In Rhino one rail sweep with 3 section curve can get this, but how can i sweep or loft this in Solidworks? It seems the loft body cannot follow the centerline correctly.
I prefer sweep, because if I can remember correctly it is said that sweep will give more smooth surface than loft. Not only that in this case if profile is similar throughout, sweep is the correct option.
This would be a simple part to use the Boss Extrude and add fillets.
As Maha Nadarasa said, this part is ideal for a sweep. In fact, I think one of the SolidWorks Eseentials class examples for a sweep is a similar paperclip except with a circular cross section.
I dont think this can be sweep because it is not the same profile through path.
Loft is the way to go, but I need a bit more than 3 profiles and 1 guide to get a correct shape.
and a clean one
Lofts are for people who haven't learned proper sweeps. This is definitely a sweep.
You can add guide curves to sweeps to vary sections or control position and prientation. Use a Pierce constraint on your section sketch to tie points to guide curves.
Learn this and you will find you have capability equal to what you are finding in Rhino (and not quite as good as Creo).
Frank Oostendorp wrote:and a clean one
Frank Oostendorp wrote:
Do you have planar faces (where they should be planar)?
You can test this by attempting to create 2D sketches on the "planar" faces.
Where does the transition from profile size to another size start?
Is it continuous or is it a constant profile for some length? (I will wager the later.)
Also, I would have done your 3D sketch as the intersection of 2 2D sketches. Easier to set up and easier to edit if needed.
I can manage the sweep with adapting profile, but the amount of input to get a reliable, parametric, editable solid part seems equal to the input needed to do the loft. And the loft gives more control, also if you later have to modify.
Might be you can show us the SolidWorks result of a sweep with 3 profiles and 1 guide, or maybe even 1 profile and 1 guide?
Frank Oostendorp wrote: Loft is the way to go, but I need a bit more than 3 profiles and 1 guide to get a correct shape.
Where are you getting information on the size of the rectangular profiles?
I did that partially, the artistic look of the product might need a bit of flow in the surfaces, so I played a bit with that.
If it would be a spring to operate something, I would have created planes all perpendicular on the main 3D profile line, but than I already think how to manufacture the part. It would look completely different to keep it simple and cheap.
Just made an example, but it is quite a parametric part, so easy to modify. If it becomes core business, I would suggest using a design table, to make endless variations.
Great! Paul Salvador , Can you tell me why you drew these two circles? And I took the liberty of simplifying your idea a little.
I really like yours better!!
...yeah.. what you have is much cleaner! (attached)
Common habit from me to look at file sizes.
Mine is 297 KB with Loft. 421 KB with Sweep.
Paul's is 449 KB.
What size is the simplified version?
Hi Frank Oostendorp 372 kB. This is 2012 version. But I think that this way is easier for modify (only 2 sketch) and faster to make (8 features). Without 3d sketches which may be a problem for later modifications, especially for beginners.
I think that rebuild time is more important, but my computer is old. i7
My hardware at work is only two years old, but not supported anymore At home I am happy with W10 SW2013.
Luckily I can not find the Windows 10 performance index, must have been sky-high.....
I prefer the loft, because it gives total freedom in the shape of the part. Can you variate the height or radii of the profile along its path, using the surface feature?
Where did you go?
Use loft for this
Of course, it is possible and not difficult at all, but each project has some design assumptions. And while designing, we try to fulfill them. When designing a car, it can be assumed that in the future it may also fly, swim ...
Today you inspired...
Topology should decide feature choice, not just "preference" which is usually driven by comfort-factor and limits of understanding.
In this case, we have a section of constant topology (oval) that moves and changes shape along a set of paths. This is a sweep. A sweep will yield an analytically perfect result.
Using loft adds uncertainty to the resulting shape due to interpolation. The resulting shape is ultimately just an approximation.
If one defaults to using loft because "sweeps are haaaaaard", it's time to reevaluate one's skills and/or career path.
You always bring a smile to my face ...
Retrieving data ...