Hello
I would like to combine 2 parts, an airplane wing with 2 different profiles and a grid that will serve as a reinforcement, this for a 3D print.
I've tried it but it doesn't work.
I'm showing you captures with one "combine" in subtraction and another in "common"
I am also attaching the SW file
Diiity
Hello
Not very clear to me the desired result. Is it this?
I think @soring is right.
I can see it done:
- cutting of the reinforcement body according to the inner profile of the wing (if it is a form of extrusion, otherwise see below)
- combine the 2 bodies.
If the (inner) shape of the wing is a kind of smoothing, it is necessary to go through an intermediate step by making a copy (insert/function/move-copy) of the wing body, the operation of subtraction between the reinforcement and the wing, possibly eliminating the excess bodies of the reinforcement and then combining the remaining bodies.
The first step is to get rid of the grille on the outside of the wing.
Move the cursor up just after the shell function.
0mm offset of the inner surface of the shell.
This creates a surface identical to the inner side of the shell.
Move down after Removal Extrusion 2.
Then, in the surface functions, remove the grid (blue) that is outside this surface by surface (orange).
Then combine all the volumes.
Hello
Another possibility: limit the grid of the sketch to the contours of the inner shape of the wing, with a small margin (1mm?) to avoid "edge effects" and other "zero thickness". The "Fit Features" sketching feature is heavily used for this operation.
Then perform a thin extrusion in both directions, to each of the two inner surfaces of the wing. Note that it is not necessary to double the sketch lines for a thin extrusion...
Sketch view
Extrusion Function View:
Kind regards...
Hello
With the split function it works very well too:
Then you delete your body:
Great, thanks to both of you, it works very well in both cases.
I took the grid sketch to use the thin function but when I extrude it only makes me a line, I guess it's a matter of constraint.
So I reviewed it by fixing them one by one.
Is there a quick way to do it?
diiity
Oh yes, good too.
Could you put your screenshots as attachments, in the body of the message we can't see well?
great, thank you
Hello
@vspemens , I'm trying to reproduce your method but I'm missing indications.
On your first screenshot, how did you make your selection?
My screenshot is different from yours, it may be a SW version problem, I'm in 2013.
diiity
Hello
Whatever the version, the principle is the same.
The adjustment tool is the wing. The wing will cut through the grille.
But VERY IMPORTANT the kite must go completely through the grille for it to work.
So first remove the excess grid as shown in all the examples.
Here's what I get by clicking on the offset surface because on the elements nothing happens
check at least one of the two resulting bodies
Good but once I do ok, nothing happens.
I must be missing something
then it remains to do what I said above, cut out the excess grid that goes beyond the wing. The wing must go completely through the grille. The best thing to do is to cut the grid with two planes (like these two red lines) that delimit the kite on each side.
If it doesn't work then you have to post the file to find the error.
Ok I get it. The error is during extrusion. You have to uncheck "Merge". The grille must be a separate volume from the wing before splitting. They must not form a common body. Not yet.
After validation you will have 3 distinct bodies (volumes). The grid is in two parts.
You have to combine these two pieces.
After this step, the two grid boundaries will have to be redone (repaired). The body to be cut must be redefined by removing the material.
Now the splitting can be done correctly
3 volumes after splitting
The useless (outer grille) will have to be removed by deletion. Then choose the volume to delete.
two bodies that remain interior grille + wing
Combine them to get a single item.
I know, a lot of steps but it's because of some choices made initially. At best it would have been 7 functions instead of 10. It doesn't make a big difference on this piece which is very simple. But later, on more complex pieces, the choice of methods will be important.
Oh okay, thank you