create very irregular solid

[Tristan]

with loft creates a surface, not a solid, with superfluous close the top, union of the two surfaces then thicken. . .

Okay, so I figured it out. The application is: what do I need to create the surface?

but you read all the messages or go random?

 

[edoberna]

I thought it was a statement! ! !
in the sense that the loft command creates a surface not a solid (and in fact I even felt to correct gp)!
We have a pitiful veil on grammar understanding!

 

[edoberna]

However even with the surface the object intersects itself with any value

 

[edoberna]

solved

I gave offset to the polylines used for the loft and created another solid that I hid from that mother.

Thank you very much for your help and patience!

 

[Tristus]

la application is: what I need to create the surface

the answer is to create a form that would otherwise be impossible to build through solids (or too complicated). so we build guidelines to wrap up with that thin skin we call surface.
when with the "parallelepipedo" command we build a cube, this will actually consist of 6 square surfaces that the program catalogs as solid.
the cad programs do us favor to consider it solid, but in fact it is a figure with 6 square surfaces (empty inside). When we go for a bolean subtraction, the program recreates the surfaces that close the hole caused by subtraction, so that we have the feeling of working on a full material.

In your case you need to work with the surfaces, then wanting you can thicken the figure or fill it by creating a closing surface above and one below, and with the command sculpt it into solid.

I reexhumed this post of 2015 because I wanted to deepen on the surfaces, and I wonder why autocad is so demanding when there is to use the command sculpt. I did a lot of evidence, and not always the operation succeeded me. But I realized that much depends on the criterion on which the surfaces are created.
I saw that rhino works a lot more loosely while autocad is more demanding.

 

[Tristan]

I saw that rhino works a lot more loosely while autocad is more demanding.

simply autocad was born as a solid modeler then "in some way converted" to modeler (also) of surfaces with some lighter; rhinoceros is a software that is born for modeling cloud surfaces

 

[Tristus]

looking at some tutorials I have seen that rhino has a very interesting tool that allows to correct non-hermetic mesh. in addition to a whole series of tools that autocad does not have, and for which, with autocad, you have to arrive through cross paths (not all functions).
I'm trying the rhino demo, but I have to say I can't get the same mastery I have with autocad, but it's clearly just a matter of practice.

However, with a little extra attention even with autocad you can manage surfaces. Now I would like to try to reproduce the same exercise with rhino.