CAD systems offer a wide variety of surfaces to meet almost
any need that has been consistently communicated to CAD software developers. They do their best to anticipate the needs of
design engineers. However, the communication
between those down in the trenches of actual mechanical design and those up on
the hill of software design is often confounded. Consequently, the surface
types created are not exactly what is needed by mechanical design folks. In
addition, CAD systems that have it all are often so complex that only a handful
of incredibly experienced designers can use them for all they are worth.
Another problem is that when the surface types get named, they are often named
according to their mathematical significance, not their “needs-based”
significance. For example, if you are an industrial designer needing to model a
molding that acts as a bumper around an odd shaped product, it may be better if
you looked for a command called “Molding” instead of “Sweep Along a Guide”. The
other day I needed to make a surface that emulated a certain situation. If you
took a hanger wire and bent it into an odd shaped loop, then dipped it into
bubble solution, took it out and gently blew upon it, that is the shape I was
after. I was able to achieve the shape but I ended up using a surface called
the “N-sided Surface” rather than one called “Bubble on Wire Loop”. Moreover,
once I find the surface type that will do the trick, I need to use various
options within that surface type that will enable me to finally make the
geometry that I want.
A partial solution is to have a book that has an index of
incredibly cool applications that you can search through by name and picture.
Once you find the application, you then find an example of how to do it – exactly what commands you will
need, the names, the options / settings and a description of the limitations.
If only . . .
--by Steve Samuel
