I am trying to match two surfaces together to achieve G2 continuity. The first set of surfaces (left) has 2 degrees in the U direction and could not achieve G2. In the second set (right) the top surface is unchanged, but I had to adjust the U of the bottom surface to 5 degrees to achieve G2 continuity (barely).
The question: If the top surface has such a minimal U layout (2 deg), why does the bottom surface have to become so dense in the U direction to match it (G2)? The top surface does not have a really deformed surface edge, so it seems like the bottom should be able to match it with a lower U degree count.
It’s all pretty subtle, seems like the surfacing theory is sounds and the tools are being used correctly, but the lack of attainable continuity is falling outside of the scope of the evaluation tools…
This is where the surfaces are having the most difficulty matching:
I can correct it by adding a bunch of knots, to the bottom surface, where the curve graph is red, but still seems weird that I need to add so much complexity to match to such a basic surface.
The best way to correct it is to bump the two surfaces up to degree 3X3 instead of degree2X3.
After doing that MatchSrf should work.
With the degree 2 surfaces you can get them to match for tangency if you make the first 2 CVs on each symmetric: degree2.3dm (61.6 KB)
That did the trick. I guess the U degrees on both surfaces were just too low-res to make a clean connection. Maybe when the U directions were both set at 2 degrees the radius of curvature from somewhere else on the surface was too much for 2 degrees to handle at the junction.
The question I have for the developer is whether that ought to work at degree 2 - if the structures match, then it seems like it ought to be possible to get a clean match without raising the degree.
So, what are you tryna match up here:
