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.

Register Log in

Nose Cone Help

A

Arbiter

New member
Hey Folks,
Happy holidays to everyone! I am working on a project using ProE Wildfire 4.0 Student (no isdx module). I have a fuselage shape I made swept blend and I am trying to cap off the front with a nose cone. I don't think swept blend is the right tool, and I was trying to use boundary blend but was not successful.

What I am trying to create is shown on the images below. Essentially I want the nose to be tangent to the surface already created, and I would like it to be rounded, without any discontinuities (No pointy nose). Can some one point me to the proper tool and procedure for doing this? I really appreciate your help, I have been at this for a few hours now and no luck. Thanks!

-Chris
 
rmatija said:
Hi


Use Boundary Blend Tool


Look picture
Click to expand...

Hi Rmatija,
The boundary blend tool is what I tried to use, however when I used it all I was able to get was this kind of shape. When I changed the tangency/normal options I could not get to where you are with the picture, it just distorted the quilt but the curve was still inwardly bowed like this picture. How did you get the proper outward bow? Thank you, and I will look into the other posts on boundary blend as well!

-Chris
 
I think the problem here is that you are using the full fuselage edge as a curve, try using half the curve, it should work better.
 
arbiter

You just can`t put 3 curves in the same direction - this I see from Your pic

collect two of them on one direction, the last one on second
 
You might want to add another curve, perpendicular to the one you tying to shape the nose end. I think that would control your shape better.
 
'toupee methodology' again... or at least thats the name i gave the techniqe of starting with the ends an trimming a 4 part boundary back to look like a three part boundary.

So this question is the standard growth for someone learning surfacing on their own. model what you know... struggle to close off the ends.... End up with some crappy three part boundary.
Edited by: design-engine
 
Yes I am trying to learn surfacing on my own as much as possible. I am quickly realizing that it's not easy, and that a course would be awesome, just can't afford to pay the $1K+ for a course in it... So I am making it along as best I can. Thank you for the suggestions :)

-Chris
 
I learned surfacing on my own.... i would say in hind site that I missed out on lots of cash thinking I was the expert... when I was not.

---- i posted this on the exploder friday or so ------
I belong to the school of thought that the only general advice for designers learning surfacing is to learn as much as possible all the time. In 1994 I thought I was an expert at surfacing. Only in hindsite five years later did I realized how little i knew then.

Once you do learn basics of surfacing you defiantly look at things differently. To me the basics of surfacing is the boundary blend or the four part boundary that PTC called advanced surfaces.Empowering the tangency to one or all the edges for the four part boundary and avoiding the three part boundary game is the first stage of development for a designer. Variable Section sweeps with Trajpar variables (solidworks cant do that yet) is next.

Learning how to manipulate geometry with the parent child relations Pro/E makes so easy and managing significant changes is next for development. (search ISDX on youtube to see what I am talking about). Then understanding how light reflects off form which takes years to get a firm grasp by the way. Then and only then can G2 continuity be explained with the calculus of how light reflects off forum. Probably the most important thing for one to develop in themselves in the end is a process for developing form that cant really be discussed until all the tools, light reflection and robust modeling techniques and continuity issues are understood at some basic level. By this process I am referring to to such ideals as proving form vs capturing form. This process involves laying out one or more plan of attach methods before starting in Pro/ENGINEER.
------------ end -------------------------------------


You can do it on your own, It just takes longer. And as a young contractor 1994 1995 I would often put myself in positions a little above my head and figure it all out. And back when i started learning I was too cheap to take a class maybe and being a contractor i never had an opportunity to take one paid for by a manufacture. Looking back i realize how naive yet hungry to learn.

The surfacing training was (and still is) so dry and the PTC classes were quite boring from what i could tell at least that is what contractors said who were taking my surfacing classes.Back then they put two people to a tube which made it difficult to contend. Rand had a little different approach i understand but I did not ever take it. The class i designed is the class i wish i could have taken if could have in 1993.

Edited by: design-engine
 
design-engine said:
'toupee methodology' again... or at least thats the name i gave the techniqe of starting with the ends an trimming a 4 part boundary back to look like a three part boundary.



So this question is the standard growth for someone learning surfacing on their own. model what you know... struggle to close off the ends.... End up with some crappy three part boundary.
Click to expand...

Damn right, I tried to apply your method (to which I arrived from a personal and more twisted path while modeling an electric guitar body) to this part, correct me if there's something wrong:



This picture above is the first step: I have a VSS for the body and a blend for the nose (in this case it's a VSS, better use a 4 side boundary?)



Trimmed the front surface with a simple circle, to keep only the "nose"



"Closed" the holes with style feature...

I hope this helps, I think it looks good and flows nicely, but again if there's something I did wrong please let me know :)
 
The Chris said he doesnt have style so how could it help him? Hi Criss, I will try it tonight.

Edited by: Zaki
 
The method would be exactly the same with or without style. Same geometry could be achieved with boundary blends.


Paddy
 
Hey Folks,
Thank you very much for the advice so far. I will be working on this again tonight with what you all have asked me to try. I will work the different methods as best I can. On the VSS, which two curves did you use zpaolo, the two that formed the nosecone? Since I have Pro/E student, I think I have ISDX on board, I can use the style feature and all of what has been said so far... I think.... Is there a way to tell? I keep hearing about Pro/Surface, but that's not on PTC's website. Was it all integrated into Wildfire? Anyway, thank you very much for your help, I will try to learn this stuff tonight and let you know how it goes, any more comments/tutorials with pictures and steps would be helpful!!!!

-Chris
 
Hi Chris, I created the nose cone with a VSS with constant section, basically It is a single curve (a portion of the overall part profile), the sketch is placed in the middle of the curve, constant normal direction, shaped as the light blue sketch you see there. It's an attempt, I'm not a surfacing expert...

Paolo
 
In this example I would not use the style feature because the Pro/SURFACE boundary is really more powerful than that of the Style surfaces...
 
design-engine said:
In this example I would not use the style feature because the Pro/SURFACE boundary is really more powerful than that of the Style surfaces...
Click to expand...

When you say pro/SURFACE you mean use of boundary blends and other "normal" commands, or am I wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top