error in the command "inspection"

[Ste_d]

Good morning to all

I'm recreating a classy exercise regarding creating a solid through surfaces. Now I was trying to remake it step by step but I got stuck because of a solidworks error still giving me... I practically combined the surfaces with the "unisci" command and I was trying to thicken everything. only that the command "experiment" continues to give me error with any thickness "impossible to thicken the surface". The good thing is that in class I've got everything straight! Do you have any idea what the problem is?
I attach both files, the complete one and what I am doing (use sw 2011).

Thank you in advance :finger:

 

[Oldwarper]

If you have a point of discontinuity in the surfaces, you don't thicken them. I don't have swx2011, but the reason is definitely that.
try to make a connection on the conjunction edge of the unit surface. If he does, then there's a problem of continuity.
or try to increase/decrease the seam tolerance.

 

[Ste_d]

thank you very oldwarper!!! There was a mistake in a sketch that was on board for a surface where it was slightly open. I found it thanks to "verification" in the "evaluating" section gave me a lot of errors and open surfaces that I could not see. Thank you again, I solved!

 

[SolidUser]

I have seen your piece and in addition to showing you what you discovered, as you will see your thickening turns out ugly.
1) put reference lines with tangency bond as from allega image, but the reifering lines must be normal on the plane you will use for symmetry.
2) use the splines, the surface would look more beautiful, you can convert the lines and look for the spline, with the command optimizes spline.
3) planar surfaces, you can create them with sketches and edges at the same time, avoid converting the edges, creating them an optimized line without you notice, making the result worse.

 

[Ste_d]

thanks soliduser, however, to tell you the truth the prof taught us (cite) "even the more complex curves can be paired with simple circle arches avoiding having to use the splines". What is the advantage of converting my curves to a spline? does not everything remain identical to before in terms of surface? The only thing I noticed is that the whole curve becomes a single line without the division into arches.
I didn't understand what you mean...

I thank you, however, for your useful remarks!

 

[re_solidworks]

thanks soliduser, however, to tell you the truth the prof taught us (cite) "even the more complex curves can be paired with simple circle arches avoiding having to use the splines". What is the advantage of converting my curves to a spline? does not everything remain identical to before in terms of surface? The only thing I noticed is that the whole curve becomes a single line without the division into arches.
I didn't understand what you mean...

I thank you, however, for your useful remarks!

I think if you model us a body shop of a car with lines and arches turns out a slightly approximate design... Let's say it might seem cut with the dark!

 

[marcof]

thanks soliduser however to tell you the truth the prof taught us (cite) "even the more complex curves can be matched with simple circle arches avoiding having to use the splines"

do surfaces with curves composed of arcs?
but rotfl!!

to your professor on my part that you return to autocad 1.0, which is also too sophisticated. . .

 

[Ste_d]

I think if you model us a body shop of a car with lines and arches turns out a slightly approximate design... Let's say it might seem cut with the dark!

Okay, I get it. but the doubt remains to me: if I convert my spline curves as suggested by soliduser changes something in terms of surface? However to me the thickening is not bad, indeed it seems smooth and very regular like the surface. Let's say that for this geometry there was enough such a modeling, without pulling the splines... then it is clear that for more complex surfaces should be used if you want to achieve a good result.

 

[SolidUser]

Okay, I get it. but the doubt remains to me: if I convert my spline curves as suggested by soliduser changes something in terms of surface? However to me the thickening is not bad, indeed it seems smooth and very regular like the surface. Let's say that for this geometry there was enough such a modeling, without pulling the splines... then it is clear that for more complex surfaces should be used if you want to achieve a good result.

attach your thickened file and then I answer all your doubts.

 

[SolidUser]

Okay, I get it. but the doubt remains to me: if I convert my spline curves as suggested by soliduser changes something in terms of surface? However to me the thickening is not bad, indeed it seems smooth and very regular like the surface. Let's say that for this geometry there was enough such a modeling, without pulling the splines... then it is clear that for more complex surfaces should be used if you want to achieve a good result.

within the design, of which you are making a handle model, there are 4 types of curvature:
1) no tangency (c0)
2) classical tangency as can be line and arc (c1)
3) continuous bending tangency, obtainable by spline (c2)
4) continuous bending tangency much more finer (c3)

I attach you two images that make you understand the difference between your c1 (tangence between lines and arches) and the c2, obtained by spline.
You could surely disagree, given the low difference between the two methodologies, but at an aesthetic and reflection level, for those seeking style objects, it is important.
This type of tangency, in addition to making the pieces more beautiful at the aesthetic level, in the automotive and in the aircraftspace, this brings a remarkable aerodynamic improvement and problems of turbulence.

 

[Ste_d]

within the design, of which you are making a handle model, there are 4 types of curvature:
1) no tangency (c0)
2) classical tangency as can be line and arc (c1)
3) continuous bending tangency, obtainable by spline (c2)
4) continuous bending tangency much more finer (c3)

I attach you two images that make you understand the difference between your c1 (tangence between lines and arches) and the c2, obtained by spline.
You could surely disagree, given the low difference between the two methodologies, but at an aesthetic and reflection level, for those seeking style objects, it is important.
This type of tangency, in addition to making the pieces more beautiful at the aesthetic level, in the automotive and in the aircraftspace, this brings a remarkable aerodynamic improvement and problems of turbulence.

perfect, now I understand the difference and also the purpose of what you wrote before! I attach the thickened and mirrored file (as I have to work the 2 male and female half of the handle)

 

[SolidUser]

perfect, now I understand the difference and also the purpose of what you wrote before! I attach the thickened and mirrored file (as I have to work the 2 male and female half of the handle)

I wanted to answer you with your file, but I realized it didn't change anything, because with pictures you would still understand.
follow the directions of the professor, what we have written and for your greater knowledge.

 

[Ste_d]

I wanted to answer you with your file, but I realized it didn't change anything, because with pictures you would still understand.
follow the directions of the professor, what we have written and for your greater knowledge.

thanks again for the availability :finger:

 

[erik.bo]

ciao a tutti,

solid come sempre sei esaustivo...e le immagini rendono abbastanza l'importanza della riflessione (specie nella carrozzeria). me l'hanno spiegato ma sicuramente solid sai spiegarla meglio di me...

visto che è uno studente gli si potrebbe dare l'imboccata anche matematica in riferimento ai tipi di spline e alle curve di n grado....

io non ne so niente, me l'hanno solo accennato ma mi è parso un collegamento esaltante!

lascio a chi ne sa piu di me.