SOLVESPACE -- parametric 2d/3d CAD
Examples
Tutorials
Features
Download
Reference
Technology
Library
Forum
Contact
USER FORUM

(you are viewing a thread; or go back to list of threads)

analyze interfering assembly parts (by John Griessen)
Today I am getting some fine tuned interlocking part design tested out and see that analyze interfering lets me move parts to within .01mm in some cases and not in others. If just a few triangles interfere in a case where symmetry says there should be a circumference of them or none, is it safe to just ignore that? Am I trying to shave it too close?

Also I see sometimes moving parts changes analyze result back and forth.
Sometimes interference seems to be sticky -- once you see it, it stays.
I had no interference with a distance of .05mm, then could not get a no interfere result smaller than 6mm.
Thu Jun 18 2015, 12:48:28
(no subject) (by Jonathan Westhues)
Are the reported interferences on plane surfaces, or curved surfaces? That test works on the triangle mesh, never the NURBS surfaces; so it may fail when the gap is small compared to the chord tolerance.
Thu Jun 18 2015, 17:31:06
interferences are over-reported only on curved surfaces (by John Griessen)
Is there a good way to make the triangle mesh sizes smaller? Without blowing up too much? Any way to specify them smaller on certain surfaces?

So far, as is, this design takes 3 seconds when changing the active group from
underlying flat sketch to lathe and imported lathe assembly.
Thu Jun 18 2015, 19:11:03
max segments (by John Griessen)
I searched for chord tolerance and found the paragraph in the docs on zooming in and regenerating to get finer mesh. How about setting max segments?

I'm getting interference only in places between cone surfaces near 0, 90, 180,270 degrees, so maybe the fine meshes stop when max segments is reached? Anyway, it's not a good radial symmetry result, so there's something not-about-ideal-geometry going on here.

If I zoom in more and more regenerating each time, the number of interfering edges drops, so I guess it's a good indication even if getting some odd ones, but none that seems like a real interference.

My method is becoming: Change interfering dimensions for +.01 or .02 mm in radius, (+.02 or .04mm in diameter), then test, then make comment notes in the drawing about desired dimensions, then put dimensions back for further assemblies or for designing more mating surfaces.
Thu Jun 18 2015, 19:34:07
Post a reply to this comment:
Your Name:
Your Email:
Subject:
(no HTML tags; use plain text, and hit Enter for a line break)
Attached file (if you want, 5 MB max):
© 2008-2018 SolveSpace contributors. Most recent update Nov 22 2018.