Mr. Heinrich von Zadow

Hi Gustav, well, that's the x-value 😉 See attached project... Cheers, Heinrich planing_hull_v03.cdb

Hi Gustav, in your case you would have to us p2:z as elevation for the fv command: point p1(curve.fv(2,p2:z)) let me know if this explains it -- otherwise feel free to attach your particular example and I'll quickly modify it. Cheers, Heinrich

... if you use .ft instead of .fv you'd get the t-value instead...

Hi Gustav, you could create a point through the console with: point p(curve.fv(2,zVal)) Instead of "curve" you'll have to choose your particular curve and zVal would be your z value. "2" corresponds to the z-axis (0=x, 1=y, 2=z).

Hi Yukai, generally, during an optimization CAESES automatically changes Design Variables to create different shapes. Hence, you should see a change in the evaluations/objectives from your external computation. You can also create screen shots of the different variants and look at them (as well as post processing data) in the Design Viewer to compare different shapes. I recommend the Tutorial Basics/Geometry Variation and Asessment to get a good first insight. Best regards, Heinrich

Hi Yukai, you can set the sub folder by adding it to the file name of your template like this: If you have an allrun script which you execute for each design this would normally be executed in the same location as your STL file is exported to. Hence, typically referring to it by its name instead of full path works. Alternatively, you could add an entry an specify a path with getResultsDir() to have it adjust dynamically... Cheers, Heinrich

Hi CJ, I guess I would just create a planar BRep intersection (BRep-based curves) and from this get the area. See attached project... Cheers, Heinrich fishingVessel.cdb

Hi CJ, you can simply create a parameter in your project and set it to myCurve.getArea(0,2) As you said, 0 corresponds to the x-axis (along which you want to integrate) and 2 is the z-plane (looking at the deck curve from the top of the hull). Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Stanley, there will probably be a robust way to trim consistently but it is a bit hard to suggest without looking at the project. Maybe you can attach a simplified project to show the problem? About the translation: there is also an option to add a transformation as a curve operation... I also recommend you take the time to take a closer look at some of the samples and tutorials to get up to speed. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Stanly, as in reversing the curves orientation? You can either do that as an additional operation (Operations<More>Reverse) or create an Image Curve and flip the Domain to [1,0].

Hi Carlos, sorry, I totally overlooked that Claus had already suggested the exact same thing. Sure, I can take a closer look. Can you upload your project? Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Carlos, without being able to look at the geometry its hard to tell. One option you might want to try is the knot spacing of the BRep you are transforming: Try and increase the density of the control polygon of your hull. A value of around 1 or 0.5 might be enough (assuming the hull is around 100-250 m or something in that...). What this will do is, insert additional control points to ensure a maximum distance of 1 or 0.5 between adjacent CPs. You can verify your choice by looking at them in the display options of your BRep: You will need enough points on both adjacent patches so that they have a chance to be within tolerances even after you have applied the transformation. In short: you need enough points to get things to work, but not too many so it doesn't get too "expensive". Hope this helps. Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Stanley, sure, this is what CAESES is about (automatically creating lots and lots of variants -- typically you would have them analyzed (e.g. via CFD) and then use an optimization algorithm inside CAESES to converge your shape towards an optimum. Something like maximum lift/drag for example in the case of a profile definition...) I'll send you a PM so you can share the file... Cheers, Heinrich

Hi Stanley, if you want to write a custom export, a Feature is the right way to do this. The code is pretty straight forward: FVector3Series toExport() FUnsigned n(100) loop (n) FDouble pos($$i/(n-1)) FVector3 onProfile(profile.getPosAtArcLength(pos)) // using arc length (instead of just .getPos() ) ensures the points are geometrically equi-distant. toExport.add(onProfile) endloop if (!file.openWrite()) echo("Failed to open file \"" + file.getAbsolutePath() + "\" for writing") break() endif file.writeLine("profile data:") file.writeVector3s(toExport) file.writeLine("eof") //close file when done with it file.close() Attached you find an example project. Best regards, Heinrich exportDemo.cdb

Hi Katherine, I don't think there is a command to set just the path, not the name. In that case you would simply have to set the full name and path but keep using the same name. The commands available in fsc scripts are basically the same as in CAESES with the exception of things that require a GUI (e.g. screenshots are not available in batch mode). You can learn about most types and available commands through the Type documentation: Also, if you start typing a command (even if it is just a "." behin a certain object) you can always use ctrl + space in CAESES and see what the auto-completion has to offer: A third option many newcomers like to use is, to set things up in the GUI and then select a certain object or a whole bunch and right-click > Create Feature Definition: This will give you a new feature definition containing everything you had selected. BR, Heinrich

Hi Katherine, maybe it is easier if you just run the fsc script in a unique directory for each design you want to generate -- this way also any other files generated by CAESES are taken care of. However, you can also adjust the name trough the fsc script. I'm guessing you set up your export by providing a scope (folder) in CAESES which contains the geometry you want to export and for which you have set a custom file name like this: Inside your fsc script you should be able to just change that name if you add a line like this: 19_export.setExportFileName("changeThisNameAsYouLike") You can also provide a fullName (incl. absolute path) if you want. BR, Heinrich

Hi Katherine, of course, you can remove a face. In case of you model I would just recommend to this after joining the parts via boolean sum. You can choose any method to remove the face. Personally, for this case I would probably reference the face by color or via reference point. BR, Heinrich

Hi Katherine, for the boolean oyu want the 3 parts closed and distictly overlapping (no co-planar faces). Also, in you first add sources operation you accidentally added the tank and inlet instead of only the tank. See attached file for a working model... Cheers, Heinrich Simple_test_geometry_ver4_redo_mod.cdb

Hi Carlos, what's meant is an operation: Cheers, Heinrich

Hi there, this is most likely a rendering issue and not related to the actual shape of the curve. Is there a particular reason why you are still using the CAESES4? If not, I strongly recommend you to upgrade. Apart from many many great new functionalities and a big difference in performance, also the rendering has improved significantly. Best regards, Heinrich

Could you try attaching the screen shots again?

It's part of the documentation that comes with CAESES. You can either switch to the help workspace (bottom left) and just search for it: or you create a blade and then select the Icon next to it in the object editor: Cheers, Heinrich

Dear Althaf, in the documentation for the FGenericBlade you should find all the details, including the following figure: Best regards, Heinrich

Dear Solehah, we are awaiting your response on the Ticket you opened. Cheers, Heinrich

Dear Aina, I am happy to take a look but would need the project file and/or the exported IGES you mentioned. From the screenshot it looks as if your geometry is not fully watertight -- that might be a starting point for investigation. Furthermore, the displacement calculation is based on the triangulation settings -- the coarser, the larger the error. But typically the deviations here are not as large as you experienced them. Finally, if you calculate displacement at a certain draft, heel and trim, the order of transformations and the origin you choose may drastically impact the result. I don't know about Numeca, but in CAESES we transform in the order heel, trim, draft and use [0,0,0] as default origin. You can also specify otherwise by using the .getDisplacementOrigin() command. Kind regards, Heinrich