04-20-2016 05:44 PM
Users often try to use offset to close holes in a model. For example, there is a cylindrical hole, user selects internal cylinder's faces and offsets them with a value > half of the cylinder's diameter.
As a result, sometimes api_offset_faces fails with REM_NO_SOLUTION, which is OK. But for some more complicated cases, offset can successfully produce weird geometry. So the questions are:
1. Is it possible/recommended to use Offset to close holes?
2. Is it possible to use ACIS API to recognize the cases when such workflow can produce bad geometry?
Solved! Go to Solution.
04-20-2016 06:50 PM
It sounds like you are trying to remove a face in the body and close the gap by doing offset. This is not the recommended workflow. Please read up about the remove faces api.
It takes a face out of the body and extends the surrounding faces to close the gap.
04-20-2016 06:52 PM
oops. The document link I provided in the previous post is bad (only works for spatial employees). please see the following link
04-21-2016 08:23 AM
Thank you, yes - it looks like much more suitable for the task.
The problem I have is not that Offset can fail in this non-recommended workflow, but that I can't recognize the bad geometry which can be created as a result. It would be great to have some hints from ACIS API that algorithms encountered problems, so some geometry should be double checked before finishing successfully.
04-21-2016 09:42 AM
Do you know about the checker? https://doc.spatial.com/get_doc_page/articles/a/c/
You can combine this with some of our API macros (https://doc.spatial.com/get_doc_page/articles/a/p/
you should probably also log a bug that the API produced a bad result. there is already some checking in the offset api to avoid self intersecting surfaces, but occasionally it may miss problems.