Difference between Studio Surface & Through Curve Mesh

[Berserk]

Hello,

What is the difference between Studio Surface & Through Curve Mesh? They look like they have the same options in the dialogue box.

UGNX5.0.4.1 MP6 \ WinXP-SP3
Productive Design Services

http://www.productivedesign.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

I't hard to explain in words so try this exampple:

Create a set of 6 curves (they can all be planar and the 'demo' would still be valid) which forms a rectangle with 2 bisector curves. In other words, a 2 x 2 'checkerboard'. Now create a surface using those curves, first with the 'Through Curve Mesh' function and now try the same thing using the 'Studio Surface nxn'. Now keep in mind that if you have the preview ON, as soon as you see a surface being previewed, YOU CAN HIT THE APPLY BUTTON AND GET THAT SURFACE. Keeping in mind that the order of the curves are important and that with the Studio Surface you can edit it and add and remove both Section and Cross curves however and as many as you like.

Or better yet, download my attached example and try that same workflow, first a 'Through Curve Mesh' and then a 'Studio Surface'.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[hudson888]

John,

What I think the example may demonstrate is that the nxn surface will accept different inputs from the dialog and still calculate a result. But given the same inputs the question may well be whether the surface internals or mathematics is any different and in what way better using the studio tools.

I think the answer may in part be found in the worked version of the demo that I have attached.

In the original example on layer 1 I have forced both types of surface built through arcs to manually rebuild the curves to degree 5 resulting in a single patch.

In the second example on layer 2 I have built splines instead of arcs but through the same points. There is no point comparing results from this to the first example just to one another. The mesh surface using default settings is much more internally complex than the studio nxn surface in this particular case. You'll also find that the two results are very similar indeed and that for most users the technical difference would be immaterial. However reduction in complexity is usually a good thing and desirable for better smoothness especially in styling applications. I suspect that the maths of these two differ only as a result of the possible inputs vis the dialogs but I would love to know whether that is true or not for interest's sake.

Best Regards

Hudson

www.jamb.com.au

Nil Desperandum illegitimi non carborundum

 

[JohnRBaker]

Well, as the name implies, it was designed as 'studio' or ID type application enhanced for the way a 'stylist' would expect the create a surface. Also it allows to add and remove curves, both during creation and editing.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.