Sectioning Surfaces in Drafting

[MSPBenson]

I'm currently trying to set up some standard drawings that I can add and remove parts into and generate drawings quickly.
The drawings are generally 1 or 2 views with sections through parts at pre defined sections.

The problem I am facing is that these parts tend to be only surface geometry and not thickened.
When I section surfaces I find that UG is very tempramental and will section some of the surfaces but not all of them.

Has anyone else come across this and found a "neat" solution to make sure UG sections all of the surfaces.

I want to avoid using wavelinks and modeled in sections as the whole point of the drawings is to save time and allow users to "drop" parts straight into the drawings hit update and then get a usable drawing without having to fiddle with them.

Any help (as always) is very much appreciated.

Cheers,

Mark Benson
Aerodynamics Model Designer

 

[Xwheelguy]

How consistent are the modeling tolerances from one surface model to the next? If they vary quite a bit, I would imagine this would cause NX to behave unpredictably when trying to generate a view in Drafting.

You might also want to include a single point in modeling for quickly re-defining the section line on the Drafting side, if you find the surfaces are all over the place in relation to the origin.

I've never ran into a need for sectioning surfaces on the Drafting side, so these are just some shots in the dark. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

Tim Flater
Senior Designer
Enkei America, Inc.

http://www.enkei.com

Some people are like slinkies....they don't really have a purpose, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

 

[MSPBenson]

Tim,

Thanks for the reply.
The surfaces all have the same modelling tolerance.
They're all modelled in UG and the default tolerance is set the same for all users. It's a major no no with us to mess with modelling tolerances.
Positioning is not an issue as everything is modelled at absolute coordinates.
I've also tried messing with the view tolerances as sometimes this cures iso view display problems, as well as some of the other view preferences but it's had no effect.

Cheers,

Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer

 

[ideasuser]

Some Japanese car company supplied their parts with surfaces without thickness. I sew them together and thicken the sew surface then make the drawing with 3 views and section view. I did not have any problem this way.

 

[MSPBenson]

Unfortunately having to sew and thicken the surfaces would add more time into the process than I'd like.
The drawings would be used regularly with constantly changing surface geometry. This is why I'd like to use the drafting sectioning as if you just add a different component to the drawing part it would just require updating the views and the drawing would fill itself out.
I can't see why UG would have more problems sectioning a surface than a solid. If anything I'd expect it to be easier.


Mark Benson
Aerodynamic Model Designer

 

[ideasuser]

When I convert the file ( from Iges format ) I can set the tolerance for the surfaces import in. If the surfaces were created by other software (ex: Mechanical Desktop) their trim edge tolerance were different. You can see the gap between the trim edges. UG converted to make the surfaces appear OK but in math data may be it is not. When sectioning the surfaces there are no math data to calculate the section lines. This is my own theory. I am not defence for UG.

 

[cbrn]

Hi,
Ideasuser, the O.P. said that all surfaces are created inside UG.
But you possibly open a new opportunity: save the file in Parasolid format, and read it back in UG. Due to the fact that the subset of entities of standard Parasolid is less extended than the proprietary format of UG, many entities are "regenerated" during the conversion and, in some cases, this can fix problems...

Regards