Multi-face complex surfaces

[Austin Schukar]

Hey all, apologies in advance for a seemingly stupid question.

I have two particular questions that stem from one source - a complex surface that's been split into multiple faces. See below.

Q1: Does having split lines on a complex surface affect machinability? Assume curvature continuity, no singularities, etc.

Q2: Does this adversely affect CFD analysis?

[RichGergely]

The machinability if the tangency/continuity is good should not be affected if the CAM software is decent. Having more surfaces effects the time to run cutter paths in the program but looking at what you have there it wont be an issue.

I wouldn't have thought it would affect CFD but someone with more knowledge on that could verify.

[Austin Schukar]

The machinability if the tangency/continuity is good should not be affected if the CAM software is decent. Having more surfaces effects the time to run cutter paths in the program but looking at what you have there it wont be an issue.

I wouldn't have thought it would affect CFD but someone with more knowledge on that could verify.

Thanks for the response. This was my original thought as well. Much appreciated, Rich

[Lucas]

I think it won't affect anything.
The geometry and isocurves are preserved, this subdivision will just allow more selections in the CAD. But there wound be no meaning in subdivide if you are not going to modify or create more surfaces from it, right?

[Austin Schukar]

I think it won't affect anything.
The geometry and isocurves are preserved, this subdivision will just allow more selections in the CAD. But there wound be no meaning in subdivide if you are not going to modify or create more surfaces from it, right?

Thanks for your response, Lucas, and yes, you're correct. This was a simplification of a conversation that I had with a co-worker of mine. I'm working on a surfacing-heavy project (aircraft OML), and we had some disagreements on surfacing philosophies. My point was that when it's reasonable to do so, you can build surfaces from multiple features/faces, so long as curvature continuity is maintained. This is as opposed to trying to loft everything with one feature/face.

[Lucas]

Thanks for your response, Lucas, and yes, you're correct. This was a simplification of a conversation that I had with a co-worker of mine. I'm working on a surfacing-heavy project (aircraft OML), and we had some disagreements on surfacing philosophies. My point was that when it's reasonable to do so, you can build surfaces from multiple features/faces, so long as curvature continuity is maintained. This is as opposed to trying to loft everything with one feature/face.

Sound cool, may I ask what software do you use?
AFAIK G2 is enough for surfacing, but I am not a Class A Surfacing guy and the software that I work with tend to give better results using G1 (SolidWorks and Rhino).

[Austin Schukar]

Sound cool, may I ask what software do you use?
AFAIK G2 is enough for surfacing, but I am not a Class A Surfacing guy and the software that I work with tend to give better results using G1 (SolidWorks and Rhino).

We use PolyWorks, Geomagic DX, and SW...I wouldn't consider us Class A surfacers either. Too little budgeted time to get perfection. I'm trying my best to learn, but most of the time, we're just winging it. Pun intended