Comparison of the Four Methods

The first method used nineteen commands: two Insert Lines, one Join Pcurve, two Insert Boxes, three Insert LinearSweep, six Insert Features, three Duplicate Entities, and two Union Solids. Determining the correct way to specify all of the reference positions and dimensions for this model was very difficult.

The second method reduced this to ten commands: two Insert Lines, one Join Pcurve, one Insert LinearSweep, two Insert Circles, two Insert Hole Profile, one Insert Box, and one Union Solid. The reference position and dimension requirements were much easier to understand in this model.

The third method eliminated two more commands: the two Insert Circle commands from the previous method. Also, the Insert Hole Profile was replaced with Insert Hole Circle. The commands necessary to create the holes with this method were a little more difficult, as the Insert Hole Circle command changes the active cplane, and the orientation and origin of the cplane depends on which edges of the entry face are selected. It also creates the cplane with the Z axis going in the opposite direction from the previous cplane being. This caused either the X and Y axes to swap position, or the X axis to reverse direction. Getting the proper parameters to get the pattern right after this cplane switch was rather difficult.

The fourth model increased to ten commands; however, three of these were because of the change from the non-filleted fins to filleted fins. Despite the larger number of commands necessary to create this part, the part file for this model takes up only one-half to one-fourth of the disk space that the previous model used. Changing the holes to bosses also returned the cplane for this command to the top cplane. This method also eliminated the need to change cplanes while building the model.

Last Modified: Wed Aug 28 14:41:29 EDT 1996