@@marklandsaat3696 Would love to see your approach using Solidworks. I spend some time exploring standard SW tools & GW3D to solve a similar issue. However, it didn't work well. I would also love to see how X-Nurbs deal with surface patching in this situation. This is what I came up with :/ we.tl/t-u6GkfbwAcA
@Martynas Lagauskas I downloaded your files and I think you are definitely on the right track and pretty close. One of the things to keep in mind is that the boundary conditions for this type of blend are far from ideal. Given that control point modeling is not an option in SolidWorks, the best you can do is optimize the boundary conditions. While not technically curvature continuous, A conic surface from GW3D may be a really good option here given that you can't have inflections in conic surfaces. If I have time this week, I will look at this and show the results for both XNurbs and a Conic surface in GW3D. Thanks.
@Thomas Parel, yes it does. But the Zebra preview of the XNurbs surface only works in V6. There is a workaround for this. If you create the XNurbs surface while recording history, you can go back and edit the settings. It's a little more iterative than V6, but you get the same high quality surface in the end. I work a lot on imported geometry and XNurbs is really good when the input geometry is less than ideal. With that said, XNurbs is not a magic bullet. If the input geometry is crappy XNurbs won't magically procude a great result.
@@marklandsaat3696 Yes I watched it till the end, and I recognise that Xnurbs do the job. I only said if the generative curves on the sweep would habe been made of 4 points curves it would have been perfect with standard sweep on two rails tool, just because it would'nt have been any interpretations from Rhino, only points in tangency with the border. Xnurbs looks more usefull to realize five border surfaces when you need to be quick.
Absolute tolerance 0.005mm, Angle tolerance 0.5 degrees. Mesh settings is somewhat of a dark art. These are some settings I feel work well while keeping the file size relatively small. Maximum angle; 5 Maximum aspect ratio; 10 Minimum edge length; 0.5 Maximum edge length; 20 Maximum disctance; 0.005 Minimum initial grid quads; 16 This may or may not work for you. I model relatively small things. If you model large things you may need to use a lighter mesh, if you model really small things, you may need a more dense mesh. Cheers.
@@azzoboj No problem, hope it's helpful. for what it's worth. all my Rhino parts eventually go to SolidWorks and I have found that 0.005mm will always give me solids when transferred.
Awesome walkthrough of highlight control on these transitions.
Thanks for the compliment Thomas.
Thank you very much for the explanation !!! Great
Hi Ali, no problem. This technique works really well in Rhino, but is not as easy to use in SolidWorks. SolidWorks may require a different approach.
@@marklandsaat3696 Would love to see your approach using Solidworks. I spend some time exploring standard SW tools & GW3D to solve a similar issue. However, it didn't work well. I would also love to see how X-Nurbs deal with surface patching in this situation. This is what I came up with :/ we.tl/t-u6GkfbwAcA
@Martynas Lagauskas I downloaded your files and I think you are definitely on the right track and pretty close. One of the things to keep in mind is that the boundary conditions for this type of blend are far from ideal. Given that control point modeling is not an option in SolidWorks, the best you can do is optimize the boundary conditions. While not technically curvature continuous, A conic surface from GW3D may be a really good option here given that you can't have inflections in conic surfaces.
If I have time this week, I will look at this and show the results for both XNurbs and a Conic surface in GW3D.
Thanks.
Does this work in Rhino 5?
@Thomas Parel, yes it does. But the Zebra preview of the XNurbs surface only works in V6. There is a workaround for this. If you create the XNurbs surface while recording history, you can go back and edit the settings. It's a little more iterative than V6, but you get the same high quality surface in the end.
I work a lot on imported geometry and XNurbs is really good when the input geometry is less than ideal. With that said, XNurbs is not a magic bullet. If the input geometry is crappy XNurbs won't magically procude a great result.
If you had simply use deg3 or deg5 in curvature curves on a sweep 2 rails in rhino tools it would have been perfect.
Did you watch the whole video? I used standard Rhino tools towards the end of the video and it doesn't do nearly as good a job as XNurbs.
@@marklandsaat3696 Yes I watched it till the end, and I recognise that Xnurbs do the job. I only said if the generative curves on the sweep would habe been made of 4 points curves it would have been perfect with standard sweep on two rails tool, just because it would'nt have been any interpretations from Rhino, only points in tangency with the border. Xnurbs looks more usefull to realize five border surfaces when you need to be quick.
Wich tolerances (and mesh settings) did you use ?
Absolute tolerance 0.005mm, Angle tolerance 0.5 degrees.
Mesh settings is somewhat of a dark art. These are some settings I feel work well while keeping the file size relatively small.
Maximum angle; 5
Maximum aspect ratio; 10
Minimum edge length; 0.5
Maximum edge length; 20
Maximum disctance; 0.005
Minimum initial grid quads; 16
This may or may not work for you. I model relatively small things. If you model large things you may need to use a lighter mesh, if you model really small things, you may need a more dense mesh.
Cheers.
@@marklandsaat3696 Tnx so much mate
@@azzoboj No problem, hope it's helpful. for what it's worth. all my Rhino parts eventually go to SolidWorks and I have found that 0.005mm will always give me solids when transferred.