do not replace those who miss the appeal... .

rather I open a parentheses. with the sheets I noticed that the experience is never enough and often, to get to the solution you need to remake the piece sometimes.
I refer in particular to hoppers, for which the convenience between loft-superfici->solido->lamiera and solid->lamiera sheet is different case by case.
right this week I made a hopper 4 times to get the development as I wanted by trying different ways to figure out what swx was intripping. in the particular case I did not get out of the fold lines or could not develop it.
quesot to say that when you leave the sown the approcio to use to get to the solution is not so obvious.

 

[Mike1967]

today let it go, everything is quiet, do not replace those who miss the appeal... .

Muuuhhahahahahahahahah... Today is too much fun the forumme...:biggrin:

king, if I can, place a particular hopper... I've had half a day.
to have the fold lines, but at the end the 50 pieces that we had to build
They came out perfectly.
He thinks we've traced the fold lines with the laser.
If I didn't turn off the pc in the company, place the file.... (team viewer)

 

[Mike1967]

Here, I recovered the file from a backup I had online on mediafire.
the sheet is part of a more complex set of a thermopop and serves
to collect condensation water.
the object is assembled with other sheets, of various shapes, through sald. tig in order to create a water collection and disposal tank.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

then I place the file that represents the boiler cabinet that I personally realized at work where the problem of the spigolo treatment could be solved with your indications. . .
After I remade the same file using the function of "tube structure" and without popping up anything I have a flat repetition that I think is right! (I do the tests by cutting, bending and mating 2 pieces!)

.....is there a general configuration where to keep the 2 variables always popped up or do I have to poke them once and for a time when I need them? I don't want to forget them when I'm in a hurry!! ! ! ! ! ! !

thanks to all for the wonderful support you give on the forum!:finger::finger:




....of course I expect also comments/critical/consile/everything you want on the design of the boiler cabinet!

Bye-bye soon.

 

[Mike1967]

then I place the file that represents the boiler cabinet that I personally realized at work where the problem of the spigolo treatment could be solved with your indications. . .
after I remade the same file using the function of "tube structure" I have a flat repetition that I think is right! (I do the tests by cutting, bending and mating 2 pieces!)

.....is there a general configuration where to keep the 2 variables always popped up or do I have to poke them once and for a time when I need them? I don't want to forget them when I'm in a hurry!! ! ! ! ! ! !

thanks to all for the wonderful support you give on the forum!:finger::finger:




....of course I expect also comments/critical/consile/everything you want on the design of the boiler cabinet!

Bye-bye soon.

beautiful solution with welding function!!

Ocio!
try to remove the tick from "simplify folds", you will notice differences on
ray folds 2.
in this case you can say that they are insignificant, but in other cases they complicate your life at the counter, especially on 1.5 alu or 1 mm stainless steel.
modify that parameter on a piece that then overlaps, at the table, to the one left... natures and you will see the differences.


I have 2 questions:

How come the dimensions at the center of the thickness? is it not sufficent from the outside or inside?

Why do you draw the bent rays?
You will already know that for each single fold you can give it radius and factor k different.

Can you do a test for me (see I no longer have 2010) ?

try to make a different hole, such as a framework hole, in another asola etc... on each wall and put the pieces on the table
developed.
check that the pieces inserted are right, to me it happened that taking one to one the bodies, loaded me on the sheet always the usual.


the version, normal, is a bit too complex in 3d realization.

attached an anti-noise wallpaper contruded by us, in alu. pdf 3d.