I'm looking to make a surface using several edges of a volume and inclined with respect to a vector (this surface having a grain, I have to keep a precise angle). So I used a set surface to make these faces (followed by a replace face).
The problem is that I have a significant variation of the angle with respect to the vector (in the example I started with an initial angle of 30°, and on some sides I end up with an angle of 24.01°).
A small image or a file so that we understand what you are talking about and especially the difficulty you are facing. Because even if your request is relatively specific, only a vision of the problem will help you!
If I understood correctly, you're talking about surface area (I know someone on the forum who will be happy ;-) )
While waiting for @gt22 's opinion on the surface area personally, I find that the defect is not aberrant compared to what you are asking.
If I understand your vector, it's the Y-axis vertical construction line.
But you ask to make a draft that will be 30° around the axis, this is not a problem for the flat part of the bottom since it is approximately 90° from the vertical axis. On the other hand, for the second part, your surface is curved and there you start to have a problem and the worst is the third part which is more or less at 40°.
As a result, you have a conflict between the tilt request and the vector on the upper part.
In addition, if I look closely, your piece on the inner surface has slightly concave surfaces.
I don't know the solution in surface but since your part is a volume after the fillet function, could you specify why you want this inclination everywhere (from the vertical line (axis 1)).
In fact, I am mainly wondering about the functioning of this function, in order to either use it correctly, or to inform my colleagues to prohibit the use of this function.
The real purpose of the set surface that I drew on my base piece is to make a 3° draft on the edge of a plastic molded part. Because it is an aesthetic surface with a graining that needs 3° for the demolding, below there is a tearing of the graining (with 3° we have a variation that goes up to 2.2° or 0.2° depending on the method used).
And my customer will surely use the native CAD to machine his mold so I can't afford to have a wrong CAD part.
I simplified my example, by drawing an inclined line on the plane on the right, and then extruding this line to surface. Then I made a "Ruled Surface – Inclined with Vector" at 30°. And I end up with an angle of 29.35°...
I was just wondering why you didn't just use the draft function which is precisely made for everything that is unmolded. This function can be used in volume and not in surface.
However, I would like to draw your attention to the shape of your part, which will not allow you to use this function in a basic way. Indeed, as your part has an angle of about forty degrees, you will have a problem if your draft is not well gamberged and:or if during the demolding you are not allowed to play on the elasticity to eject the part.
Your mould maker or customer must give you the possible ejection axis(s). I assume here that the mold does not open (a little) to allow the ejection for the parts that will remain in undercut anyway (unless we make a modulated and irregular draft).
Can you post your actual piece so I can think and show you where I see the PB.
Kind regards
PS: ^for my personal culture what does it mean (below we have a tearing of the graining ) because it's been more than a pay since I last made a mold? ;-)
excuse me but even if I know that the draft function works as I said in my previous post what you propose in your attachment is not going to AMHA.
Indeed: - the location of the parting line is not known - the orientation of the part in relation to the parting line is not known, - we don't know the ejectors either (or if they are synchronized or not). - As the part is drawn, there are two sides that potentially block - in addition, the % of draft is totally exaggerated, it is 1.5 to 2 ° and not 30 °
Finally , the fact that the internal surfaces are concave does not simplify the problem. So you have to start from the parting line defined with the mold maker to see how to build the draft which is not necessarily present (or necessary on all sides of the thickness. (cf my previous message).
The spoils will not be trivial to solve ;-)
So the strip function works, certainly: but not in isolation in abstracto from the rest.
So after contact with the support, it turns out that it is indeed a bug of the "Surface set". And that it is awaiting resolution.
So we can get around the problem with a "Set Surface – Scan" along the Y axis, then a surface seam (if you haven't already done so) and finally a "Draft – Neutral Line" along the same axis (on the high edge of the part). So instead of having one function, we have three to get the right result.
And to answer (@Zozo_mp) no, I am not allowed to play with the elasticity of my piece because it will leave traces on the graining and can make it smooth. And I don't have my client's agreement to post the piece in question. And for the draft at 30° it was only for the demonstration by amplifying the problem.
And yes (@Pierre S) the draft function works on the simplify part that I posted. But in the upper part, I have other tiles that are well positioned, which I don't want to change at all. And so this poses a problem for a standard draft.
Thank you all the same for the time you took to answer me.
All that remains is to wait for the SOLIDWORKS modifications to be able to reuse this function...
Thank you for your feedback on the BUG and all your comments that make us understand your approach. Obviously the bypass with three functions is clever, even if it lengthens the work a little.
