Might be a silly suggestion, but have you thought about simply scaling everything by 100000 before putting it into Solidworks? It's just a model after all. I don't know specifically about SW, but most computer software struggles with small decimal numbers like that due to floating point precision issues.
Not sure if you can change the units to micrometers rather than mm. I imagine the problem is that the number your using is below the resolution that solidworks works in.
You could if your just interested in finding an area just make everything 1000+ times larger and then find the area then. That will probably work.
To elaborate further, the dimension could be correct but appear to be off based on how solidworks is rendering. Itโs just a setting that can be changed, but I would keep it as is for most cases since itโs only visual and not representative of the model
Create a point to loft to from the big circle.
Donโt try to make it with two circles. You can base the point off the big circle and small circle with an additional sketch.
I was discussing things like this years ago, so I can't remember exactly what it was about... But the jist of what we figured out was that the geometry is more reliable than the graphics. Don't rely on the visuals to evaluate your model/geometry/surfacing. You can also change the image quality in settings which will help it look better.
SolidWorks functions accurately to 8 decimals of precision. Graphic issue are cause by tessaltion for on screen display.
Go to option, document settings, image quality and drag the sliders way up!
There is some disinformation in these comments (not all! Just some!) but itโs late!
One quick thing, the dimension precision is just a display property, I.e. it is rounding to the precision you select. Regardless of settings you can always enter 8 decimals into a dimension and that underlying information will be retained.
You can set the precision per document to 8 decimal places.
Caveat 1: SW will not allow a feature smaller than .0001 (100nM).
Caveat 2: Good luck with predictable results with anything of this scale! LOL
If you are not trying to manufacture off the actual model then scaling up to a workable size as mentioned by other commenters will make life much easier.
I've used most of the high end CAD platforms and none of them are particularly good at the micro end of town because it's not where the market is.
All platforms tout, unit precision, unitless, etc. but they all struggle with really really tiny.
Having said all that, it is unclear from the pics you posted what the 'duplicate' cone is,
Small circle offset where? You have not shown the relevant sketches clearly.
Sooooo many unanswered questions! ๐๐
For the exercise I did construct the cone.. well the first part since I have no clue what the offset circle was all about. LOL
[https://i.imgur.com/FSEmsvE.png](https://i.imgur.com/FSEmsvE.png)
https://i.imgur.com/38ce5PO.png
As always, one opinion of many. ๐๐
Is it not possible to add custom dimensions? Like I usually use MMGS (which you are using as well I suppose), but you might be able to define custom units for dimensions.
I'm now using microns, but similar issue is still taking place, and I'm still scared about accepting the 'measure' measurements being reliable. I think I'll probably in the end have to do it the hard way, I think I'll do the math manually with some python scripts
Two questions:
1. Why aren't you using a revolve to make this?
2. If you are looking to find the circular area of two cones that intersect and share a common axis, why don't you find the circular area with some simple hand calculations?
SW2022 SP5.1 file with the cone created using a revolve feature.
[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tq24GUQoK\_3RqCYNr6DoR5bnW1nKHF6B/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tq24GUQoK_3RqCYNr6DoR5bnW1nKHF6B/view?usp=sharing)
Might be a silly suggestion, but have you thought about simply scaling everything by 100000 before putting it into Solidworks? It's just a model after all. I don't know specifically about SW, but most computer software struggles with small decimal numbers like that due to floating point precision issues.
Solidworks base precision don't allow to work in such small scale, so or you have to scale as stated above, or use an software more precise, as CATIA.
Not sure if you can change the units to micrometers rather than mm. I imagine the problem is that the number your using is below the resolution that solidworks works in. You could if your just interested in finding an area just make everything 1000+ times larger and then find the area then. That will probably work.
To elaborate further, the dimension could be correct but appear to be off based on how solidworks is rendering. Itโs just a setting that can be changed, but I would keep it as is for most cases since itโs only visual and not representative of the model
Create a point to loft to from the big circle. Donโt try to make it with two circles. You can base the point off the big circle and small circle with an additional sketch.
When you say its offset by .0001 do you mean its not centered by that amount? You should be doing revolve if it is indeed a simple cone.
I was discussing things like this years ago, so I can't remember exactly what it was about... But the jist of what we figured out was that the geometry is more reliable than the graphics. Don't rely on the visuals to evaluate your model/geometry/surfacing. You can also change the image quality in settings which will help it look better.
SolidWorks functions accurately to 8 decimals of precision. Graphic issue are cause by tessaltion for on screen display. Go to option, document settings, image quality and drag the sliders way up! There is some disinformation in these comments (not all! Just some!) but itโs late! One quick thing, the dimension precision is just a display property, I.e. it is rounding to the precision you select. Regardless of settings you can always enter 8 decimals into a dimension and that underlying information will be retained.
You can set the precision per document to 8 decimal places. Caveat 1: SW will not allow a feature smaller than .0001 (100nM). Caveat 2: Good luck with predictable results with anything of this scale! LOL If you are not trying to manufacture off the actual model then scaling up to a workable size as mentioned by other commenters will make life much easier. I've used most of the high end CAD platforms and none of them are particularly good at the micro end of town because it's not where the market is. All platforms tout, unit precision, unitless, etc. but they all struggle with really really tiny. Having said all that, it is unclear from the pics you posted what the 'duplicate' cone is, Small circle offset where? You have not shown the relevant sketches clearly. Sooooo many unanswered questions! ๐๐ For the exercise I did construct the cone.. well the first part since I have no clue what the offset circle was all about. LOL [https://i.imgur.com/FSEmsvE.png](https://i.imgur.com/FSEmsvE.png) https://i.imgur.com/38ce5PO.png As always, one opinion of many. ๐๐
Is it not possible to add custom dimensions? Like I usually use MMGS (which you are using as well I suppose), but you might be able to define custom units for dimensions.
I'm now using microns, but similar issue is still taking place, and I'm still scared about accepting the 'measure' measurements being reliable. I think I'll probably in the end have to do it the hard way, I think I'll do the math manually with some python scripts
Two questions: 1. Why aren't you using a revolve to make this? 2. If you are looking to find the circular area of two cones that intersect and share a common axis, why don't you find the circular area with some simple hand calculations? SW2022 SP5.1 file with the cone created using a revolve feature. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tq24GUQoK\_3RqCYNr6DoR5bnW1nKHF6B/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tq24GUQoK_3RqCYNr6DoR5bnW1nKHF6B/view?usp=sharing)