Conics 101

04 Aug, 2009 by adam in theory, Tutorials
Tags: , , , , ,

Some of you might not know what I’m talking about when I ramble on about “conics” in CAD. In this short video, I’ll explain what conics are, and the basic mathematical and practical ideas that underpin their use in CAD. Sound like a party? Oh yeah, baby. It’s geek-out time.

We?ll be looking at how conics can help you make cleaner, lighter surfaces, more reliable surfaces.

Anybody who knows my friend Don, knows that Don loves conics. As a super-start class-A surfacer, Don knows that conics make his geometry lighter, cleaner, and more reliable. We at Class-A love conics too, and this tutorial will be the first in a series explaining why we surfacers love these shapes so much, and how we use them to create our Class-A Surfaces.

What is a Conic? Simple: a conic is the intersection of a cone and a plane. This fact means that it is a simple, predictable curve. It is always planar, always convex, and always second-order.

Conic sections include ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, and technically even circles and arcs, though circles aren?t usually thought of as ?conics?. These shapes are surprisingly powerful, and often under-utilized by surfacing beginners.

There are many advantages to the use of conics in your CAD models. For one thing, a conic is a second-order curve: the math is very light-weight, and will help keep your models small and easy to regenerate. Because they are always planar, conic sections create very clean swept surfaces when used with a clean ?spine,? which we?ll go over in detail in a future tutorial. Thirdly, conics can appear attenuated, and give you the power to control their apparent ?sharpness?, and even to simulate the look of G2 continuity. But, as I mentioned before, unlike G2, a conic will never ?ogee?, or ?wobble.? A conic?s curvature acceleration will always be smooth, and positive. Lastly, there are many ways to define conics; probably many more than you?ve considered so far.

The most common use for conics in Class-A Surfacing is as a ?blend? between curves or surfaces. Usually this is accomplished by providing two tangency surfaces, contact points, and what?s called a ?rho? value to define how sharp the curve is. In other cases, it is not uncommon to use a third contact point instead of the rho value.

But what does that mean? What is a Rho value, and what does it really do? If a conic is an intersection between a plane and a cone, the ?Rho? value is the angle of the plane relative to the cone. By steepening the angle of the plane, the resulting curve will appear ?sharper?. By flattening the plane, the curve will appear ?rounder?. A Rho value is not expressed as an angle, but as a ratio between zero and one. A Rho value of .5 is a fairly ?round? curve, and a Rho value of .9 is a very ?sharp? curve.

So in practical use, the most common example of a conic in Class-A Surfacing is as a ?blend? between curves or surfaces. As I mentioned before, this has many advantages over spline-based G1 and G2 blends.

For example, while conic sections can look very much like G2 curves, then will always remain perfectly convex as shown above. The G2 curve can be adjusted to correct the inflection, but this requires manual manipulation of the G2 ?tension?, and can easily be overlooked if the inflection is very visually subtle. With a conic, there can be no doubt that the curvature never inverts.

Conic sections with a Rho value of about .65 or higher will usually appear to be ?smooth? visually. To the human eye, the difference between G2 and a conic in these cases is virtually non-existent. With very careful manipulation, a conic with a perfectly-calculated Rho value can even actually become mathematically G2 continuous in certain situations. This isn?t common at all, but I just wanted to point out that it can be done in a pinch. Typically you must remember that conic blends are tangent continuous, not curvature continuous, and that therefor geometric continuity degradation can occur.

So this ends our quick introduction to the world of conics! In the next series of tutorials we?ll be exploring how these beauties work in actual practice, using real CAD tools. Thanks for watching, and happy surfacing!

about adam:
Adam O'Hern is an industrial design consultant specializing in visual brand languages, and has designed products ranging from laptops to power tools, classroom toys to bathroom fixtures, and robots to lint rollers. He has published with 3DWorld Magazine, CGTuts+, and Luxology, and works with Josh Mings of SolidSmack.com on EngineerVsDesigner.com.

8 Responses

  1. Jamie says:

    wow, what a clear and concise description; bravo and thank you!

  2. Robert Newsom says:

    Sorry about the mis qoute, I caught that after it was posted and couldn’t find an option to edit the post. MC users speak highly of Rhino and SW. I’ll research Blender tonight.

    OT: Speaking of mis qoutes and typos “hores in front of the cart” LOL, get your mind out of the gutter.

    It’s all good and thanks again.

  3. adam says:

    Hi Robert!

    Re: “frustrating for the novice”: Actually I said “frustrating [if you're used to] SolidWorks,” an important distinction. Novices love Rhino. I do recommend trying it.

    Re: “bang for the buck”: the app that offers the most value per dollar depends on the types of tasks you’re trying to achieve, how many tasks you have, how much your human time is worth, and how many dollars you have around. If you have lots of time (and patience) on your hands, and don’t care about manufacturing, Blender is infinite bang-for-buck, since it’s free. If you have a high pain tolerance but not much money, Rhino might be the best value. If your time is important to you, but you still have a tight budget, SW is great. If you’re a corporation seeking system efficiency for the production pipeline, the most “bang for the buck” might be Catia or NX.

    Re: “hores in front of the cart”: Great! Glad it was helpful. I’m putting together more comprehensive material later this year, so it’s good to know that the theory is helpful.

    Re: “curves from curves”: Yes, SW has the same basic tool. Insert > Curve > Projected… then choose “sketch on sketch” as the type. This can be very powerful, but SW unfortunately limits the potential applications of such curves; they can only be used for particular surfacing tools.

  4. Robert Newsom says:

    Kudos for the speedy reply!

    Rhino, “frustrating to use for the novice”, ouch. Thanks for the heads up. At work I stand alone in my educational endeavors, have no peers to ask for advice or guidance and would probably get pelted if I were to speak of Rho and curve continuity. Time being limited there, I have to focus my efforts on the app that produces the most bang for the buck and SW seems to be the big dog here with regards to the amount of educational material available. It’s every where.

    OT: I’ve watched the NX videos again, only this time they were viewed after seeing the tutorials on Conics and continuity. The first time around with the NX tutorials were some what torcherous for this novice. Watching the conics tutorials prior to the NX tut’s was like putting the horse IN FRONT of the cart this time. Good job.

    BTW, the “Curves from Curves / Combined Projection tool in the Apex-Rho NX Section sweeps video looks like a very powerful tool. You named dropped Catia in that vid. By any chance does SW have a tool like that?

  5. Robert Newsom says:

    Hello Adam. BTW, excellent job on the French Press tutorial which lead me here. I’m a novice SW user in the machine tool trade and use Mastercam to generate tool paths. I occasionally model in MC as well. I don’t get to design that often but when I do, I want the model as close to perfect as possible. Most often I repair less than adequate models for mfg. or design electrodes, fixtures, and so on. The models I do make from scratch usually do not require the combs or zebra stripes analysis and usually involve simple sweeps, lofts, and the occasional variable rads. None the less those tools are awesome and will help with my pursuit of furthering my skill set. Your explanation of conics and continuity have really opened up my eyes and started my next journey in the CAD realm. Thank you for your efforts.

    I have access to Rhino as well as SW but have not learned it. My bad. I have come across situations in SW where lofting creates a collapsed or ballooned area, usually at turns in the geo., and can only be improved with the use of multiple splines as guides. I’m terrible with splines and creating 4 additional splines in 3D space, accurately placed, is above my skill set at the moment.

    You stated “there is a reason why the big players all have deep and powerful conic tools, and it’s a terrible shame that SW doesn’t. Along with conics I also need a stable “spine” functionality for all swept surface tools. Not being able to control the direction of tangency at an edge is a huge pitfall in SW surfacing.”

    A few questions if you don’t mind. With regards to the above statement, would you consider Rhino to be a better option? Would Rhino produce cleaner results for the novice, such as in my case, than SW lofting? Am I comparing apples to oranges here? Thanks for your time, R. Newsom.

    • adam says:

      Hi Robert:

      First of all, WOW. Thank you for such a thoroughly thought-through and well-communicated question. It’s people like you that make this fun!

      The brief answer to your question is that Rhino allows more direct control of surfacing than SW, but it can also be very frustrating to use for those who’re used to more powerful systems like SW. Usually when surfaces collapse and balloon as you describe it’s because the parent surfaces (i.e. adjacent tangency or curvature-continuous surfaces) are imperfect, and their imperfections are magnified in the child surface.

      Keep at it, Robert! If you have any particular questions, feel free to email them to me for advice.

      All the best,
      Adam

  6. adam says:

    Haha, that’s great Kevin. I couldn’t agree more: there is a reason why the big players all have deep and powerful conic tools, and it’s a terrible shame that SW doesn’t. Along with conics I also need a stable “spine” functionality for all swept surface tools. Not being able to control the direction of tangency at an edge is a huge pitfall in SW surfacing.

    The sad reality about SW is that I use it because I can afford it. I would much rather have a tool with real surfacing tools, but those are all much too expensive. SW is the best parametric tool *for the price*, but that doesn’t make it great in absolute terms. Truth told, SW drives me bonkers! It’s shockingly unstable. Being based on UGNX, I would have expected better.

  7. Talking about some applications limiting ones ability to make conics, I posted this on the Solidworks forums.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v252/Kev_Boy/CAD%20Stuff/Conics_for_President.jpg?t=1262593057

    I love Solidworks. But the conic functionality it sadly lacking at the moment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.