Really need help to improve this model!

[bigconsultant]

Hi,

I have having trouble modifying the attached part to the
new required specification

The file is here
http://thebigconsultant.com/downloads/Multi Part Moul
d%20Iss2.1E.zip

The problems are:-
- I need to resize it
- Rebuild errors, and very slow rebuilds
- Complexity of model

I am now strongly thinking that I need to redraw the
product from scratch. This may be quicker, and also make
the model more elegant and easier to use, and adjust.

I think that the main problems that I have come from the
very way the model was built, using the surface lofts
right in the early stages. There has always been a
problem with the surfacing at the front and rear curves
where they join at the extreme front and rear.

This has had knock on effects, and it taking up too much
time. Also, the rebuilds are now horrendous. And I am
running quad core at 3.8Ghz with 8GB ram!

I think that I need to look at a radical new redraw.
Maybe using features differently from the off, that will
provide more consistent and reliable results. However, I
do wish to keep the exact same shape and profile.

I think that this will be important for the production
issue, also. As this is a prototype. I will need to
easily make changes to draft and other details. So I
think a new model, looking the same, but drawn
differently is mandatory.

I am especially thinking that the "surface lofts" right
at the beginning are causing problems. With surface lots
the geometry seems very 'ragged' at the extreme front and
rear. This requied patching, and in fact I think "surface
lofts" might often experience this problem.

I am looking for a method to completely redraw quickly,
and neatly, and maybe suggestion of a new way to draw
this exact same shape, but without using surface lofts
maybe? It has led to many rebuild problems when I edit,
and I think I need an elegant new basis, to achieve the
same effect. But in less steps, and more reliably!

Please could anyone advise?

Kind regards,
John Biddleston

 

[bigconsultant]

18_073333_screenshot.jpg">

I came across the excellent
http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/ which mentioned that
some surfacing functions are limited and can cause knit
problems. And I think I was given the wrong information
by my VAR to use "Surface-Lofts" to build this. I am new
to surfacing, although I have used SW for 10 years, the
workflow is very very different (and harder) than solid
modelling.

My frantic browsing of the internet led me to the
suspicion, further, that I should have build it maybe by
bisecting the shape into 8 'quaters' and maybe using a
combination of "boundary surfaces" and/or "fill surfaces"
to make the initial bare bones of the model if you will.
This might then provide a better and more sound set of
'thickened' bodies, that shell and thicken correctly, and
moreover I can then add other features to, and extrude up
to, for example, without problems. With this one, any
change to the parametrics and history causes rebuild
chaos. And its like fighting fire. It takes me too long
to undertake any changes, and I think that I the original
surfacing that I did may be fundamentally flawed.

My problem now is to remake the model quickly and
elegantly, maybe using another surfacing method, other
than 'loft'. It seems that some surfaces are better than
others, and some are more 'guessed' by the parametric
software. This can cause gaps in the knit, and maybe the
horrendous problems that I am having? My problem is now,
that I do not understand fully which is better, boundry
or fill surface, and there is not much info that I can
find on this. My VAR seems to not know how to approach
this, which I think is a little odd. But anyway, I think
I need to plan a more simple and elegant surface method,
which I can then quickly thicken and add the appropriate
features and internal fittings again to. I think that
when I get to production issue, this simplicity and
better model will also be better for quick modification.
For example wall thickness change or adding drafts,
change mod etc.

Currently my best idea, is to build it using boundry
surfaces, maybe using 3 profile sketches, and setting the
surface edges to 'tangent'. I need the design to look
good in this case, so surfacing is a must. Annoying, as
if I drew using geometry it would be dead easy. I think
that the surfacing route I took though was a dead-end
path, and I read that there are usually 3-4 ways to do
it, but 3 out of those 4 might cause problems. I am
hoping to select the right method.

Many thanks, John
Edited by: bigconsultant