I get why cad systems can’t handle ZTG. But why can’t I create a section view (in the model) that results in theoretical ZTG? I’m pretty sure other software can handle this, but I think other software handles section views differently.
My biggest complaint regarding ZTG and SW is if I do something that creates the condition and the software is smart enough to recognize it, then show me where it is so I can fix it. It’s not always as obvious as the previous example.
Most ZTG can be 2 pcs.
Self touching is forbidden in SW 
If the toolroom at work wasn’t so swamped, I would submit a job for the wire EDM to see just how close they could actually make that.
ZTG is a curse. Sure you can create it in some systems – but they then choke when attempting to use ZTG-intersected surfaces downstream. Thickens, offsets, derived geometry etc. will at some point fail and you can then slog back to the scene of the crime.
This conversation reminds me of post match pints in the pub.
If anyone was discussing if it was offside, or a red card, etc? my mate JohnJohn would shut them down.
It obviously [WAS|WASN’T] offside because that’s the decision of the referee.
The question is moot. No matter your opinion - the parasolid kernel says it doesn’t exist.
Which brings us to another ZTG Fun Fact… IV and Creo apparently have different internal mechanisms for dealing with ZTG. If you interoperate a Creo ZTG model into IV, you can do stuff with it which IV won’t allow on its native ZTG models. And so on. Ambiguous, flukey, mercurial… ZTG “fake math” sums up what CAD isn’t supposed to be.
If you give ZTG-containing models to clients or other contractors, you will end up looking like a noob before the day is out.
If there was a ZTG switch in IV and Creo, I would leave it shut off. 'Nuff said.
Everyone is talking about creating a body that causes a ZTG. I can understand that.
I simply want to section view an assembly and Solidworks refuses because of a ZTG. It’s just a section view and nothing more. I need to view the result from that position. That’s all.
Is it that hard for SW?
The SW section view is basically a temporary assembly cut. It has to calculate and generate geometry in order to allow you to do measurements off the theoretical section edges, so the view creation is very likely constrained by the modeling rules for that reason. (Same thing in drafting.)
If you do a “graphics-only section,” ZTG is ignored and you can see the section, but there are no section edges generated for measuring.
I’ve been doing the 0.001mm offset workaround for years, it doesn’t bother me.
That said, NX will allow ZTG in true measurable section views, and generates the sections much faster. But there are limitations compared to SW (you can’t do a “pie-wedge” combo section view, for example)
This is the only part I struggle to model in SW that has ZTG IRL.
image.png
where ?
I see a gap… 
Sheet metal does allow this in some cases.
There is a slightly rounded edge to the bar, but the curl is forged pretty close
image.png
i’m sure, by forcing a little, we can pass through it with a 0.01 mm titane sheet…
Rob :
…that has ZTG IRL
Lies and Slander (Quote from Futurama)
Disbeliever.png
I see a bigger gap than I first thought 
Seriously though, in this example there is no such thing as ZTG…there is a gap there. You can keep making the gap smaller and smaller. You could, with enough pressure and heat fuse it together, in which there would be no gap but instead merged material so still no ZTG. I guess true ZTG would be a black hole?
I looked at the hole on edge example in Inventor and it does allow the creation while SolidWorks does not. IV is splitting the face which makes me think it’s detecting the ZTG and slightly cutting thru…maybe at like .00000001 or something.
[quote=Merovingien post_id=3392 time=1617977783 user_id=71]
i’m sure, by forcing a little, we can pass through it with a 0.01 mm titane sheet…
Lies and Slander (Quote from Futurama)
Disbeliever.png
[/quote]
Maybe it has shrunk back a bit, but it was definitely touching whilst it being was made
https://youtu.be/3fsQS7Kxs8k?t=1486
There was a big discussion in the Old Forum about ZTG - is some instances it might make a difference, depending on what you’re designing, such as laser etc..
If it’s a manufactured component, then my question was always, “Can you manufacture it as modeled”, and if the answer is no, then why need it. For models you can always offset a line by .00001" - there is no way you can measure that with general shop inspection tools, plus change of thermals will easily move molecules more then that amount, again why do you need to model it?
Theoretically you can’t make anything you model in any CAD system in real life…that’s why everything has a tolerance on it. Go out and make a perfectly sized, perfectly square, perfectly flat on all sides 1" cube. Not going to happen ever. Yet in any CAD system it is the most basic of functions.
We all know that there’s no such thing as “Zero Thickness Geometry” what I never understood about this was why can’t you just make the software realize that when you have a theoretical ZTG you really have an infinitesimally small break and just put the damn hole where I told you to?
This isn’t really a question of whether ZTG exists or doesn’t it’s a flaw in how the software identifies a ZTG.
I’m with Matt in that it’s not a big deal and you deal with it. But seems to me that it wouldn’t be a major mountain to over come to make it work. Maybe Fredrick can comment on this but I thought that IV did this just fine. I could be mistaken it’s been 5 years since I last used IV but I could have sworn I never saw that error and created that geometry all the time.
Because models are a theoretical perfect. I absolutely HATE having to fudge numbers but in this case that’s exactly what needs to be done. 99.99% of the time it’s a complete non issue, move the hole, change the hole size etc and in most cases it’s a bad design to have ZTG. But every once in a blue moon that’s actually what you want and I absolute abhor having to fudge it because the software doesn’t like it. I do it, I accept it…doesn’t mean I have to like it 