| Author | Message | ||
     Interex2050 |
I have been conjuring up a project... and for this project I need to model the XB frame So I decided to do a "test" frame first (just visual resemblance), to see what kind of trouble I would run into... So here is the question, I want to close up the upper part of the frame. This in theory seems simple enough...  What I run into is that when I attempt to do a filled surface I get some nasty results  Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I should approach this? Much thanks, Peter | ||
| Penders_xb12r |
Use Pro-Engineer Wildfire. No but are you gonna run a FEA on the frame or what cause if you are the sharp edges in the frame, that you have that aren't there on the real frame. Will cause stress risers and cause the Von-mises stress to be way bigger than they actually are. Try putting a fillet on the corners that will help, but as to the top try breaking it up into different sections that might help. | ||
| Interex2050 |
I will probably not run an FEA on the frame as I do not have access to a frame to dissect to get all the details of the head column assembly. It will be primarily used for sizing... I am using surfaces to model the frame at this point, later I will convert it to a hollow solid. Thus adding fillets at this point will only cause me further grief... Thanks for the idea about breaking it up, but there must be a better way to resolve the current issue... The reason I am doing a "test" frame is so that when it comes to actually modeling a proportional frame, I will have a technique put together... So I wont have to deal with both getting the dimensions right and figuring out the little headaches. Thanks, Peter | ||
| Steve_mackay |
Interex, send me the file and I can investigate it a bit... It's most likely something to do with the underlying geometry before the cap where it steps out. So if you want, send me a Parasolid file to: mackay dot steve at gmail.com Sometimes those Parasolid and Acis based modelers tend to be TOO picky about being too accurate. Which, I bet is the reason why Buell themselves no longer uses Solidworks. | ||
| Hughlysses |
You probably just inadvertently revealed the 2008 XB frame with increased fuel capacity...  | ||
| Cycleaddict |
thats a "female" frame design , gotta find the "tab" for the "male" version ! | ||
| Interex2050 |
Steve_mackay, Thank you very much for the offer, I will send you the file. It is frustrating how each CAD program has its own nasty quirk. I used to use AutoCAD Mechanical, but that was so clumsy for 3D that I moved to Solidworks. What would you recommend as an alternative for Solidworks? | ||
| Yamahammer490 |
Peter, I've modeled a lot of bike parts in Inventor which has a similar workflow to SolidWorks. I would start by modeling one spar using a couple of lofts. It could then be shelled and mirrored. Then add the other stuff for hanging the engine and so forth as more features. In general it's better to build up the assembly with more, smaller parts than to make one giant part with every feature. Here's an XB-like frame that I modeled up to see if I could build it up from standard components for a custom project (that never saw the light of day.) Hopefully from it you can see the individual parts and the methodology I used.  | ||
| Steve_mackay |
Peter, I got your file. I do mold and die work for a living, so I require a tool that will do free-form surfacing better than solidworks was offering. I thought they got better with the 2007 version though? But anyhow, I use a tool called VX. 2 1/2 years ago, they had a deal that only cost me $2K for their "end to end" suite. Sheetmetal design, mold design, rendering, 2D, 2 1/2D, and full 3D Cam, etc... Where VX shines, is the fact that it doesn't CARE if a solid is 100% watertight. It truly treats surfaces and solid the same way. They are all what VX calls, "shapes". When a solid operation fails(and it will fail from time to time on *EVERY* 3D cad application), I can fall back to surfaces, and manually trimming to create the desired features with good success. I think the problem lies in the fact that Solidworks NEEDS to add a bunch of planar surfaces to cap the frame rails off, but a fill-in surface doesn't do multiple planar angles very well. Don't get me wrong, Solidworks can be an EXCELLENT tool, and does most tasks very well. But once you get in to doing very organic flowing objects is where Solidworks is not the tool of choice IMHO.  | ||
| Djkaplan |
I'm no SolidWorks gun, but I've been using it (on my own) for 2 years now. It seems like you'd be better off just using its solid modeling features instead of piecing together surfaces, if all you want is a proportional representation of a frame you're not using for FEA. At MBII, Erik Buell and I spoke at length about SolidWorks and Think3. I came away reasonably impressed that he kept up-to-date on the CAD software his engineers use, something I can't say about any CEO of the companies I've worked for. | ||
| Interex2050 |
Thank you Steve. Yes the 2007 version is much better, or so I have heard. Not to mention they have added so many goodies, so I am pondering getting it. Djkaplan, I certainly agree that using solids would be easier and in fact that is what I just did... It took me all of 15 minutes to do what it took me forever with surfaces...   But I do most of my work with solids and I want to develop my skills with surfaces as I will need to use them for this project... And plus using solids seems too easy, I do not learn much by using those. In this case I guess the version of Solidworks that I am using just does not fancy what I am trying to do... Much thanks to all! If interested I will post my progress... | ||
| Buell_41 |
I've kinna had an on-going project as well...  | ||
| Interex2050 |
Buell_41, That is impressive, well done! What program are you using? My guesses are Solidworks or Inventor as they look pretty similar... | ||
| Nevrenuf |
that is pretty impressive. been doing 2d cadd work on 07 and trying to get into 3d. i'm sure it will be a while before up to that point in doing that kind of work. | ||
| Buell_41 |
I wish I could claim it as my model.... However, I must confess that it's .3DS surface model that I downloaded. But because it was done in a format that Soildworks can't read, my project was to to convert file format many times to get it into Solidworks. I do have the back of the bike modeled in a similar fashion but my dinky home computer locks up when I try to put the two together. I'm willing to share files if anyone has a stouter computer than myself and has some hard drive space (310MB). | ||
| Interex2050 |
How accurate is the frame model? If its pretty good I would really appreciate it! Thanks, Peter | ||
| Steve_mackay |
a .3ds model is a faceted model. Much like an STL IIRC. Converting it using Solidworks must be a daunting task. How are you doing it anyhow? VX has reverse engineering tools that can turn triangle models by using the points in to surface models. | ||
| Nevrenuf |
you think acad 2007 could read that or do you need something more specific. | ||
| Buell_41 |
I had to convert .3DS into .dxf which 3DSMax can do. Got it into Autocad but it was just lines (wireframe). Saved it there. Then imported it into Solidworks and let it do the surfaces. It is a bunch of triangular sufaces (facetted). I think is pretty accurate unto itself, but there's a scale problem. For instance, Solidworks measures the handlebars at 2" in diameter... they're only 7/8" obviously. My computer wouldn't convert the whole bike in a single pass... used up the RAM. So I told 3DSMax to only convert the front. Then convert the back. Each half took about an hour to import into Solidworks. I can send original .3ds files as well as Solidworks files. Email me at buell41@gmail.com. | ||
| Buell_41 |
By the way... Solidworks files are in 2006.  | ||
| Anonymous |
It's much easier in think3...really!!!! | ||
| Steve_mackay |
And even easier in VX  | ||
| Icon12r |
The Buell Geek Squad, gotta love it.  Seriously though, Looks good guys... I'm sure those models took more time and patience then I could ever hope to have. | ||
| Blake |
That is one heck of a color scheme.  | ||
| Interex2050 |
Buell_41, Thanks I will keep that in mind, but I will suffer some more first see what I can do... Or go and see if anyone I know is currently using VX or Think3 and try to get some time on those... I think the biggest problem that I am currently having is not possessing a stripped down frame, to be able to really look at the detail first hand. Much thanks! Peter | ||
| Xbeau12s |
gotta love Solidworks! Are some of you guys on here Engineers or Drafters? Don't mean to jack the thread but I'm a mechanical Drafter and I've been looking for a release of Solidworks or inventor that I could use at home. Designing high end shotguns and working for an Engineering firm now but we only use AutocadLT which sux IMO. I just seen those drawings above and I want to start doing something like that now! | ||
| Interex2050 |
Don't get me wrong, solidworks is a fantastic piece of software... Although it does have some limitations, but then all software does. For home use you can just get the basic solidworks package. Autocad, good for 2d but terrible for 3d perhaps you could convince your firm to migrate to a more modern program. While your at it perhaps they can arrange a cheaper licensing option for you... Good luck with that one (Message edited by interex2050 on April 12, 2007) | ||
| Xbeau12s |
I know! I hate using the 2D program but at the gunshop I did make a lot of 3D models in Autocad 2000 which wasn't great but that's all they had. I think I'm gonna try and go for the Solidworks. I prefer Inventor because it just beats em all but the price is something close to another Buell! | ||
| Xbeau12s |
I know! I hate using the 2D program but at the gunshop I did make a lot of 3D models in Autocad 2000 which wasn't great but that's all they had. The LT is junk IMO but it works for plumbing design but talk about boring! I think I'm gonna try and go for the Solidworks. I prefer Inventor because it just beats em all but the price is something close to another Buell! | ||
| Buell_41 |
I'm a mechanical designer and we pretty much use Solidworks for 99.9% of the stuff we do. We still use plain 'ol 2D AutoCad for wiring schematics and the like. |
