A boundary blend would do that. It also has options for tangency. You would be working with 3D datum curves and reference surfaces to control tangency. I would probably opt to work in this part with surfaces.
Are you doing an edit, or are you defining the whole part?
I replied yesterday but see that the post didn't take.
As I mentioned earlier the Variable Section Sweep almost does what I need it to. If only the ends would lock in place.
From what you say, the Boundary Blend might be an even better way of getting the results I would be looking for as it would hold to the ends and also allow sections in the secondary direction.
In comparing Variable Section Sweep to Boundary Blend, what are the drawbacks to Boundary Blend? Would it be a lack of influencing directional control? Boundary Blend does appear to be a better choice for my application but I would anticipate this would require some re-working of the upper rail curves as I would anticipate the results will be different than the VSS method.
I am doing the customer part from scratch. When I complete the model I will remove the imported customer model so there are no dependencies.
Boundary blend is a different animal. It has some very nice features least of which is control over the blending with neighboring surfaces similar to the VSS. Then again, it can become a bit confused just as easily when it encounters a pinch-point.
Here is an extensive discussion on surfaces made with various methods with some good samples posted: Fill surface with guide curves
Sometimes you have to try all 3 different techniques to see what works best. Sometimes you can't get EXACTLY what you want, either because what you want is impossible with any software, or because of the limitations in Pro/E. You just have to choose what gets you closest and allows you the best building block for future features.
Many times, what I'll do is pehaps make a simplified model where I can experiment with ONLY the area that's giving me trouble, find the best way to do it, and only then use that technique on the actual model.
For instance, I was doing some wireing harness routing (without the wiring module we don't have), and I tried to create the wiring bundle from the sweeps where the individual wires went into one connector to the same point for the other connector. I had a bundle of 11 wires I needed to do as a swept blend, and Pro/E will NOT let you have more than one closed loop in the sketch (THIS needs to be fixed and would be a REAL enhancement, unlike wasting time on ribbons....). So, I tried to do each wire separately. I was in "insert mode" because I wanted these features at the front, and I got all the wires done, and was happy with it. But when I resumed all the wiring at the connector ends, it all failed!!! WT#???? I tried monkeying with the absolute accuracy, and then redoing the swept blends, and/or the wiring at the ends, but nothing worked. So, I ended up having to "cheat" and do it as one swept blend, using the outside of the wires (all the visible surfaces) with a solid inner core. It's obviously not 100% correct, but you'll never see the problem because it's buried inside the bundle. Now, I COULD have given maybe .001 clearance between the circles as I think the issues Pro/E was struggling with was all the tangencies for the 11 wires and possible overlapping volumes due to rounding errors, but honestly, that should NOT matter. And, in the real world there wouldn't be gaps like that anyways (especially with the zip ties we're using on the harness), so that's an error right there. You can bury a simple extrusion inside another with no issue. Strange. But, it worked, most likely makes a much smaller file, and nobody will ever see the problam area, so I'm good with it.
I'll be putting some pics of the beast in my photo album shortly.
Best of luck!
Here's a JPEG of the routing I mentioned using a swept blend for the bundle, and individual sweeps for all the wires at the connector ends. A better (.bmp) image is in my photo album.
Frank: That is a very slick looking part.
I haven't even looked at Swept Blend yet but that's an impressive technique to build this.
It is tricky knowing which tool is the right one for the job.
Variable Section Sweep is the technique I used to get the results I showed in my picture. Perhaps Boundary blend might have been the better choice. I'll just have to see how well this all comes together.
I have been doing some experimentation. I'm sure I'll get better at picking the right tool as I gain experience and understand what everything does and doesn't do.
If you really want to give your CPU a heart attack, add a twist to that bundle, Frank
(angle of section orientation in the section) relation: sd#=0+4*(trajpar*360)
Yeah, I thought about that and WOULD have done it if the bundle had been a "twisted pair" type.......
I actually had a lot of fun doing this cable assy. Something about all those pretty colored wires.......
See if either of you guys can view this as a 3D PDF made from creo. There are 3 views, one with the "spin center" centered on the big connector, another for the small connector, and another centered in the model.
I too like modeling these little details when drawings call for it.
I was able to open the PDF... not that I understand how you got the spin center to move to those "views".
I did a bit of work to make trajpar work for twisted cables. With what you said and many crashes later, I came up with an almost foolproof technique ( he says sheepishly)
Since we've strayed from the subject at hand, keep an eye out for the document