extrusion extrusion of extremes

[SolidUser]

Can you explain this to me?
How do you make the rays?

of principle the rays do end up for the reasons that the caddists know.
I attach an image of a banal example to make you understand why uncontrolled and logical modeling can create problems and limitations.
If I had to configure or simplify the piece by suppressing the radius.... even the downstream functions would be suppressed.. and so on an unconditional suppression chain.
another example is that described by mike, the rays in the sketch should be avoided unless special cases.

 

[Mike1967]

of principle the rays do end up for the reasons that the caddists know.
I attach an image of a banal example to make you understand why uncontrolled and logical modeling can create problems and limitations.
If I had to configure or simplify the piece by suppressing the radius.... even the downstream functions would be suppressed.. and so on an unconditional suppression chain.
another example is that described by mike, the rays in the sketch should be avoided unless special cases.

really that connection is son of etrusion1 and not impatta extrusion2.
just quote on a entity that will always be present to avoid the problem.

 

[SolidUser]

really that connection is son of etrusion1 and not impatta extrusion2.
just quote on a entity that will always be present to avoid the problem.

and extrusion2 is the son of the ray.
If you try to suppress the radius, you also suppress extrusion 2.
if the intent is to quote from the outer edges, automatically attacks you to the id of the radius.
This is an example of bad modeling, just to respond to lightning.

 

[Mike1967]

and extrusion2 is the son of the ray.
If you try to suppress the radius, you also suppress extrusion 2.
if the intent is to quote from the outer edges, automatically attacks you to the id of the radius.
This is an example of bad modeling, just to respond to lightning.

open my file and then tell me. :smile:
It was one of the first things I learned. . .

 

[Fulvio Romano]

and extrusion2 is the son of the ray.
If you try to suppress the radius, you also suppress extrusion 2.
if the intent is to quote from the outer edges, automatically attacks you to the id of the radius.
This is an example of bad modeling, just to respond to lightning.

Okay, so I figured it out.
making the rays in the sketch is wrong, but in reality the rays should be done following the production process, regardless of their "suppressibility". At least, I always thought so. However, the idea is good.

 

[SolidUser]

Okay, so I figured it out.
making the rays in the sketch is wrong, but in reality the rays should be done following the production process, regardless of their "suppressibility". At least, I always thought so. However, the idea is good.

often and willingly the rays are on parts obtained from molding.
in that case the production process does not exist, as or go of cam or electro-erosion and the piece is worked in its completeness.
in fact the cams work quietly with imported parts.

I talk about modeling method.
there are unwritten rules that lead to modeling with criterion with undue advantages.
a modeling without criterion, surely leads to problems.
then one is free to do in their own way, but then you do not come to cry because they skip the features or anything.

 

[SolidUser]

open my file and then tell me. :smile:
It was one of the first things I learned. . .

mike... not everyone knows things and they share with the first edge they see. ..especially if you're in a normal view of the sketch and the edge you take is safe that of the ray.
However, this is a trivial example where the solution is located without problems.
but see it as an unwritten rule.
the rays and the sforms must be done at the end...for various reasons.
first you create material and then you take off.
when plastic parts models, see that it becomes difficult to be careful about what you touch and what you have at your disposal.
if one follows these basic rules...the problems will be others.

 

[re_solidworks]

I think the right is a bit in the middle and I find it useful to facilitate both the production and the quality of the modeling. Everything on one side or the other could lead to problems from the inestibility of the model to the impossibility of being able to represent through the configuration the various productive steps of an object.

 

[SolidUser]

And iiiii ', certoooo!:biggrin: and more than once (but do you see that you just don't quit? )

No, you probably don't understand. at the limit is you who could match my solution by reducing your time and removing that surface with face change that is useless (at least in this simple case). .
other than topological (but what do you eat in the morning??? ):biggrin:

greetings
Marco:smile:

I let a little time pass so that the barrel and answer did not deviate from the technical speech I referred to.

I do not want the speech to remain unanswered.

Reconstruction times are in favor of the face replacement, for the reasons I will go to expose you.
Surely as the piece becomes complicated, the replacement makes it even more noticeable its qualities in the context of reconstruction of the model.

the 'replaced face' is considered a 'local operation', which means that the only controls are to match the edges between the existing faces.

Extrusion is a 'global operation', which means that controls towards adjacent geometry and command options lead to greater resolution time.

The example we discussed does not show very well what I mean, but if we were to perform the same operations in a much more complicated part, you will notice even more the difference between the two commands.

 

[sampom]

I let a little time pass so that the barrel and answer did not deviate from the technical speech I referred to.

I do not want the speech to remain unanswered.

Reconstruction times are in favor of the face replacement, for the reasons I will go to expose you.
Surely as the piece becomes complicated, the replacement makes it even more noticeable its qualities in the context of reconstruction of the model.

the 'replaced face' is considered a 'local operation', which means that the only controls are to match the edges between the existing faces.

Extrusion is a 'global operation', which means that controls towards adjacent geometry and command options lead to greater resolution time.

The example we discussed does not show very well what I mean, but if we were to perform the same operations in a much more complicated part, you will notice even more the difference between the two commands.

on, once again forgive me:biggrin:
I no longer wanted to enter this discussion, but now I do it just as a moderator (both well understood, not to "reprove" but to try to make understand).
I don't understand your speech (my limit no doubt) and I think it's even more complicated for those who approach swx.
continue to say that the times are in favor of the substitution do when it is understood that it is not true. and you say it compared to the normal extrusion function, which before the substitution you did too. So until this point the 2 models are equal. after you added a surface with which you replaced the face, while in my example all the modeling had ended there.
therefore in this simple case it seems to me that there is no history; it is useless to add functions that no longer serve anything, because the model is already done. reconstruction is faster and the lighter file, this says the numbers... in addition to being much easier to achieve for those who have not yet chewed the relative surfaces and functions.
undoubtedly it can be useful as an educational exercise to learn the various possibilities of realization, but they are of the idea that the more you do simple things the better is (confirmed above all by statistics).
We look at individual cases and give relative solutions.. who then obviously track the "guidelines", everyone is free to find his system, right?

greetings
Marco:smile: