Best Practice for Modeling Flexible Corrugated Tubes Along 3D Paths

I’m trying to draw a flexible tube coming out of a box, and I want to freely route it along the X, Y, and Z axes. Currently, I’m sketching multiple circles along the desired path and using the Loft feature, but the result often looks unnatural.

Additionally, since modifications are sometimes needed after the initial drawing, I’m looking for a more convenient and flexible way to create and adjust the tube. I’d appreciate any guidance or best practices you can recommend.

Also, the tube I’m working on isn’t smooth, but rather a flexible corrugated conduit. If possible, I’d like to express that texture as well. I’d appreciate your help with that, too.

The best option at the moment is to use the Sweep tool, after first drawing a path using a spline. However, since Shapr3D doesn’t support 3D sketches, you’ll have to use several sketches to move through all three dimensions. You can also use the edges of existing bodies as a path for the Sweep tool.

As for the corrugated hose — it’s not just difficult, but more importantly, resource-intensive, because every rib of the corrugation will be stored in memory. It’s much easier to apply a texture during rendering.

1 Like

Check out this post. :melting_face: Many more tutorials if you search, been covered extensively by others.

As far as Corrugation goes, do it in a 3D CAD tool that has Pattern Along a Path, its missing feature in Shapr, unless you want to manually distance and add.

It would be easy and quick to do if we had these features, done with other software below took like a minute.

3 Likes

Not very informative — explain what you did in your screenshot. And how is that related or contradict to what I said?

You probably wanted to show an approach with an intersected body and the use of one of its edges as a path for a sweep.

Other thought it where. Follow the link? I think it is related to the thread. It is not to contradict annything, just to exemplify and help. Why so hostile?

This isn’t hostility. It’s just that you quoted part of my message without any explanation as to why. Quoting implies that you’re replying specifically to me and to that particular part of my message. At the same time, the link also contains no explanation — just a single screenshot of the result, which won’t be clear to a beginner.

That’s why I asked how it’s connected to what I said.

This isn’t hostility. It’s just that you quoted part of my message without any explanation as to why.

Self explanatory if you followed the link. At lest some other bright minds thought so.

Quoting implies that you’re replying specifically to me and to that particular part of my message.

I did, indeed.

At the same time, the link also contains no explanation — just a single screenshot of the result, which won’t be clear to a beginner.

Well, it even a beginner can think some good toughs, I believe.

That’s why I asked how it’s connected to what I said.

See above. And I still think it was… hostile (first edition).

10-4

To me, it seems like you’re the one being rude here.

Instead of giving a proper explanation, you’re implying that I didn’t even open your link — even though there’s no explanation there either.