that 3d choose?

[maxopus]

If you're kidding me... :smile:

As far as you're concerned, I know.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

the approach of the multibody also likes me on the carpenters.
but it is easily bypassable by always building in topdown together, absolutely nothing changes as a concept.

 

[The_Matrix]

the approach of the multibody also likes me on the carpenters.
but it is easily bypassable by always building in topdown together, absolutely nothing changes as a concept.

What I've known is that there are companies that consider it unreliable. . or so or so...
I believe that the full-multibody approach is "tape", especially if you need to talk to manufacturing.
My "hybrid" street imho, it's better... :tongue:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

What I've known is that there are companies that consider it unreliable. . or so or so...
I believe that the full-multibody approach is "tape", especially if you need to talk to manufacturing.
My "hybrid" street imho, it's better... :tongue:

It is true what you say, but it is always the usual speech... I use that way of working for 10 years and I am 100% convinced that is the best solution, trouble changing it! instead if you stay open you can exploit many other methodologies maybe even better.
Hybrid is always a good compromise.

 

[re_solidworks]

there is also to say that the tools for copying geoemtric entities in proes (cree) are more powerful diq uelli in swx. to me it happened to have a "skeleton" consisting of only one part (very useful for fem analysis on the flight) used as a reference together to build the individual parts.

in both cases it is a question of "philosophical" choices more than limits.

you do also in swx, I do it in all my projects so to say little heavy.

 

[The_Matrix]

you do also in swx, I do it in all my projects so to say little heavy.

I don't understand.
use the multibody and then go to assembly?

 

[re_solidworks]

I don't understand.
use the multibody and then go to assembly?

I use various methods depending on what I have to make to the customer. here I was talking about the fact of copying geometry from skeletons, it is great also with swx and is very versatile.

Sometimes I create carpenters in traditional asm, I normally choose this way when I have many lamierati, as the multibody sheets of swx start working well but not having tests behind I still don't trust much.
I find them very functional for items like hoppers or similar elements.

Sometimes I create multibody without switching to body coding and extraction. if the prevalence is of profile the automatic distinta of swx from sufficient info (length and cutting angles). if necessary I create directly the views of the bodies in a draft (empty or along with the assieme) to show better details. In this case I just need to assign the material via pdm and in the end it is passed to the geasionale the amount of material necessary for the costs and the unloading warehouse.

I sometimes perform full work with the multibody by extracting solid bodies into new parts (does all the pdm in a wizard) that are encoded and educated. "assieme" remains a multibody part but the pdm cares to keep you aligned, even in case of change the graphics of sql, extracted parts and folders of swx welds.

if model in asm, however, I always do it on topdown skeletons, the substantial difference compared to the third method is the need for a much more complete skeleton. I do not like to throw all the prts on the origin of asm and I prefer to couple the empty components with criterion before modeling them. saving time in modelling between traditional and multibody is 60-80%.


However, I noticed that in case of complex multibody (from 20,000 bodies up) performance can play in favor of traditional asms, especially if these bodies are repeated instances. It seems that swx better manages the same object (prt) repeated in an asm rather than a repeated body in the same part. Is it worth nx? have you done heavy tests in this sense?

 

[re_solidworks]

I forgot: when I use welded I do not create subsalvation, but a welded part for each "welded" element. all these elements are then assembled into one or more traditional asms.
everything is commanded by a skeleton...odd, by many skeletons, sometimes activating it is not seen through!

 

[re_solidworks]

the same reasoning I did.
on inv 2009 it is not possible, on 2011 and successive si... but I have to think about it before I make a decision about it

mah, I saw the presentation and it is very behind inventor at this point of view. in swx exist the soldered since 2003 (it seems) and already from that version were ahead of what I saw at the demo of inventor 2012.

I find myself at this time having to choose between these two approaches in converting a project from proe to swx.
the impression is that (especially for welded carpenters) the multibody is more convenient than the "multi part", but it will take at least one extra release because swx manages it perfectly.

I go a little ot, but I'm still more info. swx welds are almost stopped by several versions, in 2012 they solved a problem I had reported and I think there is nothing else. in 2011 they entered the cometic welds (which I have not yet started to use) with welding reports in table.
apart from this modeling has been steady for a while. For example, they should improve subsalvations, but if users don't say anything, I know everything remains still.
What do you think of acerbo?

 

[The_Matrix]

I use various methods depending on what I have to make to the customer. here I was talking about the fact of copying geometry from skeletons, it is great also with swx and is very versatile.

Sometimes I create carpenters in traditional asm, I normally choose this way when I have many lamierati, as the multibody sheets of swx start working well but not having tests behind I still don't trust much.
I find them very functional for items like hoppers or similar elements.

Sometimes I create multibody without switching to body coding and extraction. if the prevalence is of profile the automatic distinta of swx from sufficient info (length and cutting angles). if necessary I create directly the views of the bodies in a draft (empty or along with the assieme) to show better details. In this case I just need to assign the material via pdm and in the end it is passed to the geasionale the amount of material necessary for the costs and the unloading warehouse.

I sometimes perform full work with the multibody by extracting solid bodies into new parts (does all the pdm in a wizard) that are encoded and educated. "assieme" remains a multibody part but the pdm cares to keep you aligned, even in case of change the graphics of sql, extracted parts and folders of swx welds.

if model in asm, however, I always do it on topdown skeletons, the substantial difference compared to the third method is the need for a much more complete skeleton. I do not like to throw all the prts on the origin of asm and I prefer to couple the empty components with criterion before modeling them. saving time in modelling between traditional and multibody is 60-80%.


However, I noticed that in case of complex multibody (from 20,000 bodies up) performance can play in favor of traditional asms, especially if these bodies are repeated instances. It seems that swx better manages the same object (prt) repeated in an asm rather than a repeated body in the same part. Is it worth nx? have you done heavy tests in this sense?

Here. .
That's why I prefer to use the multi-body in the study phase and then copy all the bodies into an assembly. .
because tc does not complete the multi-body and I prefer to entrust myself, for the passage of data tc/sap-oracle-jde-sigip-etc to the standard connectors without going to impose on me with strange managed so much so...

 

[The_Matrix]

mah, I saw the presentation and it is very behind inventor at this point of view. in swx exist the soldered since 2003 (it seems) and already from that version were ahead of what I saw at the demo of inventor 2012.



I go a little ot, but I'm still more info. swx welded are almost stopped by several versions, in 2012 they solved a problem that I had reported and I think there's nothing else. in 2011 they entered the cometic welds (which I have not yet started to use) with welding reports in table.apart from this modeling has stopped for a while. For example, they should improve subsalvations, but if users don't say anything, I know everything remains still.
What do you think of acerbo?

I fear (for you, be clear...:tongue that the swx r&d is currently engaged in the product porting to the cgm kernel from the parasolid one.. .
to add more meat to the fire I don't think they want.
At least, this is my thought.

 

[re_solidworks]

Here. .
That's why I prefer to use the multi-body in the study phase and then copy all the bodies into an assembly. .
because tc does not complete the multi-body and I prefer to entrust myself, for the passage of data tc/sap-oracle-jde-sigip-etc to the standard connectors without going to impose on me with strange managed so much so...

As I told you it depends, I work in an external study and therefore I have to adapt to customer requests. if a customer does not have the management (small crafts that do not even have an internal ut) extract the bodies does not make sense, it only counts to be able to give exhaustive info to realize the project.

how do you manage the same bodies in nx? Are they recognized or are extracted several times?

 

[re_solidworks]

I fear (for you, be clear...:tongue that the swx r&d is currently engaged in the product porting to the cgm kernel from the parasolid one.. .
to add more meat to the fire I don't think they want.
At least, this is my thought.

I think it exactly like you though I didn't say anything and if this won't bring improvements (as I think) it was only time lost by business strategy. Perhaps I will be denied and 2013 will amaze us... Do you know until you give swx parasolid? Is there any news?

 

[The_Matrix]

As I told you it depends, I work in an external study and therefore I have to adapt to customer requests. if a customer does not have the management (small crafts that do not even have an internal ut) extract the bodies does not make sense, it only counts to be able to give exhaustive info to realize the project.

how do you manage the same bodies in nx? Are they recognized or are extracted several times?

I didn't read the last line...
no, ootb the equal bodies are not recognized.
I know that swx does, in fact I had thought of a small app that analyzed body for body the part and wrote the size in an attribute of the body itself.
the part list was then made on this feature.

 

[The_Matrix]

I think it exactly like you though I didn't say anything and if this won't bring improvements (as I think) it was only time lost by business strategy. Perhaps I will be denied and 2013 will amaze us... Do you know until you give swx parasolid? Is there any news?

I don't know. but from voices I heard, the detachment will come soon.. .

 

[re_solidworks]

I didn't read the last line...
no, ootb the equal bodies are not recognized.
I know that swx does, in fact I had thought of a small app that analyzed body for body the part and wrote the size in an attribute of the body itself.
the part list was then made on this feature.

hi beppe, I would say that something automatic is necessary as it becomes a hand workmanship and with remarkable possibilities of making mistakes.

I don't know. but from voices I heard, the detachment will come soon.. .

we hope it is not a bloodbath for those who have a full-bodied historian....:frown:

 

[Enzolog]

hi beppe, I would say that something automatic is necessary as it becomes a hand workmanship and with remarkable possibilities of making mistakes.



we hope it is not a bloodbath for those who have a full-bodied historian....:frown:

What detachment would it be?
explain to me.

 

[cacciatorino]

we hope it is not a bloodbath for those who have a full-bodied historian....:frown:

It's not mandatory to upgrade to later versions, now windows seven has arrived and I think it will stay long.... .

I also do not believe that to the swx corp. have all this desire to make consolidated customers angry

 

[maxopus]

What detachment would it be?
explain to me.

change kernel from parasolid to cgm (the cia kernel v5 and v6).

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

It's not mandatory to upgrade to later versions, now windows seven has arrived and I think it will stay long.... .

I also do not believe that to the swx corp. have all this desire to make consolidated customers angry

Well... Tell those who have migrated from catia v4 to catia v5, is dassault ...