impossible loft.

[Exatem]

It's not hot or cold.

better cold seen the climate....:tongue:

 

[re_solidworks]

Please don't force me to close.

 

[sampom]

panormus, I guarantee that that tutorial is perfect and very correct! follow him step by step to the letter, and how you have been repeatedly using the right functions di surface; functions that are all suggested and indicated by appropriate "interactive buttons" in the text of the tutorial itself.. You can't be wrong! delete everything and do it from the beginning, without encapsulate you with nothing and especially with anyone! !

 

[re_solidworks]

Hey, guys.

Can you tell me what I'm wrong?
I can't make the surface from loft (see attachment) despite the preview seems to show the correct path.

Before answering, I did the tutorial to the point where you can't move on.
marcof and sampom are right, the tutorial is correct, I just followed it step by step and I arrived in a few minutes to the solution.
you have to use all surface functions from the beginning, in the sup1 image see that the bodies to be joined are all surface and are 6. in the sup2 image you see the combined superifices in one body.

the tutorial should be done from the beginning, if you don't want to do it again to move on and unie the bodies you have to turn the 3 money bodies into 3 surface bodies, to do so you can use the delete face function.

 

[panormus]

thank you for speaking, perhaps with you there is a way to discuss peacefully without comments.

I'm in front of the tutorial,

(I'm on the page whose title is "surface-surface tracks with loft (continuation)", I made loft surfaces as indicated and saved.. Okay? step to the next that it is called "superficie of union - merge the basic entities" and invites me to join, you all the surfaces, but all, says, those that are inside "surface frames" that only 3 (and you are not even adjacent).

I think I have understood, because if I still go forward, the next page (which I attach as page 3) invites me first to fill the surface bound by the 3 lofts and the usual and the figure succeeds me.. .

then I should do as on page two where the surfaces will be more, adjacent and I can join them).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read the moderators' response, here's my mistake, as you pointed out, not using surface commands from the beginning. (what could be said to me like you, with grace.

but I said, asking patience because I am new, that there was no surface card and the loft command I found it under functions.
Who told me there was another card? then clicking on the command of the tutorial appeared to me the tab with the tools commands for mold and superfactory.

I will do it again from the beginning with the controls for surfaces.. That's why Marcof sees six and I 3...

from all this you express an opinion on both and its ways to participate in a forum.

 

[Er Presidente]

you are using the solid loft, for which you have to select a closed area.
you have selected two profiles so you have to use the surface loft, which you find in the surface controls.

That's rude! You don't write these things so raw and without a minimum of "savoire faire"!
If I were a moderator, I'd kick you in the back, you're lucky I'm not.

 

[panormus]

That's rude! You don't write these things so raw and without a minimum of "savoire faire"!
If I were a moderator, I'd kick you in the back, you're lucky I'm not.

? Um...

 

[re_solidworks]

That's rude! You don't write these things so raw and without a minimum of "savoire faire"!
If I were a moderator, I'd kick you in the back, you're lucky I'm not.

If you say so, Mr President, I have to do it:

thank you for speaking, perhaps with you there is a way to discuss peacefully without comments.

I'm in front of the tutorial,

(I'm on the page whose title is "surface-surface tracks with loft (continuation)", I made loft surfaces as indicated and saved.. Okay?

You didn't make a loft surface as indicated, you made a solid loft.

I read the moderators' response, here's my mistake, as you pointed out, not using surface commands from the beginning.

exact! but you can turn solids into surfaces with face clearing, then you will see that it will join you all, you will have a slightly different feature manager with the same final result.

but I said, asking patience because I am new, that there was no surface card and the loft command I found it under functions.
Who told me there was another card?

If we want to be taxable you should have noticed that the icons suggested in the help were not the ones you were using and you had to suspect:wink:. colors are very different just to distinguish them at first glance.

then clicking on the command of the tutorial appeared to me the tab with the tools commands for mold and superfactory.

I will do it again from the beginning with the controls for surfaces.. That's why Marcof sees six and I 3...

from all this you express an opinion on both and its ways to participate in a forum.

apart from all...marcof will have been ungold, but in its "rudi" ways besides never having offended and not having violated any forum rule, it gave you the answers you needed. it has pissed off the dose (without crossing the limit of the regulation for which I don't feel compelled to say anything) at the time when you're squeezed and instead of reasoning on its suggestions you're stubborn to say that the tutorial was wrong.

Now, please, let's not add any further unnecessary controversy.

Good work for everyone.

 

[marcof]

thank you for speaking, perhaps with you there is a way to discuss peacefully without comments.

two moderators have written to you that I am right and that the tutorial is correct, you are wrong and wrong exactly in the points I have too widely described.
do you if it is not the case of commenting, comments of which you have made this post to which I answer...

As for my comments, I assure you that you are looking for them all by insisting on positions that have spent a long time teasing.
You put yourself in the position of the swimmer who is drowning and divincing terrified drowning by risking pulling under the rescuer too. of usual in these cases who is drowning receives from rescuer a pair of ceffons to calm down

I'm in front of the tutorial,
(I'm on the page whose title is "surface-surface tracks with loft (continuation)", I made loft surfaces as indicated and saved.. Okay? step to the next that it is called "superior of union - merge the basic entities" and invites me to join, you all the surfaces, but all, says, those that are inside "surface frames" that only 3 (And you're not and not adjacent).

they say that persevering is evil, and you certainly after the surfaces of your model are not six because you have not yet remade the first three features as surfaces. I explained why and the "percome", but you were obviously too intent to repeat that I had to carefully read the tutorial that didn't come to you (so according to you wrong. . . )

I read the moderators' answer, here's my mistake,

They were enough and advanced my responses so that you could understand the error, and this attitude really does not honor you.

as you pointed out, not using surface commands from the beginning.

Do you think that we're all in here with the nose ring and that we can't read what was written in previous posts?

(what could be said to me like you, with grace)

while I distracted between your requests because I carefully read the tutorials, I wrote this to you:

It's a surface tutorial, it tells you I'd use the surface controls, and you left using sweep and solid lofts. make three separate solid bodies, merge them with three loft surfaces and then claim to merge three separate surfaces. if you do everything with the surfaces the command merges, selecting all surface bodies (as specified with precision in the tutorial at point 3 of the page relative to that part), it works perfectly.

Wasn't he kind enough? I had to put this smile on us :36_3_8:and ask for your hand to follow the sigh?

but I said, asking patience because I am new, that there was no surface card and the loft command I found it under functions.

There's nothing to sell here. problems begin when it happens that someone fails to do something, it explains slowly where he is wrong, but he sustains to sword treats without a crumb of critical spirit that, for example, the tutorial does not come because and wrong. You know, to try to figure out where you were wrong, I had to look carefully at your screen shot at the beginning of the thread so I realized that you were wronging the first three features.
probably for you this is all due...

Who told me there was another card?

Now you also want us to tell you to open the surface commands toolbar while doing a tutorial on surfaces?
Besides, for example, I have always opened it with the other toolbars I use frequently so I can't imagine that you keep it closed. I add that I can't even imagine you doing a surface tutorial using solids. I realized because I wanted to know where you were wrong and give you a hand and I told you.

then clicking on the command of the tutorial appeared to me the tab with the tools commands for mold and superfactory.

When I told you, right away, that you had to use the surfaces you could have made some doubts and try, at least a little, to trust you.

I will do it again from the beginning with the controls for surfaces.. That's why Marcof sees six and I 3...

It seems that you have arrived now because two moderators have written that the tutorial is correct. They also wrote you had to do as I told you. this of the six surfaces, to be selected from the surface body folder etc. is stuff written a nice piece back in the thread.

from all this you express an opinion on both and its ways to participate in a forum.

You can continue on these positions at odds, I follow you. Know that I have no intention of letting you twist your frittata. If you write certain things in public we clarify them in public and in public and well readable must remain (good connoitor few words . . ).
Don't worry about the other users' judgement (maybe you shouldn't, you should do it...), you'd better worry about how you've been in defense of your mistakes, obstinate to not follow my advice that would allow you to make that model in a moment. You wanted to pull the rope and then it touches me, despite, to restore the correct succession of events.

now, if you want to reflect parts of these assumptions uncontestable:1)The tutorial is right
2)You should do exactly as I wrote youwith these premises read my answers, from the first, and we see who, in substance, was unkind, uncooperative and sufficiently arrogant to deserve less, much less, than he received.

I have to tell you again. Before the moderator intervention you already had all the info to complete the tutorial. you only missed the serenity of judgment on your work, a little self-critical and a good dose of that humility you referred to in one of the first piccate answers you sent me.

 

[marcof]

Now, please, let's not add any further unnecessary controversy.

I read only now your answer to panormus because I was dedicated to writing mine, which is not polemic and is not an addition but a clarification indispensable.
I hope you don't think it makes me put in the position where he would paint me panormus without blinking.

apart from everything...marcof will have been slightly garbed

:confused
I wasn't rude and I would have preferred a "maybe" to a "will." I became sarcastic and cutting only after to have received the answers that are under the eyes of all.
but does the consecutio of dialogue still matter in an exchange of written opinions or not?

 

[marcof]

you are using the solid loft, for which you have to select a closed area.
you have selected two profiles so you have to use the surface loft, which you find in the surface controls.

That's rude! You don't write these things so raw and without a minimum of "savoire faire"!
If I were a moderator, I'd kick you in the back, you're lucky I'm not.

Caxxo, you're right! I should have written it in French on parchment with the goose pen, after wearing a livery from lacché, red and edged in lace, with white silk socks and black paint shoes with bow and golden fibbione:smile:

 

[panormus]

Well, I don't have much time to answer fiscally as you always do..
and the fact that you suggested that I had to use the solid loft did not clarify that from the beginning I had to use them.

As for the shin, I think anyone who felt that he would turn in a little garbate and provocative manner would be annoyed.

If a tutorial had a mistake I don't see a drama at all, on the contrary I would consider it rather than criticize it, could it be no?

Humility is to admit that there is no mistake in the tutorial (it seems to me that it has already done it but you did not understand it and continue to quote) because the error is upstream, but this has not been told, and it was not necessary to encapsulate on saying the tutorial is correct and wrong, but to make me understand the error.

his ways, if I had been moderator I would certainly have laughed, because the shape is very important, I could not be insistent if the regress I thought was correct and so I did not see the surfaces, let's face this. on icons, I have seen better the difference, but for a profane, (for you now that you are accustomed it is easy to notice it) can escape.

I said this close, it seems to me that you have supported the polemic of the friend marcof (who is continuing undaunted for your softness and tolerance), when I did not argue but I defend myself from continuous accusations.

Anyway, it's closed here for me, I hope my friend marcof doesn't get into my future posts if not with the necessary ways.

thanks to you I performed the tutorial.

 

[sampom]

panormus, I invite you not to worry about the work of moderators or even less to sit on their judgment. this not to test (what you define) our <<morbidezza e="" tolleranza="">>.
learn how to read (and understand) all from the beginning, both user interventions in the forum (interventions just and exclusively to help you!) and the trivial instructions of the tutorials.

If you still need you know that here anyone is willing to help and suggest. . without any obligation of course; if you do not like certain interventions (because maybe you are not particularly "predisposed") then do not even ask. here everyone can ask and respond freely.

with this I would really like the "polemic" to be closed! we go ahead with work and do well sti benedetti tutorials.</morbidezza>

 

[Mike1967]

Caxxo, you're right! I should have written it in French on parchment with the goose pen, after wearing a livery from lacché, red and edged in lace, with white silk socks and black paint shoes with bow and golden fibbione:smile:

Marcof... You can't write such things!
By reading and imagining how you'd be like a bard, I burst out laughing like a jerk and my partner has been teasing me for half an hour...:biggrin:

 

[panormus]

so the error is only mine that I made a human error, of which later I was told how to continue and not to have understood that I had to correct even the beginning.

So the friend acted well without mistakes?
I say that as acquaintances you discover and I am very sorry.
But someone has just alluded to a little graceful ways.

But I have been able to recognize my error behind the moderators' intervention and say it, but our strong friend of your support thinks he has made no mistakes.
I say if I had answered like him, you would have banished me.
I wrote 250 post on catia in total serenity and coexistence, a pity not to be able to say the same thing. in a free country I felt like saying mine.
greetings

 

[marcof]

If a tutorial had a mistake I don't see a drama at all, on the contrary I would consider it rather than criticize it, could it be no?

certainly it is not a drama, and in fact I took it into consideration, only that the error was yours and not the tutorial so I told you. Everything here

Humility is to admit that there is no mistake in the tutorial (cut) because the error is upstream, but this has not been told, and it was not necessary to encapsulate on saying the tutorial is correct and wrong, but to make me understand the error.

Are you kidding me? ? as it would be "not told me"
I wrote this to you in post #16:

It's a surface tutorial, Tells you to use surface controls and you left using solid sweep and loft. make three separate solid bodies, merge them with three loft surfaces and then claim to merge three separate surfaces. if you do everything with the surfaces the command joins, selecting all surface bodies (as specified accurately in the tutorial at point 3 of the page relative to that part), works perfectly.

Can't you read?
Now we're in post #35 and you still tell me that I didn't tell you how to do it to run that tutorial correctly?
Tell me, at this point, what should I answer

I couldn't be insistent if the regress I thought was correct and so I didn't see the surfaces, let's face this.

You couldn't think it was correct when I wrote you what is reported in red above, so of the three: or you don't read what you write or don't understand or ignore it.
I also needed a little time to figure out where you were wrong the second time, as soon as I realized I marked it. you from post 16 onwards preferred to keep pretending that you weren't pointing out the solution repeatedly.

Anyway, it's closed here for me, I hope my friend marcof doesn't get into my future posts if not with the necessary ways.

I don't "inspire" me. I intervene trying to make my contribution. I then add that the ways, in my posts I decide them according to what they answer me, do a reason
to you, the contribution, I gave it in abundance, confirm it to you all those who read and wrote and above all confirm it to you the successful tutorial, done following exactly what I had already written to you in the middle of this thread.

About the phrase about theinsinuarsi in addition to those on me problems give twine the forum, south not lower yourself to my level, the fact that I would zizzania, wasting words like a desperate, sul mio ham fare polemica etc.
I highly recommend you try to understand the meaning of what you write, perhaps neglecting the form and focusing on the substance. It may also happen to you to stop as if you want to offend your interlocutors by treating them as poor fools.
another big advantage in writing I understand the meaning of words that you use is that you will avoid in the future responses like those that, mind well, I haven't given you. but you're "near like fat cotenna"

to end up conculdo with this: the humility you were talking about should have recommended a "thank you" after post n°16 where everything was explained and finally should have advised you to apologize. But you know, to apologize in public, I want my balls.

 

[Er Presidente]

. .
and the fact that you suggested that I should use the solid loft It didn't make me clear that from the beginning I had to use them.
...

Tell me I read bad and I didn't understand anything, because now my head turns.
:biggrin:

 

[Er Presidente]

...

with this I would really like the "polemic" to be closed! we go ahead with work and do well sti benedetti tutorials.

I agree! Just that you had me consume 150 neurons to follow the whole speech and my age every neuron counts!

p.s.: Let me moderate for only 15 days, not more, and I will solve the problem of "tolerance"...:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Er Presidente]

Caxxo, you're right! I should have written it in French on parchment with the goose pen, after wearing a livery from lacché, red and edged in lace, with white silk socks and black paint shoes with bow and golden fibbione:smile:

but also with the lace handkerchief held in the palm though! :smile:

 

[Er Presidente]

...
Are you kidding me? ? as it would be "not told me"
I wrote this to you in post #16:
...

You have a wrong way of ports when you explain.
I am forced to raise a strong criticism of your methodology.
If you want, I'll send you a pm with instructions to be exhaustive and simultaneously more incisive in yours, however valid, explanations.