-
Re: simple part turned complicated
See if the attached is what you want. The features I added/changed I put a -mk on the end of their name. Here's what I did:
1. Before your surface knit, I extended two surfaces 10 mm each.
2. Trimmed those two surfaces back.
3. Edited the knit, checked the make solid option.
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Hi Mark,
That is perfect, thanks. My next step is to unhide "Cut-Extrude22" to reveal rest of part, then Combine the 2 bodies. That is failing due to zero thickness error. Any clue on that one??
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Zero thickness errors can be more difficult to find. You're looking for a point to point contact between the two bodies. If you can find that, and fix it, the bodies should merge. Maybe try recreating the surfaces that coincide between the two solid bodies, and offset them a small distance into each other? Then the bodies should overlap and not have any zero thickness errors.
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Never mind - I solved the zero thickness error by offsetting the mating sevice 1mm, then thickening with Merge Result checked. Thanks again for the help.
Jeff
-
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Zero thickness usually occures where more than 2 faces share a common boundary edge or when two bodies share a common vertex. As such, these errors occure near tangent conditions and duplicated edges. One technique to check for them is to turn off merge-result on boss features that produce them and check in the regions where the bodies intersect.
John
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Hi John,
I will try your advise next, thanx. Coincidentally, I've been trying your previous method of deleting faces, then thickening. One face won't disappear. Anyone think this is a good direction to try?
Jeff
-
-
-
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
I made sort of a discovery. If you cut away the top and bottom section of the smaller body, you can combine the two bodies. So, I believe your zero thickness errors are in the area of these two cuts. The combine would not work unless I cut away both areas.
-
Re: simple part turned complicated
Mark - That is awesome, thank you. I have a go at your discovery - it looks good if I can loft the gaps.
Speaking of lofts, that was my original approach but after several failures, I switched to "insert, base, boundary which also failed. That's when I changed to surfaces. This morning, I went full circle back to loft since it seeems like it should be simplest. Still getting errors, though. (see attached)
-
-
-
-
