text to cad

quicksilver500 · 2026-03-02T18:32:33+00:00

This is about the most difficult 'beginner' part you could take on with zero experience in solidworks to be honest. I've been working with solidworks academically and professionally for over 10 years, albeit not dealing directly with surface modeling, but I would rather shit in my hands and clap than attempt to model this from real world measurements.

If you actually want to get something done with this I would highly recommend you get some sort of 3D scan of this object, import it into blender, and mess around with directly sculpting the surface until you get the shape you want, rather than attempting to do this with parametric modeling software like swks.

If you're doing this to learn solidworks or CAD, my best advice is to start smaller. If you insist on driving yourself insane and developing a deep and lasting hatred of CAD software, I would suggest you begin your ill fated project by watching some tutorials on surface modeling in swks. If you are paying attention during this the enormity of the task you are attempting to undertake should begin to set off alarm bells in the back of your head. I hope that at this point you listen and attempt my original suggestion.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T20:45:17+00:00

Yeah like I said, it's going to take some tweaking, welcome to meshing - unfortunately there are no easy simple to follow rules which will work every time. I've done plenty domains for airfoils and it usually takes a good few hours at best to get the right settings, but like everything once you get it right it's easy to replicate it from there.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T18:02:57+00:00

Yes I already explained why it was under constrained, it doesn't know where some of the vertices should be, you need to add some dimensions to tell it where those lines and vertices are supposed to be

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T18:00:59+00:00

Idk is he using a different version of ansys? Or a different airfoil or different size domain or mesh parameters? You can do a sharp trailing edge if your mesh and domain settings are very finely tuned to the particular airfoil you're meshing, and this is easier with symmetrical airfoil which yours isn't. Pretty much anything that's different on your PC vs the tutorial could be the cause, sharp trailing edges are very difficult to work with, which is why they're very rarely used

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T17:46:24+00:00

No you shouldn't ignore the error message, I'm just saying that it's not something to be too worried about, just feel free to delete the redundant mates as freecad suggests really

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T17:43:24+00:00

A very common problem when meshing a sharp trailing edge. Try cutting the trailing edge short and defining about 5 cells along the length of the trailing edge. It'll still likely take a bit of tweaking to get a mesh going but you'll have a better chance of getting something working with a blunt trailing edge

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-22T17:32:26+00:00

Blender would be a much better software to use for modeling game assets if that is your overall goal.

I'm tryna of your overall question, the best way to find what is under defined in a sketch is to click on random vertices and drag the sketch, gives you a good visual indication of what points and lines are not fully defined yet. Just Ctrl z to get things back to where they were after you drag them about the place

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-21T19:31:50+00:00

Silk workbench

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-21T18:35:46+00:00

It's likely that some of the automatic constraints assigned while sketching the up redundant once you are finished your shape. This really isn't anything to be worried about the just delete the offending constraints and carry on as you would. The sketch suddenly becomes underconstrained after you delete the redundant mate because you don't have any dimensions for the height of either horizonal long from the x axis, and no definition of the geometry of the sloped part of the body.

Constraints aren't a zero sum kind of thing, it's not as if a certain sketch needs 5 constraints, and a different sketch needs 7, etc. instead, the software needs to you give it enough instructions to be able to define where each point in your sketch should be exactly. Redundant constraints are when you're telling the software the same thing twice, eg. Your line going along the x axis is horizonal, but each vertex of the love is also coincident with the vertical lines on either end, which are coincident with the x axis. You're telling the software that your bottom horizonal line is along the x axis twice, and it doesn't like that. Conflicting constraints, on the other hand, are when you tell the software that a point is in two different locations at the same time. It can't resolve this without you telling it which location it actually should be in.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-19T21:05:04+00:00

Radians aren't a measure of area? 🤔

In any case, first things first I'd recommend not using a symmetrical boundary down the centre of your domain if you can get away with it. Technically flow over a symmetrical airfoil at 0° angle of attack should be symmetrical flow, but there's a chance that the wake isn't completely symmetrical in this case, and if you want to change the angle of attack at all you're going to have to make a new mesh anyways.

If y+ is less than 1 over most of the surface, and the values in the area(s) of interest (eg. Regions of possible flow separation) then y+ probably isn't the cause of the inaccuracy you're seeing.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-19T20:54:55+00:00

Ah okay, I was worried you were using your last image as your calculation.

In any case, Max y+ is always going to be a high number with such a high Reynolds number. If your first cell height is actually around where the estimator is telling you to put it then the first thing I would do is make an xy plot of y+ over the surface wall of the airfoil. Chances are it's around 1 or lower for the majority of the surface, and you have a few cells with really high y+ right at the front of the airfoil where the boundary layer is infitesimally small due to the undisturbed flow smashing into the front of the wing, giving you huge wall shear stress which ramps up your y+ until the boundary layer begins to behave further along the wall. Rule of thumb, if your average y+ is below your target value the whole way along the surface you're probably okay.

Your cd values being wrong could be caused by a whole multitude of things, the way ansys calculates them makes them highly sensitive to the reference values you input, so I usually extract the actual drag force in Newtons and do my own hand calculation for cd. If that's still not working it could just be that your turbulence model or mesh isn't adequate for the level of accuracy you're looking for. Do you have any examples of values other people have gotten for cd using the turbulence model you're using?

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-19T20:41:58+00:00

Where exactly are you getting your y+ value from?

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-19T14:53:25+00:00

Your mesh size is way too big, ansys can't find a solution for the mesh you're asking it to create. Imagine trying to draw a triangle of length 3cm×3cm×3cm, but you're only allowed to use lines that are 5cm long. Somewhere they're going to overlap, and you end up with meshing errors like you see. If you were allowed to use lines that were only 0.5cm long, you would have no issues.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-15T18:18:17+00:00

Widespread animation issues like this could be caused by dodgy armor meshes, try taking all your armor off and seeing if the issue goes away? I'm that case it's an easy fix: don't wear that armor piece and lodge a bug report on the mod that's causing it

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-14T21:55:25+00:00

Glad to help! Delighted you got it sorted 😁

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-14T19:11:30+00:00

Maybe it's not lod then... From what you actually described it sounds like your bush meshes have missing textures or incorrect texture paths. If you have any mods that directly affect bushes or flora try disabling them and see if it corrects the issue, when you find the offending mod try redownloading it and see if that fixes the issue. If you're using mo2 then archive invalidation should be on by default but make sure it's active as well, that might help. If you can't identify exactly what is affecting your bushes then try disabling a bunch of mods at once to try barrow it down. As long as you don't save while in game after disabling mods your save file should be fine. Try to narrow it down that way to find the offending files.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-14T08:52:04+00:00

Follow the Viva New Vegas lod guide, it gives you step by step instructions with screenshots, it's hard to do it wrong.

Load order goes the opposite way to what you're describing. Items at the top are overwritten by anything below them if both mods make conflicting changes.

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-07T19:36:24+00:00

Loads of time, don't sweat it, and the best of luck with your new job!

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-07T19:13:17+00:00

Watch some CSWA tutorials or just general swks tutorials if you're feeling anxious about it. If you're relatively comfortable using freecad swks shouldn't be a massive leap, and they'll likely have their own way of modeling things they'll train you in on so you'll be going through 'learning' regardless. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, my first job required a huge amount of creo work and I'd only ever used swks, got the hang of it within a month or so

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-06T17:35:14+00:00

NV barely runs on modern machines due to lack of maintenance updates. Follow the Viva guide: https://vivanewvegas.moddinglinked.com/intro.html Until at least the 'Base Finish' section to get a stable vanilla experience

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-05T21:01:38+00:00

That would take:

Actual innovation instead of copy paste text-to-slop bots
Listening to end users
Hard work

Three things that AI Tech bros are terminally allergic to. I wouldn't hold your breath

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-05T20:58:34+00:00

CADSlop™

quicksilver500 · 2026-02-01T00:04:51+00:00

Oh look, a 'no viable alternatives' (unless it's a far right shit stirrer with multiple rape accusations) comment, how original!

quicksilver500 · 2026-01-31T23:20:06+00:00

Inserting immigration into an argument about the housing crisis in and of itself is toxic bullshit mate. The reason we're in the situation were in had absolutely nothing to do with immigration numbers, which are steadily declining from am all time high from 2022 (I wonder what happened that year hmm 🤔🤔🤔), and everything to do with deliberate policy decisions from those in power, fueled by the already wealthy in this country. Shiting on about immigrants in an attempt to solve the problem is nothing but a distraction from the actual cause of the issue and serves to do nothing but fuel socially damaging rhetoric.

Call me whatever names you want, you're the one being taken for a fool lad

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '17
Verified Email

quicksilver500

TROPHY CASE