So, I've got a design and I'm trying to make a mold of it.
However, when I try to create shut off surfaces, the error "cannot knit surfaces" will appear, which causes the mold to fail.
Can anybody help me with this?
I opened your 3D model and couldn't find the surfaces which you have knitting issue
This is the problem I encounter. And I can't really get rid of it.
Getting missing file message
Plastic_onderdeel_v6_Trial_error_2.SLDPRT is missing
Doesn't look like an assembly file and are you trying to create from a multi body part?
Without looking at the whole file, it's hard to identify the issue
Erin... although it seems really easy,.. there are a few things,.. the chamfer you placed on the bottom.. should be cleaner for shutting off the base perimeter,.. the core/cavity post (which you are showing) would need to be created.... but honestly, Solidworks tools are limited... (like the 2 post and the side pull/lift.... so, imho, you have to look beyond the existing tools.. that is, looking for issues and building geometry to get this to split.
..it can be done (manually).. and I'm sure you can do it and it would be a good learning tool for you to work thru.. good luck!
If you are using the "Shut-Off Surfaces" tool, and creating multiple shut-off surfaces, you will need to un-check the "knit" option. When the "knit" option is checked, Solidworks will try and knit ALL the shut-off surfaces together into ONE quilt...which is impossible for it to do when you have multiple shut-off surfaces.
Thank you, I tried that, but than my core and cavity cannot be created...
You have to create few manual surfaces as Paul mentioned to complete the odd shut offs and place it in the "Parting Surface Bodies" folder, during your molding split
I have same problem that Erin, but my model is way more complex. I also created manual faces of my shut offs and gaps. And I also move those faces to "Parting Surface Bodies" folder, but that didn't help? Any other ideas for these kind of problems? My co-workers are using Creo and they haven't got any problems with this model. I can't share my model because it's owned by customer.
It's very difficult to identify the issue without seeing the file.
It might be multiple reasons...
..adding to John's list...
..run a "Tools/Check" and indentify the problem areas and fix/repair.
and yes, Creo is more forgiving (SW is not) (and, as much as people here luv hating Creo, it is a better overall tool, if you know how to use it, imho.)
Yes, I think problem is caused from that the model is designed with Creo. Imported Step-file has faulty faces and when I repaired them with Import Diagnostic -tool faces and gaps are fixed. But when I use Check Entities tool there are still open gaps. I tried to manually fix those gaps using surface tools, but I don't have the skills to make it right. We have one open Creo license, maybe I try to learn use that for mold designing.
Santeri,.. may I suggest, try not to using STEP... test/try to use some of the export translators within Creo and Direct import (creo) translators within SolidWorks... also try to read in the creo *.prt directly using the old import brep options.. and/also try IGES and Parasolid (creo can save/export out to Parasolid).
It is worth attempting each to see what works best or does not, imho.
Paul there lies the problem with creo, more forgiving. If you are not careful it can create pretty poor surfacing which on the face of it look OK and create solids. I've had several files within the last few months which OK SW dealed with fine and showed no problem in check feature but once passed on to Delcam for machining the 'forgiving' nature really showed the ugly side.
So back to basics I hunted down the surface areas in the original creo part model and fix in SW - note solidworks gave no indication of problems in the parts.
On mold tool design I'm under the impression people would do a lot better while in the initial training stage surfacing the splits/shut-offs and not use the auto tools.
Also you should fully understand how you will manufacturer what you are creating. Machine or spark eroded areas - with reference to available cutter depth/diameter. 1/2 day of extra surfacing pain to eradicate loads of electrodes or use of tiny cutters will save a lot of money.
Hello Richard,... no doubt, when you pass different toleranced kernel data from one system (creo kernel = Granite) to another (delcam kernel = Parasolid), you will have issues and another learning curve,.. knowing how to export/import between the two systems with the least amount of problems (it is not problem free)...
so, passing SolidWorks data (parasolid) to Delcam (parasolid).. should be pretty clean.
... it is all about how or what settings or translators to use between the two systems.
Hi Paul. It was actually all about the fundamental incorrect surfaces in the original creo models not translation problems. Looking at the original creo models due to the bad modelling techniques used by the originator. Morphed surfaces bending the laws of surfacing is the best way to describe it.
Now opening the files in Rhino actually showed the problems even worse than Delcam's (power shape) but it was a great indication of where the problem originated. It's been discussed various times on Rhino forum's and creo often comes up as the originator of the problem.
ok, yeah, I hear ya,.. sure, and sadly, some creo/pro-e users do make some bad geometry.. and the forgiving aspect does not help.
The problem most of the time, imho, is usually with the translation and creo (granite) users (and non creo users) which do not understand,... they are dealing with different kernels with different tolerances and parasolid (solidworks) is less forgiving.
Yes, Rhino can be forgiving and very helpful with analyzing... and, to be fair, there are bad models which come out of Rhino...and the asset for the user are the analyzing tools and visual options within Rhino give good/critical feedback,.. a great features!
btw, imho.. it seems STEP is the favorite export/import sweetheart,.. but when I used Pro/e (Creo)... exporting to SolidWorks.. I found IGES was probably the most consistent translation (probably because of history and how old the kernel is),... and next, was a direct import of *.prt's (maybe,... because some of the PTC programmers became SolidWorks employees?)
Indeed I usually get step these days and the client wants step. Iges tends to be bigger file sizes and takes longer to import which I think has put a lot of my clients off it over the years.
Funny thing is even the places with solidworks tend to just want the step files for tool designs instead of solidworks.
It's only when I do part design they want the solidworks files.
yep,..and that is why we should ALWAYS request Parasolid from SW users.
Retrieving data ...