Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Helmet modeling

tHANKS,could be even nicer with more time spent


In short:


1-2d curves which define the helmet shape


2- 3d curves by 2 projections


3- boundary surfaces


4-Transfrom-mirror the final merge surface


5- Thin protrusion
 
Hello Everyone.





Where are the tutorials for the kettle and toaster surfcae models that James.Lynch mentioned?

I'm not sure what help! section you are talking about.



Thanks,

DK
 
Hi Sudheesh
If u could not make the desired model till now, ust send me the igs file, bcoze your part is not open here. ('twas made be student edition). I will see what can I do for u.
Zaki
 
Lynch wrote


if you have it on paper, scan it in,


Hey, that sounds interesting. Can you go from a scanned bitmap to a feature defining sketch within ProE? What's the procedure? Can you at least give us a general outline?


Guy


Yeah me again.
 
Having watched a webcast hosted by Bill Taylor, PLM of ISDX where he modeled a speaker, I thought it would be benificial to have a go at it myself, so I sketched what I thought the speaker would look like from the side, front and top, imported them into Corel and fitted definate lines on to them, View attachment 806


I took these in individually and used "Track Sketch" functionality within Style and applied these Jpegs to the primary datum planes, having estimated a height, width and depth, you are able to pick tow points on a jpeg and make them equal to a certain length, so that is what I did.


Using these jpegs, I was able to trace isdx freeform curves over these lines with some accuracy.


I have scaled the picture in this to show you the trace sketch.


View attachment 807


and here is the final result,


View attachment 808


Clear it up for ya?


James
Edited by: james.lynch
 
Great job James. Thanks for posting your work. Any chance
you can post a screenshot showing an iso of your bounding curves?
 
Cheers BigJoe..


not at my desk at the minute, so I'll post it tomorrow..


it doesnt actually matter really where they are applied to, as is unless you have actual crosections of an existing piece, then they pretty much are not going to match up, well not all three anyway..


so my point is you could have them as if they were 2 walls and a floor in a room witht the object in the middle of that "room" so when you loooed from the front you could see the front profile, the side, you'd see the side profile etc.


or I think if I remember in this case I had the three intersecting.. but I think the yellow plan view did not match the profile or the body where it intersected, but when viewed from the top, the inner profile matched the top and the outer profile was teh "fattest" section of the speaker..


hope this helped and I didn't confuse you too much...
smiley5.gif



I'll post the picture tomorrow and it should be a bit clearer.
smiley2.gif



James
 
Thanks for the clarification James. I did a bad job of phrasing
my question. I was hoping to see the ISDX curves in a 3D
view. I'm assuming you used boundary surfaces based on the
curves. Is that right?



I hear what you're saying about the trace image locations. As
long as you get what you need in the perpendicular view, it doesn't
really matter how far away the image plane is.
 
woops sorry. .thought you were on about the trace curves..


well I used a combination of Planar, Free, COS and native ProE projection curves, It wsa about 4 or 5 months ago now that I have done it but as far as I can remember I had a couple of internal curves as well ..


I'll post a couple of picts a little later on, and watch out for a video tutorial a little later on when I get my site up and going.. Click here for more details
 
Right on!



Thanks for the clarification James. And thanks for all of your
contributions to the community. I, for one, really appreciate
your willingness to share your knowledge. I'm also looking
forward to your tutorial-coordination efforts. Maybe someday I'll
have useful knowledge to contribute
smiley2.gif
 
Off topic, apologies.. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />


But here's the thing..... The site is going to be aimedat EVERYBODY.. so if you can use the extrude tool, you can make a tutorial, if you can assemble two components, you can make a tutorial - it doesn't matter how easy or complicated it sounds to you, I can guarantee you that thee are people trying to look at proe for the first time right now and have absolutely no idea where to begin..
just my $0.02..

back to helmets and surfacing!
smiley4.gif
 
BigJoe


View attachment 809


This sort it out for ya? (I deleted the surfaces in style just forclarity - that's why the curves are white)


I used planar curves for the 2 sides and bottom, then free curves for the top and two 2 internal curves - all set up with the usual mirror symmetry constraints, i.e. normal to the mirror plane..


Having created the primary surface, I then dropped the "half oval" curve on to the front surface an used the offset COS to create the inner curve and again instead this time selecting "normal to Surface" to create the bounding curve for the bass woofer..


I thencreated 3 radial planar path curves (again with the correct constraints - surface tangents) to ensure continuity of the surface.


once this was done, I created a second COS for the speaker grill (shown in the wire frame view below) and used an offset COS to set up a fit tolerance. then I trimmed the surface


View attachment 810


I then projected the 2 circular curves (sketched in ProE before the style feature) on to the front face to facilitate any volume controls etc..


then extruded 2 surfaces to cover the top (curved)and bottom (planar) (shown in pink above) did a simple merge, rounded the edges and mirrored it!
smiley2.gif



bit clearer?


James
Edited by: james.lynch
 
James, that's exactly what I was hoping to see, and more.
Impressive, as always. Thanks for the rundown of the process,
too. It looks like you could achieve the same surface without
ISDX, but it would be more difficult. You'd have to use projected
curves instead of the COS's. Is that true?
 
very true.. in fact I heard Tim Harrison (PTC) make the comment (well he was answering a question) that there is no surface that ISDX can create that Pro/Surface cannot!


but on the plus side, I can draw that speaker in about 10 min. an have 10 different variations of it in the next 5, and I'm sure a practiced user of ISDX could do it even faster!


I supposeits all down to how much you use surfacing really, I mean have you played around with the radial planar path curves? - Lifesaver! well major time saver! then through copy and paste, you have your three curves created with constraints and proportions in under 30 sec! not bad if you ask me!


in fairness though, ISDX has a long way to go beforethe functionality catches up to the big boys but it's getting there!


James
Edited by: james.lynch
 
james.lynch said:
in fairness though, ISDX has a long way to go beforethe functionality catches up to the big boys btu it's getting there!




What are you imlying exactly? I am trying to read into what you are trying to say an am currious.
 
Well, if you look at first of all the engineering side of things (as opposed to the ID) Catia if by far a superior for surface creation, from my (all be it presently limited ) experience, all that you have to do islook at pretty much every major car and aviation company and it pretty much all Catia. again from my limited understanding this is true for both the mathematical definition of the surface andthe consistency,easeand general "tweak-ability" of the surface.. I'm open to correction on that one, just going on what I have read and my limited use of Catia..


then from an ID side (now Bart I understand you are the expert in this area, especially when it comes to the crossover between ID and engineering) but if you look at the easeof creation of surfaces between Studio tools, Rhino, Maya etc, there is simply no contest... again I am by no means an expert in these packages (or ProE for that matter
smiley36.gif
) but I have bought a few video tutorials with the intentionof learning them and to see the speed at which shapes can be created, form can be explored, well I thought it was impressive anyway..


just my $0.00c.. I am completely open to correction!


BTW, I am not bashing ISDX, In fact I really like it! and hope to find a job where I get to use it!
Edited by: james.lynch
 
These
are things we discuss on the boards. Back in 1994 while at an
unnamed major manufacture, the same discussion was underway.
'Industrial designers don't use Pro/E because they cant do the complex
stuff" they claimed. So I stayed late and made a 20 hour effort to
learn Alias. A year later I did it again.
I did not give it a solid effort (pun intended) to learn Alias until 1998.
Since then I learned CDRS, Rhino (not a big fan at all) and Alias and recently
MAYA. I think what contributed to my learning the Pro/E surfacing
and plan of attack etc was simply that i forced myself to learn the alternate
tools. The funny part when I build all the same tutorials we have in Pro/E
in the alternate tools it just makes my like Pro/E even more.
I end up doing the Alias Studio tutorials in Wildfire. I am spoiled too because
of the parent child relations and all that and find it really difficult
to prove out the form without the parent child relationships.



On another talk board I participate in: http://www.core77.com < sorta
like Design-engine.com but bigger and baderass) there is a disdain for
Pro/ENGINEER because us engineers reinforce negative stereotypes.... inflexible
- too intelligent <smile> - all knowing - no sayers - cant sayers etc.
It
 

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top