Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
nt went out in 1993....:smile:
ShareMind
Guest
per the-matrix:
Hi.
the first commercial version of t-flex, in native windows 2.03, was released in 1989 under the name top cad. the program was already parametric (2d). the following year, due to disputes, the name was updated in t-flex. in 1994 was released the first version with feature 3d.
you can find more "historical" information on wikipedia and link http://www.tflex.com/company/index.htm., while for windows versions the link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/history_of_windows. compared to this last topic (microsoft) if you are interested in other details maybe I can help you, because at the time I worked in cupertino olive groves, and I was very close to the microsoft environment.
for parametric_ozzy:
Hi.
the requirements you have read are t-flex 11, not t-flex 12. I confirm that those of version 12 were not published
Hi.
the first commercial version of t-flex, in native windows 2.03, was released in 1989 under the name top cad. the program was already parametric (2d). the following year, due to disputes, the name was updated in t-flex. in 1994 was released the first version with feature 3d.
you can find more "historical" information on wikipedia and link http://www.tflex.com/company/index.htm., while for windows versions the link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/history_of_windows. compared to this last topic (microsoft) if you are interested in other details maybe I can help you, because at the time I worked in cupertino olive groves, and I was very close to the microsoft environment.
for parametric_ozzy:
Hi.
the requirements you have read are t-flex 11, not t-flex 12. I confirm that those of version 12 were not published
Matteo
Guest
@sharemind
I studied the website tflex.com: I believe that tflex is in competition more with alibre, at the limit with swx/solidedge, than with proe (with this I still think it is very interesting). the reason is simple: we can talk about the qualities of the cad as we want, but proe is part of a corporate "strategy" (as well as nx or catia v6) and not only a tool.
remaining to the speech cad in the strict sense: for a test of the release 12 tips to wait for the 1.0 or the "elease candidate" is already reliable? I would remind you that the evidence I would submit is very strict
I studied the website tflex.com: I believe that tflex is in competition more with alibre, at the limit with swx/solidedge, than with proe (with this I still think it is very interesting). the reason is simple: we can talk about the qualities of the cad as we want, but proe is part of a corporate "strategy" (as well as nx or catia v6) and not only a tool.
remaining to the speech cad in the strict sense: for a test of the release 12 tips to wait for the 1.0 or the "elease candidate" is already reliable? I would remind you that the evidence I would submit is very strict
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
yes I have seen that they are for the 11th, but from what world is world I have never seen in any new generation software, lower the minimum or recommended requirements, or tie or usually rise.
So you're telling me they're gonna get down?
You put it in writing? :smile:
ps: with all respect but the parametric we all know who invented it that it was under unix or windows has little importance, then we should mention nx because it was the first parametric on mac.
or maybe not this I don't know either.greetings
maxopus
Guest
Shut up my mouth!
ShareMind
Guest
Hello, matteo,
I would not like to saturate the forum space, but of course I gladly answer you.
I understand your comments. the defination of the category of belonging to a product is a particularly questionable.
price, performance, reliability, ergonomics, comfort, assistance.... all evaluation criteria that can be applied to any product. the point is to define which elements are compared, then everything is possible. Can a skoda be compared with a bmw? Yes, maybe in terms of displacement, number of places, luggage capacity. probably cannot be in terms of cost, qualitative perception, quality of finishes.
Is t-flex comparable to alibre? mah. are two mcad programs, and in this sense they are comparable. they have two different kernels, and in this sense they are not at all.
Perhaps the point is: what aspects deserve to be compared? the kernel of a mcad is more or less important than "to be part of a business strategy" (I would like to understand exactly what you mean). or perhaps, from the point of view of a user, the point is: how much am I willing to pay the performance that a certain system offers me? when am I willing to pay membership to a corporate strategy?
depends.
we all know that in some environments, especially in the induced of large mechanical companies, they are "imposed" to the specific third parties produced. Indeed, even sometimes "a certain minimum number of licenses of those specific products" in order to provide third-party services. In this sense, the third party will contribute an absolute value to that brand, regardless of cost and price/performance ratio (otherwise it could not work). but in this place, it seems to me that we have departed from all other aspects.
As for me, my opinion is that t-flex can be placed in the category of alibre if we refer to the price, but in all other categories if we refer to robustness, functionality, equipment, performance.
to clear the field from these "philosophical" discussions (but still very interesting), I would say that in my opinion you can safely try the rc. is stable more than enough to give you an idea of how the program is structured and what it can do. the aspects to be developed (however minimal) mostly concern location, documentation etc.
I would not like to saturate the forum space, but of course I gladly answer you.
I understand your comments. the defination of the category of belonging to a product is a particularly questionable.
price, performance, reliability, ergonomics, comfort, assistance.... all evaluation criteria that can be applied to any product. the point is to define which elements are compared, then everything is possible. Can a skoda be compared with a bmw? Yes, maybe in terms of displacement, number of places, luggage capacity. probably cannot be in terms of cost, qualitative perception, quality of finishes.
Is t-flex comparable to alibre? mah. are two mcad programs, and in this sense they are comparable. they have two different kernels, and in this sense they are not at all.
Perhaps the point is: what aspects deserve to be compared? the kernel of a mcad is more or less important than "to be part of a business strategy" (I would like to understand exactly what you mean). or perhaps, from the point of view of a user, the point is: how much am I willing to pay the performance that a certain system offers me? when am I willing to pay membership to a corporate strategy?
depends.
we all know that in some environments, especially in the induced of large mechanical companies, they are "imposed" to the specific third parties produced. Indeed, even sometimes "a certain minimum number of licenses of those specific products" in order to provide third-party services. In this sense, the third party will contribute an absolute value to that brand, regardless of cost and price/performance ratio (otherwise it could not work). but in this place, it seems to me that we have departed from all other aspects.
As for me, my opinion is that t-flex can be placed in the category of alibre if we refer to the price, but in all other categories if we refer to robustness, functionality, equipment, performance.
to clear the field from these "philosophical" discussions (but still very interesting), I would say that in my opinion you can safely try the rc. is stable more than enough to give you an idea of how the program is structured and what it can do. the aspects to be developed (however minimal) mostly concern location, documentation etc.
Matteo
Guest
look... rest of my opinion: instead of the user that on the start of this discussion I would be on proe or in second place swx (spaceclaim casomas if it must above all "manipulate geometry"), but I want to touch with hand t-flex: Let me know when the r12 is official, so I'll take a road test.
maxopus
Guest
just to figure out what we're talking about (because I don't have time to put myself in a dump for a month on a cad I don't know) what are the integrations for the following sectors:
1) advanced assembly functionality, and if you are structured;
2) functionality for advanced surfaces (we speak of automotive, motorcycling and aerospace);
3) for reverse engineering what is the level of integration and what are the functionalities;
4) modules and bookcases (user customizable 3d smart bookcases) for carpenter and piping environments (is there a possibility to create a 3d based on isometrics or vice versa to obtain an isometric piping from 3d) ?
5) integrated solutions for structural, fluid and thermal analysis;
6) style surfaces for product presentation;
7) the rendering that engine uses;
8) for pdm/plm what you propose;
9) for the contextual modification of imported files (step and iges);
10) modeling systems related to behavioral analysis;
11) electronic design;
12) integrated modules for various types of cams (sheet-metal, milling and turning);
various and possible that now do not come to mind.
1) advanced assembly functionality, and if you are structured;
2) functionality for advanced surfaces (we speak of automotive, motorcycling and aerospace);
3) for reverse engineering what is the level of integration and what are the functionalities;
4) modules and bookcases (user customizable 3d smart bookcases) for carpenter and piping environments (is there a possibility to create a 3d based on isometrics or vice versa to obtain an isometric piping from 3d) ?
5) integrated solutions for structural, fluid and thermal analysis;
6) style surfaces for product presentation;
7) the rendering that engine uses;
8) for pdm/plm what you propose;
9) for the contextual modification of imported files (step and iges);
10) modeling systems related to behavioral analysis;
11) electronic design;
12) integrated modules for various types of cams (sheet-metal, milling and turning);
various and possible that now do not come to mind.
ShareMind
Guest
for parametric-ozzy
minimum requirements: I have already written it:smile:
t-f12 performance has an increase, related to recalculating, i/o management, graphic regeneration, cinematic and real-time dynamics that improves from 2 to 10 times compared to version 11. Read, with equal hardware, better performance, or equal performance with lower power hardware.
In addition, version 12 directly accesses the latest generation gpus (gaming), from which comparable performance is obtained and frequently better than the use of professional opengl hardware.
These improvements are mainly obtained through the integral exploitation of available cores.
is not the first time a new generation software requires lower minimum requirements, or offer better performance. the most striking case is windows 7 compared to (unplanned) view.
compared to your last assertion, I only specified that t-flex was the first parametric mcad in native windows environment, simply to make it clear to those who do not know that it is not a product put together in the last hour by a group of developers who have put hand on parasolid libraries. If anything, this was the fact to challenge, not who invented cad, computers or microprocessors.:smile:
minimum requirements: I have already written it:smile:
t-f12 performance has an increase, related to recalculating, i/o management, graphic regeneration, cinematic and real-time dynamics that improves from 2 to 10 times compared to version 11. Read, with equal hardware, better performance, or equal performance with lower power hardware.
In addition, version 12 directly accesses the latest generation gpus (gaming), from which comparable performance is obtained and frequently better than the use of professional opengl hardware.
These improvements are mainly obtained through the integral exploitation of available cores.
is not the first time a new generation software requires lower minimum requirements, or offer better performance. the most striking case is windows 7 compared to (unplanned) view.
compared to your last assertion, I only specified that t-flex was the first parametric mcad in native windows environment, simply to make it clear to those who do not know that it is not a product put together in the last hour by a group of developers who have put hand on parasolid libraries. If anything, this was the fact to challenge, not who invented cad, computers or microprocessors.:smile:
The_Matrix
Guest
Cool.
my Russian colleague (yury... And what do you want me to call a Russian???
they told me about this t-flex, but, since I never heard him here in Italy, I didn't know to give him directions.in 1995 pro/e on w-nt I think it was all another level... However it is remarkable to discover that this cad has such historical origins.
Thank you.
maxopus
Guest
even the father of pro/e was a Russian... this could be a point in favor.
It's the parasolid kernel that keeps him braking...
It's the parasolid kernel that keeps him braking...
The_Matrix
Guest
You know that many years ago, when pro/e was at the height of his ascent and seemed destined to conquer the pcs of all the designers, dick harrison, companion of Russian snacks that you say, said that parasolid was a "rotten kernel".
:finger:
ShareMind
Guest
I apologize with max(opus), even I have to do sometimes and sometimes I can also. I want to answer the 12 points exactly, I'll do it tomorrow.
flash answers, to this nice combic:
Russians. daThey're tough. They were superpower. At least, they have the merit of having invented that they first sent a man into space. followed by america, who invented that he sent one on the moon.
but apart from jokes, there are objective issues. Russian universities are still among the best, for engineering, mathematics, and science in general. the system has for long decades imposed the rule that an engineer, a doctor, a scientist should earn as much (and perhaps less than) a worker. The brain costs little. and then, the fundamental fact is that in Russian it is cold. programming is good. It's a job you can do at home. and export at low cost. not necessary shipping nothing, through corrupt borders. Just an activation key. for this Russian software is written well, it is written by people who write software can live a different life, by people who through the product of their ingenuity can stay in touch with the rest of the world. I like that.
parasolid: What are we talking about? the kernel, and in particular in the case of parasolid, is a almost secondary component, compared to the architecture of a modern mcad software. to determine the quality, robustness, reliability and success combine many other elements. the graphic subsystem and management of video cards, interface, navigation system, use or not 64-bit compilations, compatibility with different operating systems at native level, subsystem of constraints, availability of integrated development tools, macros, bees, low-level implementations.... but what are we talking about? If it were the kernel, and only the kernel to define the quality of a product, all parasolid-based programs would find themselves on the same level. That's not true. not to mention that the statement of dick harrison of many years ago is of so many years ago. Meanwhile, ptc is mesmented out of the 500 fortunes... and without counting the fact that if parasolid is a "rotten kernel", then eyesWhat are they?
Excuse me for the outsiders... It is fun to chat with you. Thanks for the company.
flash answers, to this nice combic:
Russians. daThey're tough. They were superpower. At least, they have the merit of having invented that they first sent a man into space. followed by america, who invented that he sent one on the moon.
but apart from jokes, there are objective issues. Russian universities are still among the best, for engineering, mathematics, and science in general. the system has for long decades imposed the rule that an engineer, a doctor, a scientist should earn as much (and perhaps less than) a worker. The brain costs little. and then, the fundamental fact is that in Russian it is cold. programming is good. It's a job you can do at home. and export at low cost. not necessary shipping nothing, through corrupt borders. Just an activation key. for this Russian software is written well, it is written by people who write software can live a different life, by people who through the product of their ingenuity can stay in touch with the rest of the world. I like that.
parasolid: What are we talking about? the kernel, and in particular in the case of parasolid, is a almost secondary component, compared to the architecture of a modern mcad software. to determine the quality, robustness, reliability and success combine many other elements. the graphic subsystem and management of video cards, interface, navigation system, use or not 64-bit compilations, compatibility with different operating systems at native level, subsystem of constraints, availability of integrated development tools, macros, bees, low-level implementations.... but what are we talking about? If it were the kernel, and only the kernel to define the quality of a product, all parasolid-based programs would find themselves on the same level. That's not true. not to mention that the statement of dick harrison of many years ago is of so many years ago. Meanwhile, ptc is mesmented out of the 500 fortunes... and without counting the fact that if parasolid is a "rotten kernel", then eyesWhat are they?
Excuse me for the outsiders... It is fun to chat with you. Thanks for the company.
re_solidworks
Guest
I intervene, return to topic, to reaffirm a concept that I have expressed several times in this forum in various swx/proe comparisons. certainly proe, high-end product, is more scalable if you go in a perspective of large company having tools, in some ways. more evolved.
It is also true that on the field where swx just is faster to use.
the structures that I realize are very complex and the approach that I use with swx is not possible with proes (already experienced) and to make the same structure with the latter would oblige me in times of rendering of the project at least doubled.
in my reality this for example happens in the design of roller coasters, where we exploit great some "freedom" that swx leaves and proes no.
then all costs (other than the basic license to the first purchase) are on another wavelength. An example? the pdm I use, very complete tool for a pmi costs 1500 euros per license and is already ready to use! the necessary customizations are very few and you do not only checkin and checkout.
my employee is working on windchill and says that in terms of usability and utility there is no comparison, better our ready.
Of course with windchill you can do everything... but after how many customization days? at what cost?
I repeat the concept: Take blind eyes if swx isn't enough or you think that in time swx can't suffice.
It is also true that on the field where swx just is faster to use.
the structures that I realize are very complex and the approach that I use with swx is not possible with proes (already experienced) and to make the same structure with the latter would oblige me in times of rendering of the project at least doubled.
in my reality this for example happens in the design of roller coasters, where we exploit great some "freedom" that swx leaves and proes no.
then all costs (other than the basic license to the first purchase) are on another wavelength. An example? the pdm I use, very complete tool for a pmi costs 1500 euros per license and is already ready to use! the necessary customizations are very few and you do not only checkin and checkout.
my employee is working on windchill and says that in terms of usability and utility there is no comparison, better our ready.
Of course with windchill you can do everything... but after how many customization days? at what cost?
I repeat the concept: Take blind eyes if swx isn't enough or you think that in time swx can't suffice.
The_Matrix
Guest
I no longer have time or desire to dedicate to the "problem solving" here on cad3d...
but at least at the "soothing cock" I abandon myself.
I work in siemens, so you can well understand that "rotten kernel" was a way to joke with max... even if some "concern" on the way of nx to use it (parasolid) I have it.
You know... a short time ago, in a discussion with other user I had explained why 2 software (in case swx and nx) at the same kernel do not get identical quality models.
sin that some moderator genius had the brilliant idea of removing the thread because the tones were not "suited". . .
and I put it and the other one took it away... I finally got a warning.
I'm glad you, with tones and peace, introduced this speech.
stay with us, I recommend... I really want to discuss cad friendlyly without being taken for the jacket (talk that measures it with me ensure a sort of dressing... :frown:
ps.
that variable solutor for the use t-flex sketch?
and what solutor of assembly constraints?
ShareMind
Guest
hi beppe,
I am sick, but I never offend.:smile:
and above all I like to joke, and chat about my work, that even after so many years I love very, indeed a lot. and then "rotten kernel" is nice. Of course I stay with you, and I would also like to have you my guests in the newborn, asphyptic forum that is on my site, and that I do not like to popular with sagaci people, pungent and who want to confront and go deep into the issues.
back to the point, t-flex employs proprietary solutions both for the solutor of the sketch (but on the concept of sketch in t-flex there would be to make a long, very long speech that if it happens we will do), and for the constraints of assembly. These choices fall into what you said in your post: at the same kernel, the final result can also be very different.
I am sick, but I never offend.:smile:
and above all I like to joke, and chat about my work, that even after so many years I love very, indeed a lot. and then "rotten kernel" is nice. Of course I stay with you, and I would also like to have you my guests in the newborn, asphyptic forum that is on my site, and that I do not like to popular with sagaci people, pungent and who want to confront and go deep into the issues.
back to the point, t-flex employs proprietary solutions both for the solutor of the sketch (but on the concept of sketch in t-flex there would be to make a long, very long speech that if it happens we will do), and for the constraints of assembly. These choices fall into what you said in your post: at the same kernel, the final result can also be very different.
marcof
Guest
boh, I t-flex tried it a bit of a while ago, and the comparison with swx was to say little impietous, both for regeneration times of models and for slenderness of work. t-flex was to say little farragginous and to create constrained sketches there was to use a mountain of construction geometry as even at the time of the tecnigraph did.
We also made a comparison to parity of model, type of basic sketch and, coarse, sequence of features and t-flex regenerated the model in a time greater than 5 or 6 times that necessary to swx. if then modeled in swx with the logic of swx the comparison became embarrassing not only for the times of reconstruction but also for the amount of click in favor of swx
Too bad the discussion was lost in the crash of the old site... There were a lot of interesting screenshots.
some of my comments must still be in the t-flex forum
Matteo
Guest
I believe that of information to the user who asked which cad buy we have given many... Would it not be better to open a special thread on t-flex in the section "other cad for mechanics"? I'm interested in continuing the speech, but here we would be ot.
ShareMind
Guest
I am more than agreeing on the move of the debate, even because it seems to be still long.
cacciatorino
Guest
As soon as I have a moment, you go ahead. I hope I can do it tonight after dinner.
Bye.
Bye.