I came across a interesting concept of a handle, i am trying to model this in solid works 2011 and my knowledge on the surfacing/complex modeling is limit.
so kindly help me
Thanks in advance
Are you paying for a model or do you just want help?
First thought: Swept Cut with guide curves, Loft or Loft Cut with guide curves.
Maybe show some screen shots of what you’ve tried, otherwise your post sounds like “Please do my homework for me”.
If you have access to it, try this book. It will cover just about everything you need to model the door handle.
That book is devilishly hard to find in actual book form, as it’s out of print. I’ve been trying to purchase it for a couple years.
Our CAD guys can model that up in a jiffy…if, like mwilkins1 wondered, you’re a paying customer.
Love that sketch, by the way. It reminds me of the 60’s and 70’s stuff that was hoarded away at GM during my time there. Lots of chrome ‘stuff’.
Same here. All that ever pops up on ebay is a scanned PDF version.
How relevant is this for the current generation of solidworks? worth the 27 bucks to buy the kindle version?
I did not notice it was not available easily. Sorry for the shoddy suggestion work on my part.
I bought the book in late 2008 or early 2009 and I think it was a version year behind the times for SW then. I would check but the book is in California and I am watching the rain fall in Taiwan. Anyway, it was most helpful for understanding some of the work flow needed to create the surfaces and less about picks and clicks. The names of the tools are probably the same, at least.
It was good prep for the CSWP Surfacing exam (not that the exam was really worth anything itself).
Thanks for the response
Please find the attached pictures on the approach followed for modeling.
Regarding my posting:
I am self learning on how to convert hand written concept sketches into solidworks 3D model.
so kind request you to help me
Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the response
I am self learning on how to convert concept sketch to solidworks 3D model. kindly help how to begin with.
start by modeling what you know. For example model the round rings at the base of the handle. Secondly, in your mind think of each brake in spectacular highlight as a separate function. Consider redrawing the handle with out the flat surface … the one where you might rest your thumb if using the handle. Now model that shape w/o the flat surface that cuts everything away. The flat surface is a separate function, probably a four part bounded surface for example.
Bart has the right approach. It is the first step in any modeling project to look at a model/object/sketch the way a sushi chef looks at a slab of tuna. Where is the best place to cut it? Where is the best point to start from? What happens when I flip it over and look at it from another direction?
The second set of questions arise. What will I have to model that is implied by the object but actually exists outside of the envelope? The flat area on the handle for example is a surface that extends beyond the basic envelope of the handle. To extend the knife metaphor, you have to start build the surfaces of that flat by defining where the handle and tip of the knife are.
Each modeling project require searching for the “grain” of an object, totally independent of which software tool you are going to use to “cut” the object into, or out of, digital space.
Whoa. This got deep! Shaw drops the mystical knowledge bomb!
Great insight Shaw and Bart.
MKB, I like it.
It is always the discussion that I would like to have. The intangible/metadigital approach to surface modeling. We surfacers must all have differing approaches to any given objects geometry, and reasons we we model in the order or manner we do. I know it when I am deep in it, and wonder what it would be like to describe it to someone else, the reasoned choices I am making. Mystical at best, micro geek obsession at worst.
Here is the worst part. I am a surfacist*. I judge work on its surfaces, and unknown modelers by the invisible hand embodied by their molded surfaces. I hold prejudices against what I consider to be badly handled transitions, or easily executed or facile surfaces. I imagine when I am modeling visible or even hidden details, that somewhere out there someone will look at the transitions and be judging me, not just the object.
*“ist” in the negative sense.
Oh certainly not. For me it gets most obsessive when looking at cars, but those guys know vastly more about surfacing than I ever will.
The worst offender for me is definitely industrial equipment, when I can tell it modeled in SW. Obviously I don’t mind that it was made in SW, I only mind that I can tell. And yes I know not every project has the budget or desire to make some sexy cladding for an industrial widget but it bothers me anyway.
Sometimes with objects like you have drawn it helps to spend a little time upfront figuring out exactly what shape you are trying to make. Draw other views, including orthogonal views, sculpt it out of clay, or when you’re more comfortable with the software you can rough out some forms to experiment. Single perspective sketches often leave parts of the object ambiguous or can trick you into seeing things differently then they actually are. For example, I don’t think you really know what is happening on the back (hidden) side of the handle and I interpret the corner surface in the top left (on the shaft coming out of the disc) as a sort of curved chamfer than meets the other surfaces in a fairly sharp way, not a fillet. And the left surface looks concave, not flat. This handle actually has a lot of different faces, and it will help to take time to get to know each of them, then find a tool that will let you make them. I’m guessing you’ll end up with a lot of surfaces (probably mostly boundary surfaces, though those large flats might be lofts with start/end constraints - adjust the tangent length) that are trimmed by each other. Do not fillet anything, unless it’s a curvature continuous face fillet or a tiny one at the end to get your sharp edge to render right (a true sharp edge rarely is seen in the physical world).
P.S. This is probably tougher than you think to model. Which means your shouldn’t get discouraged when it seems tough, but also if you think you’ve found an easy/simple way to do something, ask yourself if it is really the geometry you’re looking for, or if it’s just “close enough.” Close enough will make probably make Nxakt cringe when he sees it.
When I model there is often the first solution. The one that does the job, but shows clearly the CAD method that was used to create it. This is the one that feels lazy or amateur, the one that bothers me when I see it. The one that I have to fix out of pride in doing a job right, doing a design right. Straight extrusions with constant radii are the worst offenders to my eye. Or something that clearly panders to a mold separation line in conflict with the usage or design.
With the current generation of RP tools and software and Kickstarter, I see more simple CAD. Wondering if it will become an aesthetic for a time, a sort of 8-bit approach to surfaces and surfacing. Something that marks a product as fresh to the youth, or if it will have a subliminal feeling in the minds of all consumers of inferiority to more considered surfacing.
Warning what follows is full surface obsession.
Agreed, but there is one detail that I see “errors” on production cars. Crazy small detail, the transition between the wheel well flare at the rear into the lower bumper extension line. A little hollow elbow of surfaces. In clay this is no problem for a modeler to do. In CAD it appears to be a problem for mid-range cars. I see a mixture of success in this detail and a few failures. By failures I mean the CAD transitions become obvious, and less refined to the older cheaper models on the road that were done analog.
Haha. And if the thought of making me cringe makes you re-work a surface to get a better result, then you have joined the club.
Can you post an image of this? You’ve piqued my curiosity