IrishMariner
Aerospace
- Feb 10, 2014
- 14
I'm stumped by an error I am experiencing in Part Design (V5-6R2014) and I am hoping one of you experts here can help me understand. I already searched the FAQ to no avail. I got some good suggestions from the COE forum, but still haven't gotten to the bottom of the problem.
I've attached a snapshot that illustrates the situation.
The part I am working on is a long thin metal strip (60 x 1 x .071) and when I measure the volume I get a number, but when I split the strip into pieces using some planes and measure the total volume (using multi-select), the returned volume is different to that of the un-split part. The error shown in the attached example is pretty minor (5.602 cu. in Vs. 5.603 cu. in), but I want to know why the numbers are not exactly the same.
The possible causes that have been proposed, tested but failed are:-
1) Unit precision: Although the example shown has a discrepancy that might be attributed to a rounding error, increasing decimal places did not change anything
2) 3D Accuracy: This was an interesting one. It was thought that coarse tesselation was responsible for the error. I tested using a full range of 3D Accuracy values to no avail.
I'm wondering if the .071" thickness in a 60.00" part in space is causing V5 accuracy tolerance to be tested to its limit.
I've attached a snapshot that illustrates the situation.
The part I am working on is a long thin metal strip (60 x 1 x .071) and when I measure the volume I get a number, but when I split the strip into pieces using some planes and measure the total volume (using multi-select), the returned volume is different to that of the un-split part. The error shown in the attached example is pretty minor (5.602 cu. in Vs. 5.603 cu. in), but I want to know why the numbers are not exactly the same.
The possible causes that have been proposed, tested but failed are:-
1) Unit precision: Although the example shown has a discrepancy that might be attributed to a rounding error, increasing decimal places did not change anything
2) 3D Accuracy: This was an interesting one. It was thought that coarse tesselation was responsible for the error. I tested using a full range of 3D Accuracy values to no avail.
I'm wondering if the .071" thickness in a 60.00" part in space is causing V5 accuracy tolerance to be tested to its limit.