www.recumbents.com - Shell Design Software
www.recumbents.com
www.recumbents.com
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
 All Forums
 www.recumbents.com
 Technical / Bike Building
 Shell Design Software
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 23

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2015 :  05:28:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Infatuated with the drag analysis, I decide to go ahead and add the ability to create a canopy. The most important thing about this was a fix in the tailbox creation as I caught a logic error (a remnant from earlier logic that should have been deleted). The tail design is more flexible now and doesn't "chop off" like it did before. You can square the back end up more easily.

Anyway in the rounds I'm working this canopy thing and it's been a struggle. It's literally added 800 lines of code and I still haven't quite got it right but I'm looking at a canopy and it suffers a bit from not following the ring that defines it (it was a whisker bigger than it should have been).

So, I'm holding my hand up with my fingers pointing in 3 directions at once trying to wrap my head around what's wrong and I get the Eureka moment!

Before my fix:
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Canopy%20Humor2_zpszn86z8gp.png.html]
[/URL]

After my fix:
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Canopy%20Humor1_zpswm8g9lpx.png.html]
[/URL]

Archimedes would have been proud! Made me snort and thought I'd share.





Go to Top of Page

warren
human power expert

USA
6118 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2015 :  05:34:10  Show Profile  Visit warren's Homepage  Reply with Quote
"To boldly go where no man has gone before" !
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2015 :  18:48:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Worked on a canopy for a while. Have no idea the proper shape for a canopy. Didn't have much luck Googling ad naseum either. Couldn't find any links to help there either at least not much. What I was looking for was some guidance on how to blend a canopy into a body and the shape for the canopy curvature. At this point a "sculpture's touch" seems about as good as I can do on the real one.

I finally did get my software generating a shape that wasn't shameful and it exported it for a CFD run on low-rez. Hi-rez is more precise but most of the error comes from low-rez not following the mesh well enough, in particular the small dimension frame parts. In this case all the small surfaces (wheel edges, axles) were the same on both models and it's about 30x faster than hi-rez.

This was the result: What you are looking at is a "velocity isobar" map (quoted because I made it up, technically it's a 3D velocity shaded plane map with surface pressures). This is 22.4 mph because that's the wind tunnel default. Wanted to take all the defaults for the comparison runs.

Shell w/canopy : 0.21Cd, 80W@22.4mph, 192W@30mph (est)
Shell no canopy: 0.17Cd 61W@22.4mph, 147W@30mph (est)

22.4mph Shell with Canopy:
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/CFD%20LWB%20with%20Canopy%20-%2020mph%20-%20100rez%20-%203D%20-%20Vel%20-%20DP%20-%20SP-%20Plane-Shaded_zpsrcnytyep.png.html]
[/URL]

22.4mph Shell no Canopy:
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/CFD%20LWB%20Head%20only%20-%2020mph%20-%20100rez%20-%203D%20-%20Vel%20-%20DP%20-%20SP-%20Plane-Shaded_zpscq9wawzi.png.html]
[/URL]

As a double check, I exported the rider's body and tested again with exactly the same result as w/o the rider's body. Wondered if perhaps AutoDesk didn't cull all the interior lines out and therefore added their drag in the mix. It does it correctly (does not add them).

Gonna play with this just a bit more, then bag it up and ship it out.

Go to Top of Page

Speedy
recumbent guru

USA
883 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2015 :  21:13:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
800 lines of code for the canopy !
Must be a fraction of the total needed for the software in all it's entirety.
Stunning indeed !

Reading a comment you made in another thread got me reminiscing of days gone by ...
Some 30 years ago I was wondering why streamlined bikes were not seen on public roadways. In the span of 6 weeks I designed (pencil on velum) and hand built a touring machine and proceeded to do a self-sustained cross country trip.
It was a TIG welded aluminum space frame with a thin sheet aluminum skin very much in a light aircraft style.
Overall a successful endeavor and an enormous learning experience. After the tour I was able to win several events and set TT course records. 50,000 miles were logged on that bike.
As seen at the Pasadena Art Center :
http://www.artcenter.edu/exhibit/anthro/cargo.jpeg
And a derivative of that work :
http://www.artcenter.edu/exhibit/anthro/interceptor.jpeg
The titanium frame version of this model with kevlar/carbon fairings is 28 pounds

Hopefully your software will get you and hundreds of others out on the roadways.

Bravo !




Steve Delaire

http://molten3d.blogspot.com

Edited by - Speedy on 05/19/2015 21:15:53
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2015 :  21:46:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Code is around 12K atm.

Speedy that thing is so cool!

Question: Looks like the front fairing turns with steering. Tough in a crosswind? Looks like it was possibly fairly balanced for crosswinds as far as steering forces (not for the side push of course).




Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2015 :  12:00:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
What I've been doing the last day or so is use two tools to learn how to tweak a shell. The tools are this shell designer and a CFD tool called AutoDesk Flow Design (AFD). It's not as easy as it looks mostly because I find the AFD's UI quite cumbersome. There is no numeric edit window to shift the model to the ground (it loads in, auto-hovered about a few inches off the ground). To adjust that you have to adjust your wind tunnel. It sometimes takes 15-20 seconds to see the adjustment occur so you move the ground a little bit, wait, move it a bit more. Then your "plane" changes of its own accord and your model disappears so you shift the view plane back where it belongs, wait 15-20 seconds to see if it's right. Quite cumbersome.

I've found I can go to my software, build the shell I want to test and spend longer getting AFD "back where it belongs" than it took to design the shell! Oh well I'm sure it's improving with every release. Who am I to judge?

Here are two apparently equal shells, the frontal surface area is similar. #2 is 4% smaller but its aspect ratio is .6% worse too (which counters the smaller a bit).

What #2 has, which doesn't show as well as I wish, is the bottom is much better curved in cross section. #1 is pretty flat on the bottom, #2 is very smoothly rounded and thus approximates an ellipse quite a bit better in rib profiles.

Looking at the s.a. and aspect ratios I would have expected perhaps 3% better. #1 takes 136W at 30 mph. What I got was a whopping 13% improvement in drag. #2 takes 118W at 30 mph!

#1: [URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Shook3-1-Front%20View_zpspyu6cjyx.png.html]
[/URL]
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Shook3-1-30mph-200rez-3D-Vel-DP-SP-Plane-Shaded_zpsxihueyqa.png.html]
[/URL]

...and the winner is #2 "Come on down!".

#2: [URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Shook3-2-Front%20View_zpst5jyjx2g.png.html]
[/URL]
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Shook3-2-30mph-200rez-3D-Vel-DP-SP-Plane-Shaded_zpset5fb025.png.html]
[/URL]




Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2015 :  14:35:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
In honor of Obree's attempt, I made a prone rider and ran a low rez run on it. Not satisfied that the CFD was doing ground effects right (Cd of .15 for a very teardrop shape), I did the mirror thing and pulled the ground far away. Do not know if this is valid or not (an accurate way to represent ground plane) but here are the results (btw it stabilized at the same values it was obvious it was done).

Cd of 0.07! Total drag of 0.376-.378 lbf. @84 mph

Halving the drag force (because this is a double shell) yields a total wattage 1005-1010W to go 84 mph.

[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Obree-2_Export_Mirror.stl_zps2uonguvy.png.html]
[/URL]

Top view (before the mirror image run):
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Obree-2-top_zpsqlgwcyz4.png.html]
[/URL]

The wheels & crank (didn't draw a frame) that went with it
[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Obree2_zpskmsxahxy.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

Grant-53
recumbent guru

USA
544 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2015 :  15:53:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Very impressive! The display of the TT rider confirmed a number of thoughts and gives rise to more ideas.
The prone vehicle is intriguing and would take some serious thinking to get the bio mechanics fully utilized. The head could come up and the resistance to pedal thrust would come by mounting some shoulder pads to the frame.
Go to Top of Page

Speedy
recumbent guru

USA
883 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2015 :  17:38:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Practical experience will be the best check sum for your software.
Get some seat time in every streamlined human powered vehicle you can beg, borrow or steal.
As a starting point try a Tour Easy with Zzipper fairing and body sock then a Lightning P38 or F40 with body package.
Any and every velomobile that can be found.
Guaranteed ... the experience will be worthwhile.


Steve Delaire

http://molten3d.blogspot.com
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/20/2015 :  19:16:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Steve: Agree completely. The mathematician in me cannot wait to see how closely the numbers agree. Rolling resistance is not figured, nor the wheel spinning drag and I'm not sure any rubbing drag is considered. Maybe there is a consideration for it, who knows? Just guessing, maybe add something on the order of 20-40W to cover "all others" at 30 mph.

Grant: I thought that was pretty interesting. I'm almost done "piddling" and my next set of runs will be for "body shells" for a TT bike. Those runs are specifically aimed at giving you some datum to ponder. Thought for a while about doing reclined but backwards but not planning to anymore.

As far as the prone position, there's no way I'd do that myself. To me it looks like somebody is anxious for the after-life. Still I cannot help but admire such commitment to performance that must drive someone to attempt that position. One thing's for sure, Obree didn't get to be "Obree" by being faint of heart. After all the drug stuff, I can count the pro cyclists I admire on one finger and he's got the spot.

-----------
Did a hi-rez run. Actually doing another as I didn't have enough spacing between the mirrored meshes but the results look very similar, perhaps better.

The last result for Mr. Obree was: Hi-Rez (200% granularity) run to stability. Average Cd is .0654 and average power is 983W to 84 mph: [URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Obree-2_Export_Mirror-2.stl_zpserx0orzo.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2015 :  04:08:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mike: Here is your run. 6 hours in and it hasn't stabilized but I've watched enough of these now to know it's about done. Might end up 0.19 or .21 but have been up an hour now and it's read 0.20 the entire time.

Really feel like I should make a comment about the AFD's use of coloring. The color bar chart (shown upper left) shows 0 velocity (in this case it means air that is dragged at your bike speed) and low pressure as the SAME color. I would rather see a counter color with one of the parameters (vel or press) red where the other is blue and the combination of the two representing the total energy (which remains constant)

In this picture (and most of the others):

Blue means low pressure and slow air.
Red means high pressure and fast air.

Have no idea how accurate the analysis is but based on the agreement with the standard TT numbers and others who have done similar I'd hope for reasonably close:

Upright Shell: Cd = 0.20, Power for 30mph (not counting rolling and wheel rotation) = 141W

[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Mike1-30mph-400rez-3D-Vel-DP-SP-Plane-Shaded_zpsrkrrgike.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/21/2015 :  04:13:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh, wanted to post this pic also, gives a better idea of just how tight that fairing fits because it looks like you could raise a family in it.

The CFD image was early in the run, they always start with very high Cds.

[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Mike-1-30mph-400rez-3D-Vel-DP-SP-Plane-Shaded_zpsjl91dfhh.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

Grant-53
recumbent guru

USA
544 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  10:58:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is amazing that one could go from 0.53 Cd to 0.30 Cd yet this is the case with automobiles. I suspect this will improve the way the recumbent shell did. The width would go to 20.7 in. and the height to 30 in. tapering to the knees. The length seems right and the angle of attack could be -2 degrees if the handle bars were lowered. Thank you!

As a competitive swimmer in my teens I would be somewhat comfortable in the prone position. A mirror looking forward would help and may be included for the TT bike also. Any bike ridden in traffic benefits from a rear view mirror or camera.

Edited by - Grant-53 on 05/22/2015 11:04:02
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  11:28:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Mike: Welcome sir. The Cd was 0.20 not 0.30 btw. The earlier picture was the "late in the run" picture. The CFD tool always starts out high and goes low. For some reason I pulled in the early shot in the 2nd picture. That said, and despite my obvious fascination with running these Cd's I remain an amiable skeptic about their accuracy, especially when close to the ground plane and the mirror image runs. Still, I have to believe they have some value especially as an indicator of what design direction to take.

Application: Was planning on dropping the app out there soon and halted that to do a bit more work on it. Here's what came up. While running some of these odd shaped shells, noticed some real problems with rib creation. That was the INTENT of the dadgummed thing in the first place so sort of figured I should fix it.

On top of that, seeing how well air slid off its tailboxes I have reversed my view that "any tailbox is as good as this generates"... Now I have one eye squinted and looking real suspicious at the app wondering if there was some validity to "back half of an airfoil" for a tail shape. To that end and to fix the "sometimes screwed up" tail ribs I went back to work on that area of code.

On top of that, even I have struggled with the file handling. My plan is to clean that up. What I'm planning is to have one file cover it all on project saves. Rather than save a rider, shell and frame separate files, if you do a project save you get all the data in one file making it easy to hand a design to someone else to play with or look at. That's already been an issue. I'll also drop the bitmap directories which will clean up the output area some.

[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/New%20Rib%20Maker_zps69p3xmch.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

warren
human power expert

USA
6118 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  12:36:31  Show Profile  Visit warren's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I have enjoyed all the CD analysis too, very cool stuff Wayne! Those all sound like good fixes to make.

I made a prone rider + fairing too but yours was better.
Go to Top of Page

Speedbiker
human power expert

USA
3760 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  14:43:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
When we were working with Predictive Engineering to use their aerospace level CFD to improve the shape of the Coslinger Spcl my brother saw a 20% change in drag, yet surfaces were within one inch of the original shape. And while the OB-1s engine was missing on a few cylinders, it's coast down performance proved the large reduction in drag was true.
Go to Top of Page

Speedy
recumbent guru

USA
883 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  15:34:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is fun to see your software and CFD.
Never met anyone who made so much software on their own to do a task like this.
When I worked for Autodesk we could run AFD on the sever so the results were back in minutes.
What is missing :
Center of pressure
Center of mass
Center of balance
Without that info it will be very easy to make something that is a horrible fright to ride.
Several of the machines in your CFD runs will be in this category.



Steve Delaire

http://molten3d.blogspot.com
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  22:19:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thom: 1" -> 20%, WOW!

Warren: Thanks. This is way too much fun...

Steve: Center of pressure affects the stability of these? Not arguing, just asking, do you mean because there is pressure on the nose it's harder to steer?

Also, I wouldn't consider riding backwards nor prone although I have run the test. Didn't actually make frames (just wheels and a crank). Hypothetically someone could make frames that fit in these, hypothetically they could also make them stable. However this increasingly hypothetical someone... would not be me! [I'm sorry I worked really hard to fit in a quote from Star Trek, Next Generation "Time's Arrow"? as spoken by Jerry Hardin portraying Samuel Clemens].

On a serious note I don't doubt you a bit Steve and plead complete ignorance on the topic.

----------------------

Right now, I'm not sure there's a lot to be learned from all this CFD stuff except just "that looks interesting". That said seems to be a couple generalities that repeatedly crop up.

(1) A flat bottom is hideous, even a little bit. I could show you two cross sections that you might not be able to tell the difference just looking unless you laid them over one another. One had about 3 inches of flatter bottom, the other was nice and round, Everything else was the same, exact cross section, length, width and height. Rounder bottom was .011, flat bottom was .013. Every time I get a high number that seems out of place, I look and sure enough the bottom is a bit flat.

(2) I was 99% positive closer to ground would be better but that's not what I'm seeing. What looks like happens is (a) you have to raise the nose center up a little bit or the dang thing would drag, then (b) air is rammed under the vehicle creating a hideous amount of drag even for what is a very small part of the shell surface area. So it seems I need a bit more ground clearance (not a lot 6-8 inches) or the drag skyrockets.

(3) After running tests on as close to standard airfoil as possible (bulge at 25-35% of shell length), I'm convinced they are lower drag but only about 20%, which is less than I thought. You have build a prone or rear facing vehicle to create those shapes. I'm in this for a healthy lifestyle so I have zero interest in anything but something tall enough to see, be seen and facing forward!


Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2015 :  22:26:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh and.

(4) Canopies. To date I have been unable to create even the most minor canopy that did not obliterate the numbers, seriously ruin them.

...except one. If the canopy was "a clear part of the shell", it was, of course, OK. The shell got bigger to contain the rider's head. The total drag went up due to larger frontal area but the Cd was usually about the same. Roughly a savings of 15-20% total drag over a canopy. One shape I did not try was one where the highest bulge was in front of the canopy (like maybe kneeish) to see what that does but I've filed canopies under "try something else for pure speed". Haven't tried a windshield yet.

Go to Top of Page

Grant-53
recumbent guru

USA
544 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2015 :  08:26:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Any recommendations for the computing system needed to run these programs? My boys will be doing graphic design projects too. Budget is for a good used machine with upgraded video card and monitor.

As for canopy and vision issues the best solution seems to be multiple portholes and internal mirrors. A smaller front wheel could help, just going with obvious for now.
Go to Top of Page

warren
human power expert

USA
6118 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2015 :  08:55:31  Show Profile  Visit warren's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Wayne, you are learning a lot from the Analysis that it has taken 100 years of trial and error to determine. The ability of your app to create bodies and tweak them easily, and then the ability to (easily?) run analysis on them has taught you in a few months what it has taken me 25 years to learn.

- Yes a bigger body that encloses the head is faster than a canopy as shown by all of the Battle Mountain racers with big riders choosing this method and using cameras to see. A canopy is much more practical for riding with other racers.
- Yes a body that is several inches off the ground is faster than very close to the ground. We find that "at least 3 inches" is a good rule of thumb.
- Yes round bottoms are better!

On the center of pressure - while your analysis shows the bike going straight into the wind, unfortunately that rarely happens. There is always a fairly high side load. Can you skew the body the one side or the other to simulate that? This is where CP comes into play. If your fairing has a CP that is too far forward, the bike will be steered by the wind which is super scary, and dangerous on the road. Ideally it would be about at the center of mass (usually belly button). Also center of mass should be fairly well distributed between front and rear wheels for good handling.

Warren

Edited by - warren on 05/23/2015 08:58:46
Go to Top of Page

shooky56
recumbent guru

USA
545 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2015 :  14:31:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Warren-CP: Understand Warren thanks, makes a lot of sense. A bit green on AFD to get a center of pressure yet. That said AFD allows rotating the model relative to the wind. Let me try that.

Before I clog this post up with a pic....

Grant: This is only tested on W7 for my part and it's not too strenuous. My machine is pretty beefy but I'm running 1000FPS internally (you can't see more than 60 I think). As far as AFD, it depends on the resolution. Their resolution is almost surely a cubic by time meaning that it suffers exactly as we do for increased air speed. Twice = 8x. If they halve the particle size in one-dimension, eight will fit where one did before and they have to consider them all. That said, crude-rez (50) runs in a minute or two on my box, 100rez, maybe 10 minutes, 400rez was taking 8-10 hours.

As far as the software. Bought a license for Fluids63. Wrote Ray and told him I wasn't going to use it but did not want a refund as I wanted to support his effort. Not sure of the license rules but if we can transfer it you can have it. If we can pull that off there's at least one detail we'll have to cover. Ray told me to export only the outer surface vertexes. Happens to be a real PITA to figure that out. AFD does it for me so I've been using that.

But you could always just export the shell which is perfect (all external vertexes). Assuming all designs have similar wheel exposure, lowest Cd would still be best.

Picture is overhead and frontal shot of a 10 degree crosswind at 30mph. Although this is a trike and likely immune to most of those CP worries (at least at my speeds) after playing around for 10 minutes, think this is about as good as the viewing options got. The pressure "pillow" is -.02i-H20 (roughly 0.001PSI). Total side force is about 2 pounds, distribution was fairly balanced front to back and top to bottom so I suspect that even a two-wheel version would handle pretty well.

Since this shape is so close to what many race am I right or wrong (I don't care which just want to learn how to do a CP->stability "guess"). What ya think

Stable or unstable?

[URL=http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/shooky56/media/Recumbent%20Postings/Shook2_50rez-3D-Press-Iso-H20-.02%20composite_zpsgyan2v27.png.html]
[/URL]
Go to Top of Page

Speedy
recumbent guru

USA
883 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2015 :  16:53:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Warren ... Wayne's software is quite the accomplishment indeed and will be useful over the long haul. However, in my opinion, most of this is a redo of work done by Chet Kyle and published in Scientific American back in 1980.
Wayne ... ultra low drag numbers and street usability don't always line up that well. One of the "gotchas" to this puzzle is the more efficient the shape the easier it gets blown off course. So if the intent is to build for street use, knowing all the balance points is important. Get it wrong and if feels like the "hand of god" has taken control. Time in the saddle of proven designs will be educational.

Steve Delaire

http://molten3d.blogspot.com
Go to Top of Page

warren
human power expert

USA
6118 Posts

Posted - 05/23/2015 :  18:16:12  Show Profile  Visit warren's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Right Steve, for instance a pointy nose is better for going really fast but is not very practical. On the road it makes the bike very directional and more susceptible to wind gusts. A more rounded nose is better for a practical fairing.

Yes I think Chet had the math down but it still took another 10 years for ( a few ) people to figure out the packaging issues and put it into practice. Today the percentage of people that can design a fast fairing on the first iteration is much higher than even 10 years ago.
Go to Top of Page

neil.carter
Starting Member

18 Posts

Posted - 05/25/2015 :  15:11:17  Show Profile  Visit neil.carter's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Quick suggestion - would it be possible to display the x,y and z coordinates of an object when positioning wheels, seats etc

Neil
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 23 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
www.recumbents.com © 2017 www.recumbents.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000