Jump to content
  • 0
HEengineering

Best Methods for Extrude along path in multiple planes?

Question

Posted (edited)

This is something we don't deal with a lot.  I have been able to do it in some scenarios, but if often seems very difficult.  Can anyone provide some insight on the best way to say do a conduit run that moves across various vertical and horizontal planes? 

 

Also I notice if I draw the path in segments and try to convert them to a 3d poly, to form a path I get a group?  But when I use the connect/Combine tool, which also converts it to a 3d poly it doesn't group them, but makes them all combine into one path.  Seems odd that both don't give the same result?

 

And one I have the line all combine It seems I cannot go into edit mode and put a radius on any of the corners??

Screen Shot 2019-04-10 at 10.16.41 AM.png

Edited by HEengineering

Share this post


Link to post

Recommended Posts

  • 0

It seems to work for me regardless of the vertices type.   Can only speculate that it has to do with the fact Im on High Sierra and VW 2017 SP5??  To be honest I recall having this function in 2016 as well.  Never been an issue for me. Are you guys both on 19? We are still refraining from upgrading.  We had some issues with moves from Sierra to High Sierra.  17 seems pretty stable for us at this point so we never leaped forward. 18 had alot of site model issues which use that feature enough to warrant staying in 17.  19 seems like a headache with Mojave.  Talk about upgrade fatigue🤒

 

Im really suprised this is an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Soooo. I tried this at home with the same versions of OSX and VW and I do NOT get marquee selection in Nurbs edit mode.  So I think its fair to say its certianly a bug somewhere, very odd behavior.

 

I do get the marquee in polyline edit mode tho.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
3 hours ago, HEengineering said:

Soooo. I tried this at home with the same versions of OSX and VW and I do NOT get marquee selection in Nurbs edit mode.  So I think its fair to say its certianly a bug somewhere, very odd behavior.

 

I do get the marquee in polyline edit mode tho.

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
12 hours ago, HEengineering said:

It seems to work for me regardless of the vertices type.   Can only speculate that it has to do with the fact Im on High Sierra and VW 2017 SP5??  To be honest I recall having this function in 2016 as well.  Never been an issue for me. Are you guys both on 19? We are still refraining from upgrading.  We had some issues with moves from Sierra to High Sierra.  17 seems pretty stable for us at this point so we never leaped forward. 18 had alot of site model issues which use that feature enough to warrant staying in 17.  19 seems like a headache with Mojave.  Talk about upgrade fatigue🤒

 

Im really suprised this is an issue.

 

I'm on 18, OSX El capitan.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
On 4/19/2019 at 6:00 AM, digitalcarbon said:

easy breezy...and I can get a BOM from it...no need to go back and redo it...done right the first time.

However,  I will admit that electrical conduit could be just a EAP...but I would rather not fight with it.  So I just made...(see last image)

(Note the texture labeling)

 

938367346_ScreenShot2019-04-19at8_50_49AM.thumb.png.81a66e753d21fcda2b457f99c6538419.png

 

 

1465971908_ScreenShot2019-04-19at8_58_05AM.thumb.png.76d3481dba80bd2f2aa8873d6f049528.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Digital Carbon,

In your 4/19 reply you mentioned that you prefer to not use EAP to model these tubular shapes. What method do you use instead?

 

Thanks,

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

@Ed Wachter  the images above...I use to use EAP then when i wanted to duplicate and make the next size,  I found it easier to do a sweep because i could adjust it easier. then I added stubs on the ends for any straight run of the elbows that they sometimes have.

 

also,  EAP are not as easy to lengthen as a simple extrude...(push/pull destroys the model of something i want to keep the history of)

 

No disrespect to the people who make "tools" but the time it takes to make a tool,  which will alway be limited, you can easily make a 3d library of parts and just snap everything together....and you don't have to learn how to use the tool...

 

I get exactly what i want and i can get and exact BOM count....

Also i do not mess around with any Hybrid Top/Plan stuff...old paradigms...

 

the 3D Connexion Space Navigator is a must for 3d work

 

27 P-Trap.vwx

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

can't get this type of quality with "tools"

 

1416618669_ScreenShot2019-04-25at2_49_19PM.thumb.png.827542610c9a104be33ed2ece2f43769.png

 

real parts are based on real things like inverts of pipes setting the design of things...(red line sets pipe and green line)

(the tee sweep is that way for clean out purposes. need to stick hose in it)

 

2139604447_ScreenShot2019-04-25at2_51_12PM.thumb.png.0ef84e5808d1a44fbfc691ab88b444a5.png

2033577936_ScreenShot2019-04-25at2_54_42PM.thumb.png.2ca9ea9ccc67e6a0050ee554cc882a04.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
Posted (edited)

Depends what end you're working towards though doesn't it. If you are designing stuff down to the individual component level then of course that kind of kit of custom parts is great. In an architectural context, sometimes you might be doing that; sometimes you might be defining on a drawing the basic route of a drainage downpipe, without specifying the exact system because that might be down to a contractor choice. So you just need to show that a route works in terms of basic falls, run lengths and so on, and you would be wasting your time modelling each component if the final installation used a different manufacturer's components. In that sort of situation, a tool that would let you define a 3d line, then tell a pipe of X diameter to follow it, and perhaps provide some graphical implication of elbows and so on, to make the drawings look right, would be a big time saver.

 

Another example is drawing up the pipework on an existing building - it'll be made up of a hotch potch of different components, some from redundant standards, you can't get to them anyway and it really doesn't matter - you just need to show that this toilet is connected back to this soil pipe, and so on.

 

Where you're trying to work out a tricky bit of detail where the dimensions of the actual components are critical, and it needs to fit around other stuff, then for sure the kind of level of detail you show above is great.

Edited by line-weight

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

valid point...i guess i got into what i got into from a past of just using tools and then thinking i was done...then they would come back and say "can you get me this or that?"

 

then i would be pulling my hair out trying to figure it out...I should have said not my problem....

 

but its a valid point...

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Thanks Digital Carbon for that explanation. Some of us will need to continue wrestling with EAPs. Our frequent need is handrails where the corners are often mitered and the path is always passing through multiple planes. There are so many possible profiles and stair geometries that I doubt we'll ever have the time to build a library of parts big enough to useful. I entered this thread looking for best ways to edit NURBS paths. So far it appears best to use alot of 3D loci. After the stair is modeled that becomes the basis for placing and offsetting loci as needed. It works, and it's getting faster, but always seems a bit tedious. Thanks for all input!

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

 

7150 Riverwood Drive, Columbia, Maryland 21046, USA   |   Contact Us:   410-290-5114

 

© 2018 Vectorworks, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Vectorworks, Inc. is part of the Nemetschek Group.

×