Topic: 3D Wires

[DanB]

3d experience = next to none, basic shape extrusions, union, just heard about sweep (AutoCAD 2012)

Just messing around trying something new when I have some time. I've been modeling my desk and the surrounding work area. I started modeling my computer speakers and need some help with drawing speaker wires and eventually my keyboard cord - yeah I know I could pretend they are wireless but I won't learn anything that way. I tried a 3d poly, used SWEEP on a small dia circle, but creating natural looking bends and twists seems fairly difficult. So any tips or tricks to modeling a thin wire?

[StykFacE]

Have you tried SPLINE instead of 3DPOLY?

[deegeecees]

Extrude has a Path option too.

[DanB]

Never a fan of splines, this might be a time I can put them to use - I'll give that a try.

And yeah I did know about the path option, thanks.

[mjfarrell]

spirals...and sweeps...and splines Oh My!

[StykFacE]

Never a fan of splines, this might be a time I can put them to use - I'll give that a try.

Splines have been modified greatly in the past few versions. AutoCAD 2012 has great new advancements in the control of Splines.

[JNieman]

Never a fan of splines, this might be a time I can put them to use - I'll give that a try.

Splines have been modified greatly in the past few versions. AutoCAD 2012 has great new advancements in the control of Splines.

...and most importantly, they're often easier to control graceful curves with - after the sweep has been made.  A simple circle swept along a path will usually leave you with grips that allow you to modify the path -after- the solid has been created.  I believe this holds true whether using SWEEP on a 3DPOLY or a SPLINE.

Another thing I've done to simplify modeling is to create the wire one plane at a time.  This means the wire would be made up of several segments of solids.  I did this back in the day before they added SWEEP, back when you had to use EXTRUDE with a PATH.  I would model a polyline or arc, depending on the situation, and either FIT/SMOOTH (I forget the actual term, sorry) on the polyline, and then extrude a circle along that.  If you think about it, most every wire can be made to look quite natural with only planar segments.  It's laying on the desk = XY plane.  It's going off the back of the desk, YZ plane.  It hits the floor and runs to the wall/surge-protector, ZX plane. 

Just a couple options that might make things easier and offer flexibility in modeling.  The biggest thing you want to do is make sure the solids you make are easily modified down the line.  In all my years of structural, metal fab, and even purely aesthetic/rendering targeted modeling, I found that I was overall fastest and happiest when I didn't have a bunch of "DUMB" solids out there.

I avoid the boolean commands such as SLICE, SUBTRACT, UNION, etc, like the plague.  They -usually- result in stupid solids that are no longer modifiable other than via SOLIDEDIT commands that have an uber limited set of tools.  AutoCAD has come a long way since these basic little boolean modeling methods and has a great set of parametric modeling tools that, if used properly, can create a super flexible and intelligent model that can be modified to suit revisions/changes/whims in just a few clicks or taps.

[mjfarrell]

get good with the ALIGN command

then you don't have to focus on what plane you create things in or on

[DanB]

Again just doing this in my off time - You mention not using/avoiding UNION, SUBTRACT commands - these were a couple of the commands I was actually introduced to back in the day. Is it preferred to have multiple solids simply visually connected althought not actually UNION'ed (is that a word?) in the modeling world? Or is there a less permanent feature other than UNION, I did make blocks out of several more complex objects.

The feedback recieved to date is appreciated, thanks again.

[deegeecees]

Again just doing this in my off time - You mention not using/avoiding UNION, SUBTRACT commands - these were a couple of the commands I was actually introduced to back in the day. Is it preferred to have multiple solids simply visually connected althought not actually UNION'ed (is that a word?) in the modeling world? Or is there a less permanent feature other than UNION, I did make blocks out of several more complex objects.

The feedback recieved to date is appreciated, thanks again.

I'm in the same camp as Jnieman. Using different UCS's to create the solid, and have them only 'visually' connected is one route I've taken. Union-ing them would destroy some of the editability, and there really is no reason to do so since you could "Group" them for easier selectability.

[mjfarrell]

Plan B


Copy your geometry prior to performing the union; best both worlds.
Also build pieces in seperate files for easy selection editing, through use of reference files.

[JNieman]

Again just doing this in my off time - You mention not using/avoiding UNION, SUBTRACT commands - these were a couple of the commands I was actually introduced to back in the day. Is it preferred to have multiple solids simply visually connected althought not actually UNION'ed (is that a word?) in the modeling world? Or is there a less permanent feature other than UNION, I did make blocks out of several more complex objects.

The feedback recieved to date is appreciated, thanks again.

I'm in the same camp as Jnieman. Using different UCS's to create the solid, and have them only 'visually' connected is one route I've taken. Union-ing them would destroy some of the editability, and there really is no reason to do so since you could "Group" them for easier selectability.

There's 3 ways I used.

I'd either make them into a block, or I'd copy them out to a new file and XREF them into the main file, or I'd put each wire/pipe/whatever on it's own layer.  I never used group but I had thought about tryign it a couple times... I think it was just a matter of being set in my ways that I stuck to the former 3.

[mjfarrell]

with lofting and sweeps one almost doesn't need to resort to brute force any longer
however you will find that keeping smaller pieces in an XREF and then bringing them all together in a Master file
will keep your work much easier to manage

[bchapman]

[/quote]...

I avoid the boolean commands such as SLICE, SUBTRACT, UNION, etc, like the plague.  They -usually- result in stupid solids that are no longer modifiable other than via SOLIDEDIT commands that have an uber limited set of tools.  AutoCAD has come a long way since these basic little boolean modeling methods and has a great set of parametric modeling tools that, if used properly, can create a super flexible and intelligent model that can be modified to suit revisions/changes/whims in just a few clicks or taps.
[/quote]

isn't the case anymore.... variables allow you to go back to the original solid, or simply hold control and select.