Any one else ever see this?
Message was edited by: Randy Petkoff
Before split line:
After split line:
Just tried it on SW 2015 SP5....no change here. Wonder what's going on.
Haven't seen it. Also, you're not showing it to us!
How big of a difference did you observe? If it's very small, it's probably due to the way the split face affects the parsing of the solid.
Before Split Line
After Split Line
Using 2015 SP 4.0
When I increase the accuracy level from low to high it improves but is still off about 20 - 25 grams.
Can you share the part? I notice that your center of mass is moving as well.
Unfortunately I can't share the part due to company policies. I know that doesn't help, was just hoping someone else had seen this before. It seems the more complex the model with surfacing and such this becomes an issue. If i do this with a simple shelled out box i don't see the issue.
try a "dummy" part. If it doesn't do it, good. If it does, share it.
I attached a "dummy" file of my part. The split lines in the model do change the weight about 30 g.
..insteresting.. thanks for posting it!
fyi,.. if you export/import the split and non-split bodies as iges or step.. you get different volumes for each.. there is no consistency.
Randy... if you can not share the model.. could you show the face(s) before/after the split?... such as a curvature map difference?
I can imagine, because I've seen it,.. that the face or faces slightly distort after a split.. .. a curvature map may help illustrate this?..
Or.. as a test, just cut away the effect region before the split and export as parasolid.. import and apply the split.. is there a difference?
OK, I downloaded your part and created 2 parts. One with the split line and one without the split line. Then I ran a "compare".
It is showing that the volumes are identical.
Even though mass properties are showing them to be different.
Are you seeing this Jim Wilkinson?
I would definitely be contacting your VAR about this. The compare tool should be picking up the weight and volume difference, which it is not. Which tells me that something is going wrong in the background programming.
Sorry about the delay.
I agree with Dan. This looks like a problem that needs to be reported through your VAR for evaluation.
Thanks for helping with this. We are looking at this with our VAR. I will provide an update if a solution is found.
Retrieving data ...