coupling 3d

[Marcogeo]

I can't make a 3d plug. I tried in different ways but I can not have full volume effect in the thickness of the terracotta.

I use the rake extusion function.

in the end I would need to learn it to accomplish this

 

[lory.b]

design the two curved profiles: make sure that the two polygons have filling.
now you have two options:
1) multiple extrusion having selected the two profiles.
2) convert them into nurbs, detach them and apply the loft tool.
I do.

 

[pla]

verify that the 2d form (which will probably be a polyline) has a fill color and that it is closed.

 

[Marcogeo]

@lory - I will try but I don't see how to differentiate the radius between the frontal part and the stems

@pla - I did, but in the technical views I do not hold a satisfactory result. a little better in renderings.

 

[lory.b]

try to search on the google warehouse; vw import (except basic!) sketchup files. If you do a search for "coup" and "roof tile" I see that some stuff comes out.http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/to build it from you I recommend method 2. with nurbs you always have better visual results.
I do.

 

[Marcogeo]

Eureka!

last night, 01:37 I identified the method! I have not yet understood any limits but this makes an excellent result.

Here are the steps

front view
arc 2d (without filling)
rake extrusion
view iso
create mould shape
attribute

giving an adequate texture you get a good visual result.

 

[Marcogeo]

There is a limit as to the possibility of changing the object obtained since, changing its thickness varies the figure. the rest of the measures are managed correctly.

 

[Marcogeo]

you get good results also to build other cover elements such as Portuguese tiles.
I hope the suggestion is useful and maybe you tell me the limits you can recognize us.

 

[Marcogeo]

not that this realization is particularly important but your opinion I would like to have it on the contrary.

Have you tried to use the method to see other potential applications?

I'm sorry if I fear you but I'm a primino

 

[lory.b]

the result seems good. did you also try by converting the nurbs profiles and then use the loft tool?
I do.

 

[Marcogeo]

with the method that you indicated I probably wrong something because I made a decent plug but without the volumetric properties or a plug with the volumetric properties but poor visual realism. It seems to me, however, that it should also be restored to remove the bottom (using the filling from the beginning you create a closure fund of the plug).

 

[lory.b]

with the method that you indicated I probably wrong something because I made a decent plug but without the volumetric properties or a plug with the volumetric properties but poor visual realism. It seems to me, however, that it should also be restored to remove the bottom (using the filling from the beginning you create a closure fund of the plug).

Beyond the object in itself quickly, without measurements, you can notice the difference between the plug on the left which is obtained through the multiple extrusion and the right one created with the loft tool. such a difference is known not only in wireframe but also, to look good, in rendering.
I do.

 

[Marcogeo]

a similar result I had obtained but, from the images, it seems to me to understand that the front diameter is equal to the back one while instead the opposite, usually has a form that tends to the conical (pass me the term). Anyway, according to the procedure you gave me, I can't do a good job. I'm hard to understand. :biggrin:
the problem could be put even more in the management of the object. the system I have identified, all in all it allows a good overall management even if it has limits in changing the thickness.

Here's a comparison.

 

[lory.b]

I did it on the fly without taking measures. the diameters are different but you notice little in those views.
However, your result seems valid to me.
Remember to turn it into a symbol, having to place a number on the drawing, I guess.
I do.

 

[Marcogeo]

Okay. Thank you.