lofting odd shape

[Menolik]

Is it possible to loft this shape?

Drawing4.dwg

[MaxwellEdison]

As it stands now, no. Here's why and how to fix it.

 

1) Its not a closed geometry, meaning its simply a few lines. Easiest way to correct this is with the BOUNDARY command. This will create a closed polyline over the original geometry.

 

2) There can't be only one. Lofting requires 2 or more cross sections. They can be the same, but don't have to be. Once you have a closed geometry you can move to a front view and copy or array them vertically and then adjust them left or right. Also for fun, try mixing in a few other shapes like a star, oval, or silhouette profile of former U.S. President Grover Cleveland (Only president to serve two non-consecutive terms ).

 

If you don't want the profile to change as its lofted, you'd probably be better off using EXTRUDE or SWEEP.

[mugshot]

what shall we do with these??? revolve it vertical or horizontal.... as maxwell said... loft needs 2 closed polylines....

[JD Mather]

loft needs 2 closed polylines....

 

Or two open profiles.

[JD Mather]

Is it possible to loft this shape?

 

Yes, here is the result of lofting your example (do List to verify).

Drawing4_loft.zip

[Menolik]

I used the boundary command and when I try to loft two of the shapes, it tells me cross-section curves must be all open or all closed.

[Menolik]

Actually I just chose to loft one of the old shapes before the boundary command. So it worked. Thank you.

[JD Mather]

Actually I just chose to loft one of the old shapes before the boundary command. So it worked. Thank you.

 

Can you attach the results. Curious about what you were really after.

[Menolik]

Oh man, I so glad the boundary command exists.

[Menolik]

Here is what I needed. I plan to subtract this from an object I have.

victory.dwg

[JD Mather]

Looks to me like you left out some critical information in your original attachment.

[shift1313]

i would agree, the first file was just a triangle:)

[Menolik]

All I needed to know was if that particular shape could be lofted at all, the rest I could do myself. That was all the information needed. The boundary command fixed my problem.

[Menolik]

If you guys are going to be picky; It was not quite a triangle.

[JD Mather]

That was all the information needed.

 

If you had supplied adiquate information in the first post the question would have been answered in the second post. Playing a game of 20 questions for each problem statement is not very efficient use of anyones time.

[Menolik]

ok maybe it still is a triangle

[Menolik]

Are you kidding me? It WAS answered in the second post by the way. It was a simple straight-forward question: Can the shape be lofted? In other words, is that shape compatible with the loft command or no? I'm not seeing your point I guess. If you feel it is a waste of your "all important" time, then why did you bother posting at all? Have a good one.

[shift1313]

typically it helps to know a little bit more about what you are trying to do with the model. Saying "can this be lofted" is vauge. There are instances where that may not be lofted depending on your guides, other cross sections etc. Also if you were trying to produce something where another command would be more effective, the question could be answered in the best possible way.

 

JDMathers and others have vast amounts of knowledge when it comes to these software packages and everyone is here to help the best they can. Us knowing that you understand and are able to use the loft command is helpful because it saves time from trying to explain things you may not need to know.

 

We are all here to help and learn. The more info we put into questions/answers, the easier it will be for another user searching for an answer to not ask the same question.

[Menolik]

Ok then. My apologies JDMathers. The way you worded what you said kind of bothered me so I got a little fired up.