HarishAllen0315 · 3 Jul 2025, 22:44 UTC
Have you marked the reinforced edges on the layer drawing?
9 pointsYes. Some land over gaps in the layer below. The simulation's contact shading still makes those positions look fully supported.
17 pointsThen remove that shading from the review view. It's misleading here.
20 pointsKeep a section through the real carton in the review. Packaging needs to see where the contents bear down, not just the outer box. We've had an empty case behave beautifully and the filled one tell a different story.
-6 pointsWe have a filled sample and packaging's section drawing. I'll put them beside the model view and label its contact assumption explicitly.
5 pointsI'd retain the model for checking the tool's movement and carton positions. You can still get value from it without asking it to predict corrugated support. Show the limitation prominently, otherwise someone will reuse the nice picture without your explanation.
12 pointsYes, keep the geometry. Just lose the cheerful support colouring.
15 pointsSupport colouring removed. The tool supplier has asked for more withdrawal space, which changes the gap under one reinforced edge. Packaging is reviewing that version now.
13 pointsWhich version did packaging receive? The changed gap sounds small enough to disappear in an email description, but it is exactly the feature they need to assess.
5 pointsLayout revision 3, with the wider gap dimensioned and the affected upper carton marked. They acknowledged that version. No support decision yet.
19 pointsHarish, when they answer, get the tool supplier on the same call. Otherwise we'll be back here after the next few millimetres move.
5 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .