![bricscad messy shading bricscad messy shading](https://s3.manualzz.com/store/data/033386275_1-9b6e9f8d86d0d690e090cafec0be098d-360x466.png)
However even drawing in full size I still find instances where I have to go down to details, and these may generate problems like the one illustrated. I was advised here to draw in full size and before printing to make a copy, scale it down and then email to the printers without touching it any further, advice which I found quite good and solved a number of problems. The intent is to create masters for later 3d printing in smaller scale. The subject of my screen captures in green is a Messerschmitt Me109, drawn full size.
![bricscad messy shading bricscad messy shading](https://s3.manualzz.com/store/data/028997244_1-6f1576d11da3f8056271cd9c124932d7.png)
So this is a relatively simple process, intersecting a 60cm dia cylinder with a slightly curved surface (“curved” meaning a set of adjacent planes of course) and all goes well: I have a nice and clean cut just as expected! Trouble is that after a few sessions I look into the wireframe in the same area and I have a rats nest of extraneous geometries added by SU in the meantime to the original planes intersections, connecting vertexes to other vertexes with no relation at all, and stretching my pretty flat planes into wavy membranes! Why, in all the Olympian gods names, why? That’s when I save the drawing, For an idea of size, a fighter wheel can be some 60-80cm diameter, and a wing chord (breadth) 2-3-4 meters, so we’re not talking of wrist watch making At this point I save the drawing, take a deep breath, and Intersect the well to the wing geometry! I drawing these separately, pulling them for depth with an excess to spare, and then I locate these prisms in their appropriate place crossing the wing undersurface (which remember is two shells, remember, inner and outer). On these wings normally I have to “dig” landing gear wells.
![bricscad messy shading bricscad messy shading](https://i2.wp.com/www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/files/2019/11/arch-exist-7.jpg)
Even my physical models wings (30cm span and more) are hollow shells, 1-2mm thick. However it is to be borne in mind that for my intent I need to have a different type of geometry other than outer shells (which most of those are) as my 3d prints have to have physical thickness. However even drawing in full size I still find instances where I have to go down to details, and these may generate problems like the one illustrated.ģd Warehouse is full of very well executed airplanes, and it SU worked for them then it has to work for me, as simple as that. Is there any way to prevent or at least minimize this? The consequence is that if I now wanted to draw an edge using this point as an End, the system might pick any point in the region, and it’s a major irritant having to go back and trying to instill some discipline on a drawing every so often, while being unsure whether this redrawing work will be definitive or not, likely not. So as I add further geometry using the inferences, or using geometry that is just passing close by, the distortion increases. The original edges were that fantail on the right all nicely gathered on a single point, which I took as the origin for a number of further geometry, using the knot as an End inference. The horizontal edge was a single line originally but it became split and dislocated, and a lot of secondary edges were added up by the system. Here is the detail view of the knot at bottom.
![bricscad messy shading bricscad messy shading](https://archello.com/thumbs/images/2020/09/10/bricsys-bricscad-bim--innovative-bim-software-bim-archello.1599722460.4435.jpg)
In the image below the near horizontal edge is a pretty single line, right? Also the near vertical edge looks a bit murky. I made my model from scratch entirely, no imports.