Hi!
I’ve been trying to use sweep to create a hull for a Trimaran project. However, I keep running into the “resulting body wouldn’t be valid” or “swept body has an invalid contact between 2 of its faces, edges or vertices” error. What am I doing wrong?
I’ve attached the file below.
Cheers! 
Boat Hull.shapr (1.5 MB)
Hello!
When using the guided loft tool, please make sure to have a closed cross-section at the start and end points of the guide curves too, like in this video below:
Hi!
Thank you, this gave me another idea. I’ve been wondering how to solve the endpoints properly. I’ve been testing out everything I could think of to no avail. Perhaps this will get me further.
Any idea on how to complete this guided loft with non-perpendicular guide curves, please?
Is it possible?
Currently, the message shown is “Guide curve’s vertices incorrectly intersect with profile vertices”.
Have you tried adding a plane over existing geometry and sketching the closed part (perhaps combined with sketching directly on a face?), and have it added using Booleans?
Methinks this part requires a few simple tweaks, and you’re close!
It’s hard to tell without dimensions, but I think I’d use one or several new sketch planes and get my sketch(es) closed that way using constraints (don’t forget about “construction sketches” and actual sketches. Having a “guide sketch” to build more complex/precise ones is a great way to achieve about anything effortlessly).
Well, I’m kinda obsessed with planes and the way they intersect, plus I’m using Booleans everywhere.
There are hundreds of thousands of Shapr3D users, alas not every single one of them is on the forums. Try asking @Laci_K and/or @Istvan -they’ll help you find “the right way and the right people to talk with” for sure.
Thanks for posting, you gave me quite a lot of ideas… sorry for not being able to help you.
Loft might work for you. Note that the initial sketch geometry can affect the outcome. Here are 3 examples with minor differences. The uppermost lofted body yields the cleanest result.
@HandenWerk, I’ll be happy to look it over if you can upload the Shapr3D file.
This definitely gave me a few more ideas, thought I was close to losing my mind as I felt there had to be an easy answer just around the corner. I have to agree, its close to addictive figuring out the how´s of whatever you´re trying to create. Thank you very much for your help and tips!
This actually worked! I didn´t realize I could tap the side profile at the end to close up the shape. Thank you so much, my headache is cured 
Genius @TigerMike rescuing everyone once again! It’s great having you around. 
Mike can solve everything and explain it very clearly, while I’m always experimenting (and there’s no way to stop me)!
Thank you both. I’m leaving with even more ideas.
Mike, I think you would agree if I say that something no matter how simple or complex can be solved by different means. What’s before, during and coming after (the context) do affect outcomes in different ways as well. In a sense, better/worse is irrelevant, since we’re talking about “most effective” and “quickest” all of the time …
@Loki, thank you for the kind words.
I do agree that no matter how simple or complex something is, it can be solved by different means. As others have stated, there are many ways to solve modeling problems and some are definitely more challenging than others. I too like to experiment and yes, it’s alway nice to find that ‘elegant solution’ whether quickest or not.
Regards, Mike
Well said. It’s exactly what I meant.
The devil may be in the details, but let’s enjoy “poetry in the shape” too.
And yes, “quick” is all the rage, but it’s not always the best way.
Cheers!
