Spaceclaim 2011 (r7)

[maxopus]

x flavio: I remember that in another discussion you had the opportunity to talk to us about the ability of omnicad to manage the elastic return of the material or the recoveries of foundry (I remember that he had amazed me in positive).

Now I understand more.

 

[flaviobrio88]

I think the discussion took a turn.

x flavio: I remember that in another discussion you had the opportunity to talk to us about the ability of omnicad to manage the elastic return of the material or the recoveries of foundry (I remember that he had amazed me in positive).

clearly spaceclaim does not handle this type of problems, being thought for a different use (I would say very horizontal, while omnicad is extremely vertical and specialized).
the same proe brought as example by maxopus (I have used it for years and I confirm that it is very powerful in the "reverse" sector is less specialized but more versatile than omnicad: clear that in certain niche applications it can compete. I would therefore say that it makes no sense to continue on this road, even because if we want to talk about what proe and sc do and that omicad does not suffice 100 pages of forums.

Perhaps it is better that both of you make a good examination of conscience
first thing omnicad nothing for reverse and at least to overcome problems of this genre
second thing I was only talking about my personal experience and if my signature carries the written omnicad not perforza you must feel obtired to prove something
I expressed a thought to see how sc reversed and max came out a new problem (warp) and I simply said that the max solution for me was not the optimal one ... my thoughts without challenging anyone
Matteo this is the second time you think I want to get you in for something.

However I apologize to you for asking you about reverse a max for contesting his methodology
Hi.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Don't warm up. Matteo, rightly, invited you not to leave the subject... and I have to say that I lost talking about elastic return, but especially warp... even if I may have understood... I remember studying the pre-compressed beams, that is, curved before laying in operation in an opposite way to the natural landing that they would have suffered, so that the form remained "flat", but above all the forces, partially, compensated.

instead of the manipulation of imported geometries:
I find interesting the discussion. in fact spaceclaim in my way of seeing is not strong with the surfaces, works very well with the solids instead. I don't know well the "face touch" section (a sow button that once clicked shows a whole new menu full of functions dedicated to the manipulation of the faces... but it is not my sector).
I tried to make my contribution, I hope liked, showing you 3 different methodologies to solve problems like those I saw in your images:
1) face touch (I don't know the functions well so I did my best). I used "offset" between the two faces so as to block the thickness (key point that emerged from the discussion). I first deformed and then "replaced". the figure is simple though... when there are so many points in my way to see it is necessary to simplify the geometry with the appropriate functions or recalculating it with the 3d sketch tools (as shows the video posted by matteo for the import stl, format that I often use to import hoppers, cones disassati and other figures made by the other specific cad).
2)manipulation with the "setting" tool... well you can move the individual points without losing the connectivity of the model, lines, faces or a combination of different elements, not only in the 3 directions. of course you can also rotate.
3)what I think has returned the best result is the reduction of geometry to a surface, the automatic rotation of the external faces compared to the central one and the "extension" of the surface with the initial thickness... Inspection works really well even with much more complex figures (even with different thicknesses).

the example of course is related to what we talked about here, the best solution is different depending on the geometry to "repair".

 

[Matteo]

Don't warm up. Matteo, rightly, invited you not to leave the subject... and I have to say that I lost talking about elastic return, but especially warp... even if I may have understood... I remember studying the pre-compressed beams, that is, curved before laying in operation in an opposite way to the natural landing that they would have suffered, so that the form remained "flat", but above all the forces, partially, compensated.

instead of the manipulation of imported geometries:
I find interesting the discussion. in fact spaceclaim in my way of seeing is not strong with the surfaces, works very well with the solids instead. I don't know well the "face touch" section (a sow button that once clicked shows a whole new menu full of functions dedicated to the manipulation of the faces... but it is not my sector).
I tried to make my contribution, I hope liked, showing you 3 different methodologies to solve problems like those I saw in your images:
1) face touch (I don't know the functions well so I did my best). I used "offset" between the two faces so as to block the thickness (key point that emerged from the discussion). I first deformed and then "replaced". the figure is simple though... when there are so many points in my way to see it is necessary to simplify the geometry with the appropriate functions or recalculating it with the 3d sketch tools (as shows the video posted by matteo for the import stl, format that I often use to import hoppers, cones disassati and other figures made by the other specific cad).
2)manipulation with the "setting" tool... well you can move the individual points without losing the connectivity of the model, lines, faces or a combination of different elements, not only in the 3 directions. of course you can also rotate.
3)what I think has returned the best result is the reduction of geometry to a surface, the automatic rotation of the external faces compared to the central one and the "extension" of the surface with the initial thickness... Inspection works really well even with much more complex figures (even with different thicknesses).

the example of course is related to what we talked about here, the best solution is different depending on the geometry to "repair".

thanks for the video, very interesting especially the first part.

 

[cacciatorino]

the example of course is related to what we talked about here, the best solution is different depending on the geometry to "repair".

Sorry for the oct, but I wanted to ask you what software you used to create (and possibly compress) the video, I see it's very light but quite well defined.

Thank you.

 

[Matteo]

Sorry for the oct, but I wanted to ask you what software you used to create (and possibly compress) the video, I see it's very light but quite well defined.

Thank you.

I don't know what he used andrea, but I'm very well with camtasia (techsmith).

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

I don't know what he used andrea, but I'm very well with camtasia (techsmith).

exact answer!