Optimize Surface

[John.Pryal]

Hello, i was wondering if anyone could explain Optimize Surface, a new feature inside Boundary Blend. See the attached model. I make surfaces such as these all the time & recently switched to Creo 3, saw this new feature, but from what i can see, it far from optimizes my surface, it destroys it. If you take my model, edit definition the boundary blend surface & uncheck the optimize surface, regenerate the model & look at the difference. I have searched for information on this topic & came up with very little, any help here would be appreciated.

I did through trial & error, come up with some very nice surfaces using this model. I made the initial surface as two, revolving the top, & making the lower part a boundary blend. Maybe, thats the key, having a not too complex surface, single entities in the boundary curves.

John

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[John.Pryal]

This optimize surface feature continues to frustrate me. A year or so on & I don't think i have ever been able to check that box without it having a negative effect on my surface, so I end up un-checking the box & leaving my surface not 'optimized'. I just thought i would bring this post back in the hope that more people are using the feature now & maybe can shed some light on it.

Regards

John

[Greg_McMurray]

Do a curvature analysis on your part and compare what it looks like with Optimized checked and unchecked. It's optimizing G3 continuity which is the rate of change.

[John.Pryal]

Thank you for your reply. Like I said, this Optimize surface is something I have never been able to use successfully. I create a lot of surface models that have symmetry in x & y, so I tend to model one quadrant & mirror the surface, merge it with the original, then mirror again. This enables me to set precise boundary conditions giving better control of my surfaces. 9 times out of 10 I would be setting Normal tangency conditions. There is no doubt that checking the Optimize Surface feature improves the surface appearance, but it definitely does this at the expense of the tangency I set. It appears to cause the surface adjacent my boundary to dip, in some cases bulge in ways I cannot live with. Maybe the kind of surfaces I have to create are just not conducive to this feature. I guess going forwards, I keep trying it, maybe it will work nicely given the right conditions.

[magnus.salomons]

John, you could try and post the same question on MCAD Central as well. There's a couple of guys e.g Bart Breja who teaches surfacing in Creo and I believe is also in a technical committee for surfacing in Creo. He usually knows all the new features regarding surfacing in Creo.

[John.Pryal]

Thanks for the information, I have been toying with the idea of joining that forum for a while, perhaps I will.

Regards

John

[Patriot_1776]

Hey John,

I haven't really looked at the "optimize" too much, but i noticed the same kind of thing.  I was TOTALLY unhappy with the results.

I've had issues trying to get a nice smooth curve from, say, a straight line, to a constant-radius arc.  When I tried to make the datum curve thru points using the "curvature continuous" option I almost always don't like the results.

What I'd like to see, is to be able to specify a tangent to the lane, and tangent to that hard radius, and do the smoothest blend possible between the to conditions, without having to manually tweak the curve.  Or, maybe I'm missing something......  I'm going to have to play with it more.....and post my results.

What I REALLY want is that free-form modeler where it's ALWAYS C2...... 

[John.Pryal]

Thanks Frank, I am happy at least one other person has noticed this. When I first made this post I was surprised at the lack of response, but put it down to the fact that Creo 3 was new out & that the community was getting to grips with it. I was even more surprised last week, when 18 months on from my original post I only received 1 reply. Is nobody out there using this 'optimize'? Or are they, but not having the issues I face?

Regards

John

[Patriot_1776]

Hey John.

I actually just got on creo3 at the end of Sept '16, after being stuck on the WORST version of Pro/E EVAR for 5 years (creo Elemants/Pro 5.0), so, that's a new option for me.  Played with it a little, didn't like it.

My opinion is, if it's a IM or RIM plastic part or cast part, you'll specify to polish the mold to a C2 finish anyway, so, unless there is absolutely a legit reason to struggle to make the MODEL itself C2, get it as close as you reasonably can, and call it good.  And no, I don't consider the ID guys wanting C2 just so they can make a pretty surface analysis or picture a legit reason to waste a ton of time, money, and effort.  In reality, you'll get what the mold gives you anyways, regardless of what the model is.  Period.  Sometimes you just have to Git-R-Dun and make (and sell) parts.

I'm trying my own way of making a curve to sweep a surface along that's smoooth since Pro/E still doesn't have the tools I want.  Think I have a solution, but we'll see......

[John.Pryal]

Yeah, I used that version for long enough too. Maybe my experience of it wasn't as bad as yours, but I do remember I crashed it a lot. That taught me the importance of doing regular saves!! I am curious about the technique you may have developed.

Thanks for your input, I hope things are going well for you after your 'Annus horribilis'.

Regards

John

[Greg_McMurray · Accepted solution]

What this feature does is change the curvature so it smoothly and monotonically varies. Only a few types of products require it like car bodies, but those designers use Alias or CATIA. I suppose some of your high end toothbrushes or housewares could be considered Class A too. Those are usually done by product design firms with Rhino or something conceptual like that. You just don't see Creo in that domain, and if it was it would be ISDX Style. I wonder what the rationale was for adding this to Pro-Surface? Although, really I wonder why Pro-Surface still exists in the first place. It's weird that they still have two different surface modelers in two different places.

[John.Pryal]

Thanks Greg, I take on board what you are saying. I can see how a car body, a front wing for example, might benefit from 'optimize' surface, there is no symmetry within that surface or the adjacent surfaces. Most of the surface models I deal with have symmetry across 2 planes, making 'optimize' redundant in my opinion. There are certain situations where it will work for me, so I just need to be mindful of these. Thanks for your input once again.

John