model fuselage aeromodel

[marcof]

you are perfectly right, this was a test, a draft to probe the ground (usually use autocad for printed circuit boards and some solid but regular forms, you can say it was a first time). .

As for caia I have expired the student version and I have to provide. . .

Sorry, I figured out from your first message that you "projected" with catia and inventor so I assumed you could use them.

However, it is not really horrible if you look at it on the left side you can hardly notice anything:biggrin:

I'd say it's horrendous anywhere you look at it:redface: and that curling in the roof area should immediately let you delete the feature because obviously the surface failed. Since you are completely fasting of modeling of complex surfaces and above all well-finished were in you I would allocate temporary f16 and I would spend better time to understand how to work with surfaces. a smooth bottle, to leave, enough and "superkey" :wink:

 

[Christian76]

♪
Don't be discouraged.
Try again.
I'm not a loft expert.
But prove how I suggested you separate the parts that make up the plane.

loft operation anyway should be unique, just to avoid edges; prepare all plans with sketches, and then with a single command execute the operation.:finger:

 

[diegus]

I have only one advice to give you: in modeling, with surfaces or solids, complex shapes always try to break the surface in simple forms. I explain, the fuselage you want to do is extremely complex and surely you can't get it in one shot by joining the sections, which you got from the triptych, with a single loft (e.g., the roof should definitely be done after pulling the carlinga, the air intake idem). do so many lofts of elementary forms that then go to cut vice versa to get the final form.
ps: all the appendixes, of course, are always done apart and then joined and collected.

 

[Maverick85]

I would almost do it well (in the end I just need to make a mold and I doubt the machine is so precise in the details...) I just want to understand why in the part where the air in the upper part begins (the part of the cupolino) to the left side instead of aligning towards the center does it down creating the scempio. .
then I should shape a bit the crushing tip where the dome starts there is a special function to use after the loft or should I always act first, if you like?

thanks to everyone really, you are much more educational than many teachers. . .

 

[Christian76]

8.
then I should shape a bit the crushing tip where the dome starts there is a special function to use after the loft or should I always act first, if you like?

thanks to everyone really, you are much more educational than many teachers. . .

I think I understand what you mean.
keep in mind that the loft passes from one section to another.
that I know, from circle diameter 100 to diameter 200 makes a cone and you calculate alone the intermediate steps.
same thing for other forms, so it is up to you to add or remove sections based on what you want to get (and how :d)
maybe solve by adding a section

 

[Maverick85]

I would almost do it well (in the end I just need to make a mold and I doubt the machine is so precise in the details...) I just want to understand why in the part where the air in the upper part begins (the part of the cupolino) to the left side instead of aligning towards the center does it down creating the scempio. .
then I should shape a bit the crushing tip where the dome starts there is a special function to use after the loft or should I always act first, if you like?

thanks to everyone really, you are much more educational than many teachers. . .

I forgot the result. . .

 

[marcof]

I forgot the result. . .

I hope you'll take what I say to you as constructive.
It's completely to remake, but just to remake starting from scratch and encourage you to continue in this way is imho for you diseducative and source of great loss of time
there are errors in each where, and if I see them from a pdf3d let alone analyzing the file. there are longitudinal lines in the junctions between the right and left side that should not be, curlings like the one behind the roof that indicate profiles 2d designed in mdo such that in the loft the directions intersect (eg a spline drawn from sin towards dx that connects to a drawing in the opposite direction).
I don't understand why, since you do this for passion or fun, you don't try to do it as a rule of art.
doing that fuselage for lofts of complete sections is the most complicated road, unless you use many driving curves, on a cad as a cad and not of course inventor, and knowing how to use it very well

 

[Maverick85]

I hope you'll take what I say to you as constructive.
It's completely to remake, but just to remake starting from scratch and encourage you to continue in this way is imho for you diseducative and source of great loss of time
there are errors in each where, and if I see them from a pdf3d let alone analyzing the file. there are longitudinal lines in the junctions between the right and left side that should not be, curlings like the one behind the roof that indicate profiles 2d designed in mdo such that in the loft the directions intersect (eg a spline drawn from sin towards dx that connects to a drawing in the opposite direction).
I don't understand why, since you do this for passion or fun, you don't try to do it as a rule of art.
doing that fuselage for lofts of complete sections is the most complicated road, unless you use many driving curves, on a cad as a cad and not of course inventor, and knowing how to use it very well

Maybe we didn't understand or I felt bad. .
I am here for the simple purpose of "learning" I accept every negative species of yours, indeed... I would suffer from presumption if it wasn't so...
I used cad to design in 2d electrical circuits and at most studs as 3d mechanical parts that I could make with the simple 2d to 3d or buildings. .
I tried to combine my passion for modeling to this world to learn and improve the study of complex structures, noting that it is not simple. . .
I've seen something wrong with me, but I don't understand why...
I don't know if with inventor it is possible to correct those defects, I hope and I believe that catia will be operational again in week, and there will really start from 0...
cmq reiterate are here for criticism and straight on how to correct errors.. .
thanks to the attention and time dedicated to me. . .

 

[Christian76]

I am of opinion very much different,
In my view, it's a good way to learn.
Also because if you keep doing the f16, you put all the effort on it, and try them all, and you experience it, if you start drawing by grades, first the circle then the tube then... I've already broken up writing them figuratively to draw them. . .

Then there's someone who's good at following classes read books... There are those who find themselves better "setting"
My advice is to continue, then maybe try again with casket

 

[Fulvio Romano]

You can get to a certain level, no more.
to go further you have to know the theory, and this is done with manuals, with courses, or simply observing someone who "has craft" (I followed the last path).

 

[Christian76]

You can get to a certain level, no more.

not in all fields.
remaining in this, I think it depends on the final goal.
and in this case I don't need any classes, but want to try.
I mean, you know what?

If it's time for him to go further in this field, he'll probably follow his career path like everyone else.

I can't believe

 

[Fulvio Romano]

not in all fields.
remaining in this, I think it depends on the final goal.
and in this case I don't need any classes, but want to try.
I mean, you know what?

If it's time for him to go further in this field, he'll probably follow his career path like everyone else.

I can't believe

I don't agree, but you know, the ideas are like the pa00e... every one has their own. :tongue:

 

[Maverick85]

I am of opinion very much different,
In my view, it's a good way to learn.
Also because if you keep doing the f16, you put all the effort on it, and try them all, and you experience it, if you start drawing by grades, first the circle then the tube then... I've already broken up writing them figuratively to draw them. . .

Then there's someone who's good at following classes read books... There are those who find themselves better "setting"
My advice is to continue, then maybe try again with casket

this is precisely the point, drawing balls tubes etc. is quite natural then being such you do not have the stimulus to work on it for changes. . .
with things like that (at least in my case) it seems all lighter, you do it with passion and spend hours of times even noticed to try to solve small problems, often without result, but at least I have slew for a long time without making me pass the desire.. .
the courses for a student are a little honest, time to follow someone I don't have, unless you give me night time (instead of so many reality courses like that on TV would be much better in my opinion):biggrin:.. .
I will try to add other sections and in the week with catia, but it will pass them by time before an acceptable solid emerges. . .
Thanks again

 

[Maverick85]

remade by adding a few sections. . .
I could not model it in a single block as in the sections where manual corrections (part of the cabin) more than 2 sections at a time did not let me work.. .I can't do it myself or actually with inventor in max 2 sections at a time?
I know it is not the best, but maybe at work finished would go out so the mold (then in the eyes of experts I know it will make horror). . .

tips for corrections?
I've restored catia, but I see it long for a draft.

Recommended comments

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Sorry to excuse me, but...no. We really don't.
if you add intermediate sections do not improve the situation. That's not how he shapes himself.

Are you first using surfaces? try not to reason for sections, but for pieces of surface. theoretical surfaces are often larger than real ones, then they are cut.
add continuity between surfaces. add continuity even on the symmetry plane.

search for some tutorials, not necessarily inventor, even alias, rhino, or any other program. It's the concept you need to acquire, not the knowledge of commands.
search on youtube, there should be a lot of stuff.

 

[PierArg]

search for some tutorials, not necessarily inventor, even alias, rhino, or any other program. It's the concept you need to acquire, not the knowledge of commands.
search on youtube, there should be a lot of stuff.

quoting in full.

I suggest you see tutorials on youtube of a certain dicksham on surface modeling in catia v5

 

[Maverick85]

Sorry to excuse me, but...no. We really don't.
if you add intermediate sections do not improve the situation. That's not how he shapes himself.

Are you first using surfaces? try not to reason for sections, but for pieces of surface. theoretical surfaces are often larger than real ones, then they are cut.
add continuity between surfaces. add continuity even on the symmetry plane.

search for some tutorials, not necessarily inventor, even alias, rhino, or any other program. It's the concept you need to acquire, not the knowledge of commands.
search on youtube, there should be a lot of stuff.

That's the kind of comment I was trying to make mistakes without saying where it's not very educational. . .
I tried with inventor to give continuity, but as already said modeling it manually came out well but at confirming me it gave error.. .
the addition of sections was just to crush the tip otherwise it made me a single block with the cockpit. . .
I'll do it again by working the cabin apart, it should be enough as I think the back half looks good, right?
Thank you. .

 

[Maverick85]

quoting in full.

I suggest you see tutorials on youtube of a certain dicksham on surface modeling in catia v5

Okay... also because in the week I try with ca...
Thank you.

 

[diegus]

keep burning:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuewil3cbw&feature=related

 

[Maverick85]

keep burning:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwuewil3cbw&feature=related

I saw the video and how I imagined I had to work more, extrapolate the different forms.. .
I did it. I isolated the cockpit of the cockpit and the air vent channel.
the only problem (as you notice) I had to make some sections in the part of the cabin as in the modeling during the manual correction went in crasch the program...I was killing then I read that it was not due to my incompetence but to the program itself, in fact they released a sp1 update that should solve this and other problems. . .
cmq apart from that and therefore the continuity in that area seems to me that we are at least with my eyes and studying the photos...
your opinion?
I don't want to be slaughtered.
Thanks again