livewire

Many thanks, that has saved me a considerable amount of time. I have been meaning to post another observation, the fact that it would only seem possible to make a single modification to a sub-component of a solid without returning back to the outer level and repeating the decompose action...

It would seem that when I use the fillet edge tool I can no longer decompose the solid and edit the components, is this correct? Comments appreciated...

More info: I gave an IGES file containing two hollow cylinders created in an identical fashion in VW (but showing external dimensions for the solid at 125mm and 124.7mm), to the engineer who imported them into his machining package. The CAD package used to define the milling path sees the cylinders as both having dimensions of 125mm (or very close), that is to say the size they should be. This is good news, but I still feel a little uncomfortable and would appreciate some feedback from the guys at Nemetschek. I have the VW file if they would like it. Thanks in advance,

Thanks for the input. I will be seeing the mechanical engineering company today so I will do some comparisons of the IGES files to see if the actual 3D model is correct or incorrect and feed back my findings...

Having experimented some more I have found that if I repeat the process multiple times I get different results 124.83, 124.74... and sometimes 125mm (what I would expect). I thought it may be related to the Document Settings/Units but I cannot find the correlation. I have been using the Machine Design (Metric) template. I assume that the internal mathematics is always done at the highest precision and that unit presentation and significant digits is only a display issue?

Thank you, your help is appreciated I have just tried a simple experiment in which I have created two cylinders from extruded circles, one of 125mm dia (100mm extrusion) and one of 120mm (100mm extrusion), aligned them centrally and then moved the smaller one up 4mm. Subtracting the smaller from the larger results in a solid with a width of 124.5mm (as shown by the object info and also as measured with the tape tool) as opposed to 125mm? I may be missing somthing but I cannot find a rational for the dimension to be reduced by 0.5mm?

Apologies, I was not sure if the two forums would be treated in isolation. Thanks,

Hi, I would be very interested to have any feedback regarding the generation of 3d components from 2D, as I am concerned about the introductions of errors. By way of example, if I model a 3D cylinder using a 2D clipped surface that is extruded, the external dimensions are not maintained properly (as per object info), whiist if I use the VW 3D cylinder the external dimensions seem to be maintained. This would seem to be a a result of the error introduced by the representation of 2D circle as a set of segments within the extruded 3D cyclinder? Can this be changed or improved? I seem to get the same effect when I subtract solids. If I subtract a 3D threaded shaft from a 3D cyclinder I loose the defintion on the outer edge of the cylinder and the resulting thread appears to be composed of a number of visible segments in wireframe and final quality Renderworks. My goal is to export the resulting data as an IGES file for use with a CNC machine and am concerned that the aberrations will form part of the machined piece. Any feedback much appreciated. Thanks in advance, The issue seems to be associated with solid subtraction. If you take two cylinders created by an extruded circles of different radius and subtract solids, then the resultant tube has an external dimension that is smaller than that of the original larger circle. I am fairly new to VW, so I may have made a blindingly obvious mistake! Thanks,