HS28A Rotary Encoder (Feedback Requested)

[justacec]

So, I am working on a project and needed an encoder to make a closed loop motor controller. (Still in progress) I decided to model the encoder to help visualize the project. I have attached my progress so far and was hoping for a critique of my efforts so far. I would like to get specific feedback on the following things:

1: Did I do right by basically refusing to use faces as sketch references?
2: Are there simply better ways to do the seemingly complicated snapping parts?
3: I am unable to get a good Fillet around the edges... Not sure why...

The reference is attached as a PDF. I had to guess on a few dimensions as they are not identified in the spec sheet.

Also of note: I did not do the Molex connector. I did what any sensible person would have done and took that from their website.
Also Also: Just realized I forgot to put the holes on the top...

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at 8.14.47 PM.png (212.19 KiB) Viewed 1142 times

[chrisb]

You are asking for feedback, so I move it to Help forum.

[chrisb]

Some comments:
- We advocate simple sketches, but you can very well unite Sketch and Sketch001.
- Sketch001: use equality instead of repeating the same dimension. The construction line is not really needed.
- Sketch008 and Sketch009 are in the same position. I'm surprised that this is possible, and you can see some defects: you have z-fighting in the area of Sketch008. I don't see why you need a second sketch after all and would remove Sketch008 from the loft.

- Similar situation in SubtractiveLoft001, but here you need the intermediate sections. You can probably use it like this but be prepared to change it to two lofts if things break later in the model.
- Sketch016: The external reference to the circle is not needed. You can delete it.

[justacec]

You are asking for feedback, so I move it to Help forum.

Got it. That makes sense.

[justacec]

Some comments:
- We advocate simple sketches, but you can very well unite Sketch and Sketch001.
- Sketch001: use equality instead of repeating the same dimension. The construction line is not really needed.
- Sketch008 and Sketch009 are in the same position. I'm surprised that this is possible, and you can see some defects: you have z-fighting in the area of Sketch008. I don't see why you need a second sketch after all and would remove Sketch008 from the loft.

- Similar situation in SubtractiveLoft001, but here you need the intermediate sections. You can probably use it like this but be prepared to change it to two lofts if things break later in the model.
- Sketch016: The external reference to the circle is not needed. You can delete it.

Thanks for the feedback. I will try to incorporate these suggestions.

[DeepSOIC]

1: Did I do right by basically refusing to use faces as sketch references?

In a creative process - yes, totally.
But you are modeling an existing thing, you are only needing the shape, not the ability to change its dimensions to fit the purpose. So I usually stick to the fastest way, i.e. sketches on faces.

It did happen to me a few times though, when modeling existing things, that I screwed up a measurement, and the parametrics turned out being helpful in the end.

[openBrain]

One thing to notice is that your way of modeling the clipping parts (with lofts) creates invalid geometry (check with Part/Check geometry).
Even if I don't like this much, modeling with Revolve+Draft gives valid solid. Of course oppositely, it makes part more sensible to topological naming.
I demonstrate that with the bottom part only in the attached file.
Also using Mirror instead of Polar would makes more sense IMO.

[justacec]

One thing to notice is that your way of modeling the clipping parts (with lofts) creates invalid geometry (check with Part/Check geometry).
Even if I don't like this much, modeling with Revolve+Draft gives valid solid. Of course oppositely, it makes part more sensible to topological naming.
I demonstrate that with the bottom part only in the attached file.
Also using Mirror instead of Polar would makes more sense IMO.

Thanks for the suggestions. I had net even thought about doing the "ears" that way. After looking at your file, I did notice that this method does not allow for the slightly angled sides. This is why I had originally went with the loft method. Is there a way to include this detail in your method?

[openBrain]

After looking at your file, I did notice that this method does not allow for the slightly angled sides. This is why I had originally went with the loft method. Is there a way to include this detail in your method?

Can't figure out what you're talking about. Could you point me to where is the detail ?

[chrisb]

Can't figure out what you're talking about. Could you point me to where is the detail ?

Have a look at the different angles covered at the bottom and the top of the loft.