I can kinda see the problem with even having a function like this if it were to exist. What about the blending between the thick and thin zones? Even if you get the separate distinct scaling ratios, how are you gonna blend the joints? Are you going to distort your thin part, and blend that thin part towards the end of the thin zone to become thicker than it was originally designed? I understand the problem here quite well. I work with glass, etc…In glass thick parts take longer to heat up, and cool a lot slower than thin parts. When you have a say 1.5 in thick region, with a 6mm attached rod/joint here are the problems. As they cool, the thin part contracts a lot more than the thick part, thus sucking up heat from the thicker part. The actual problem is the design. You have to literally account for these cooling rates in your design, not in scaling. It really doesn’t matter what your design pattern is when it comes a giant mass with a big diameter, attached to a thin region. You could have with say 6mm rods made a fence like pattern with 6mm holes every centimeter into a mesh of acrylic, but this flat fencelike grid is only 6 mm in thickness, attached to this is a 4 inch thick acrylic sphere. The design is not as structurally solid as if the 4inch sphere were attached to something 2 inches in thickness. That’s just the way casting, heating, cooling, coe’s, and shrinkage rates work.
But I would think that even if there were a script, you would to break your model into sections, or Boolean split the regions, distort them to their scaling rates. Then you would have to figure out a way of fixing/blending the joints to somehow make it a solid again.
So, I think you need to actually do this yourself with no scripts, if you didn’t want to change your designs thick to thin rapid changes.
Lets look at what would happen if you had this example.
A 4 inch sphere attached to a 7mm rod. You design your mold so that the 7 inch rod is facing down, and the ball is up, with of course a sprue.
Now you want to account for the shrinkage.
So, using your rates. 4 inches=101.6mm, then the 7mm rod. The 101.6 mm gets multiplied by 1.015=103.124 Now, your 7mm rod gets multiplied by? Your shrinkage rates weren’t real clear above on the 1.0018, because you added in inflating not shrinking. Are you saying that because the thin part cools so much faster, that it sucks heat from the thick part, and leaves air pockets on the inside of your thick parts leading to a different shrinkage or actual inflation?
ANyways, lets say instead of 1.5% shrinkage that you get in the thick parts, you have 3% shrinkage in your thin areas. So 7mm x 1.03=7.21mm So you change your design, and do some sort of blending at the joint, or join. WHats gonna happen is your gonna get a different rate of shrinkage with the new thickness, and you may want to blend in the original thickness+shrinkage rate to the new shrinkage accounted thickness/shrinkage rate.
So, the thickness and shrinkage rate might have a actual equation that you would use to find the best new shrinkage rate to be as precise as you can be. That’s why I sort of did that example. I just wanted to show what I thought could happen, and that is that there be a new shrinkage rate, and you may want to blend these numbers with a equation made based off of studies made from your shrinkage rates per thickness.
Now, I also see that rate. Basically your thick parts shrink about 7-8 times as much as your thin parts, but still have only up 1.5% shrinkage.