Is there really much purpose to learning surfacing?

[ddrichards]

Most every place I've worked the, use of "surfacing" is discouraged or out right forbidden. The issue appears to be that the losers who were employees at the time the company went to a 3D CAD program either weren't able, or willing to put in the effort to learn, so instead of exposing their incompetence they tell management surfacing should be avoided and the only purpose for "surfacing" is for automobile bodies. Of course those who have learned surfacing know how ridiculous that position really is. I was even told by a manager in Rockford that surfaces aren't parametric, how absurd is that! One of the fools working there would select on a surface in the model tree and look to select modify or edit! I think these people are totally screwing their employers as well as co-workers with this self serving behavior, as well as being shamelessly unethical.

What's your opinion and experience?

 

[silverado8405]

I think surfacing has its purposes and should be learned. That being said I think it is absolutely insane to use surfaces for everything as it adds more operations to the model tree with the merge/solidify operations to turn a set of surfaces into a solid. I've seen models where they were using surfaces to make simple bosses with draft that could have very easily been made with the extrude command and saved them 2-3 lines in the tree.

To sum up my rant, use the surfaces when needed and simpler operations otherwise, the downstream guy will thank you when he goes to sort it out.

 

[ddrichards]

One aspect that a LOT of people miss is that there's also a Design Process involved, unless you're modeling something from a drawing. I personally find a great deal more flexibility during the Design Process with surfaces, meaning I have more options available to me later in the design process as it develops. If you've learned how to control references, surfaces can be far more robust. It is true that it can be a bit more difficult at times to make major changes because surfacing does use more features, but with surfacing you can work with the actual shapes/geometry you're looking to create without making it a puzzle of solid features which can also be very difficult to make modifications to. There's really nothing worse than a whole bunch of extrusions and a ton of cuts, to get the desired geometry, these models are very prone to failures. Sure, as in hind sight, after the design has been created and released, it's easy to say it could have been "modeled" using solids or more solid features, but you can seldom know all of the developments and changes that took place during the Design Process.
Silverado's response misses my main point which could very well be my fault with the title I wrote. What I was really talking about is in the main body of what I wrote.

 

[Jacoolo]

if solids are enough to finish the task, who cares?

I think surfacing is the only 20 or 30% part of whole areas Pro/E is used. Solids rule this world and it is not going to be changed any time soon.

Sad, because otherwise I would get more job opportunities, maybe better paid, to sell my skills

 

[jdurston007]

Surfacing has been really useful for me in creating unusual plastic, sheet metal and fabric parts. Also, it's been great for adding logos to parts (starting from sketch features). I have used it to flatten sheet metal parts that wont flatten with the normal tools. You can use it to more easily do large patterns and reduce regeneration time as well. So, it is definitely worth learning & using.

 

[dr_gallup]

Of course surfacing has it's uses, for everything you can't do with solids alone. However, if you are making typical machined shapes that solids can easily do then surfacing is just a lot of extra steps with no benefit. I highly dissuade the use of surfaces just to be using surfaces. I have never seen a surface model that was even remotely as easy to work with as a good solid.

 

[dross]

In my line of work, I've fairly seldom found the need for surfaces. Therefore, I'm not very good with them due to lack of practice.

 

[mgnt8]

I design plastics so I wouldn't be able to do my job very easily without boundary blends and ISDX.
Having said that, Jeff Howard proved years ago that judicious and strategic combinations of equations, relations, Variable Section Sweeps, and Swept Blends can do anything surface features can do.

 

[Iven Di]

I do industrial design of consumer electronics, I use surfaces literally 100% of the time. Especially in older versions of proe where you can't unsolidify, working in solids from the start can really screw you over.

I consider solid modelling to be 'for newbs'', There's nothing I can't do better with direct drawing curves and blends.

 

[ddrichards]

I'm not familiar with the proof you're referring to, do you have a link I can use to see what you're talking about?
My opinion is that is that this is "primarily" a Design Tool, so it's about developing a design and all the likely iterations and modifications that will probably entail. I think what you're referring to has more to do with duplicating/modeling something that already exists. There are far better ways to deal with the termination of features within surfacing, than there are with just solids, and all of the judicious and strategic combinations you're referring to can be rather complex and time consuming, which is what they're usually trying to avoid with the use of surfacing. The other point I was making, is that surfacing can often be more robust when making modifications such as changing dimensions. It has been my experience that the type of modeling you're talking about is less robust and prone to failures when making modifications and modifying dimensions.

 

[kwooster]

mgnt8,
Are you suggesting that ALL modeling should be done using solids? I don't think it makes much sense when working with mostly prismatic solids (machines parts, etc.), sheetmetal, structural materials (tubing, angle iron, etc.). I just don't see a purpose for surfacing in those areas. I agree that if you are doing very much with organic shapes and complicated geometries, surfacing is likely the better tool, but I just don't think it's the right tool for everything.

I will admit that I am not very good with surfaces. I can almost manage them in SW, haven't spent much time with them in WF or Creo, but because of the nature of the parts that I design, I just don't have much need for it. I have found in SW that some sheetmetal designs work better when started with a surface and then converted, but that had more to do with some missing functionality within the blend sheetmetal tool.

I'm willing to be wrong, if you can show that surfaces are a faster/better way to do any part, maybe I'll change my mind!

 

[mgnt8]

mgnt8,
Are you suggesting that ALL modeling should be done using solids?

No, I just said that anything you can do with surfaces, you can also do with solids. What you choose to do is your own business. There are obviously other considerations besides the utility of a certain feature compared to another feature.

 

[Geneg]

The only reason to buy PTC CAD is for surfacing features.
If you can live without using surfaces, you probably be better off with Solidworks.
I am in consumer product design and use surfaces 100% in top-down skeleton design.