Some of our members tell us that they design using Surfacing exclusively. I personally would like to understand this better, Please jump in and tell us why you might design using Surfacing rather than Solids (or vis a vis). I have designed using Solids almost almost exclusively. Am I missing something? What do you think?
Too tiny radii inside and the embout is high....you did it on 2 stages of stamp?
Those people are dangerously full of carp and you can tell them personally I said so.
Surfaces are a tool, just one of many in the SW toolbox. What they're saying is like using a drill when you need a saw because they like drills.
I would say it is circumstantial and preferential. I find a hybrid blend of both to be the most effective.
Surfaces are more robust in how they can be controlled and influenced. Solids can make quick work of a lot of basic forms and be converted back to surfaces easily.
I typically find surfaces more suitable for parts with complex blends, organic-style geometry(contoured), "thin" parts and any situation where solids generally fail or yield poor results.
Solids work nice for quick-start geometric forms, reference geometry, and everything else.
Initially I'm inclined to agree with Roland Schwarz that those people are full of what comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. However, there may be instances where one would only model in surfaces. I haven't run into those situations, but they might exist. What type of product are they modeling?
First, Roland's right---why limit your available tools?
I use surfacing all the time. It's particularly useful for anything with uniform wall thicknesses such as injection-molded plastic parts. Create the surface and then thicken. None of the tedious sculpting away of what you don't want. Mostly a matter of efficiency. I also create all sorts of tools with surfaces that do crazy things like sculpt away nonsense I don't need on multiple bodies, controlling where certain features/bodies are trimmed away while leaving others.
But solids are more efficient in their own areas, too. And if you primarily work in prismatic shapes, solids would likely handle most of what you need.
Basic examples of surfacing-critical projects I've been part of:
![sshot-2019-04-23-[12-59-37].png](https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-957765-468679/sshot-2019-04-23-%5B12-59-37%5D.png)
![sshot-2019-04-23-[13-03-45].png](https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-957765-468680/sshot-2019-04-23-%5B13-03-45%5D.png)
![sshot-2019-04-23-[13-02-06].png](https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-957765-468681/sshot-2019-04-23-%5B13-02-06%5D.png)
![sshot-2019-04-23-[12-58-06].png](https://forum.solidworks.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-957765-468682/sshot-2019-04-23-%5B12-58-06%5D.png)
As mentioned above, when modelling with surfaces you do not need to worry about matching coincident side faces to boundaries, lofts etc to make new features merge into the solid body. You only need to worry about the actual surface that results. I normally work in surfaces up to a point it makes sense to solidify to add smaller drafts, fillets etc.
The elephant in the room for me in regards to surface and solid modelling in SW is the fact you cannot just change a solid model/body into a surface model WITHOUT downstream features falling over. Make a solid cube. Add a fillet. Roll back before the fillet, delete a face on the rear of the cube. Roll forward. Fillet fails. As far as I can tell there is an issue with internal referencing and ID of geometric features. There are many times in the past where I have needed to modify a complex area of a model and have ended up having to modify it using solid functions rather than surfaces, whereas doing it using surfaces would have been way easier. Other applications can retain references when solids change to surfaces and vice versa, why not SW?
SW doesn't do update when rebuild.
It took the short cut of delete and redraw.
You can see that even with simple sketch dimension changes.
To say that there is only one way to go, that's an uneducated and inexperienced with the software.
Last year we had a new Director that said to me "There is only one software to use, that's AutoCAD, we should dump SolidWorks and replace it with ACAD". He's no longer with us, he transferred back to another site.
The question, as well as the proclamation that led to it, illustrate a profound gap in understanding in 3D modeling (not just SW). If one is thinking in terms of solid vs. surface, then that person has not fully matured as a 3D designer.
This exposes many issues with how advanced modeling concepts are perceived, taught, and utilized. Users are taught features and techniques but without any assessment or reinforcement of geometry and topology skills.
I think I read Lombard's surfacing book back in 2008 or something, and the content of one comment I remember really well: a cube in solidworks is just six surfaces with a command telling them to look like a solid.
If you get that in your head, this entire topic just seems odd.
A good question then might be: "What makes a solid a solid, infinite surfaces?"
Jim Berry wrote:
A good question then might be: "What makes a solid a solid, infinite surfaces?"
Closed surfaces.
Jim Berry wrote:
A good question then might be: "What makes a solid a solid, infinite surfaces?"
I think a better question would be
What differences are there in the way Solidworks treats Surfaces / Solids? ..and how can I exploit this to my advantage?
It's easy enough for us to bounce between the two as required. Modelling exclusively with Solid or Surfacing techniques is like tying one hand behind your back.
You can't do this kind of component on solid or sheetmetal.
I think you need to evaluate the complexity of your work to go to one way or another
I like using surfaces. Sometimes they are more efficient for the parts I'm working on, sometimes not. At my last company we used them often for aero shapes, skins, stampings, etc... I know how to do some of these parts in solids, but surfaces make some of them quicker, or easier to update. One specific thing I like with surfaces is not having to worry about thickness until the end. I can work single sided the whole model, then thicken the result.
Both of these were made as surface models for practice, they are dumbed down versions of parts I used to make. The originals were much more complicated, and surfacing allowed us to make updates quicker, with fewer errors.