all about file system or all about model manager

[Steeve]

Good morning to all
I am responsible for a small reality that uses pro/e from a lifetime and that has welcomed an important challenge: to design in record time a small machine .
for this reason the choice (even a little to use new tools ) fell on direct modeling 18 .

speaking with the boys ( 5 ) unfortunately or bad luck depends on the points of view, who followed us managed to inculcate the need (laws obligation) to have at least mm .

I do not deny the use of a tool like this but at a stage like ours where to get first with a project means a lot I think working
on a shared network disk between all and well structured, despite the cases of sdpc,sdwc,sdac,sdp etc... can be done without bringing in the house the uterians of another product.

What do you think?

thanks to all:4425:

 

[Er Presidente]

I worked in a sitema on one file system, 8 people and axioms from 70,000 elements and it is possible to live without mm.
the problem is that it is necessary to be "talebani" and to know the philosophy and logic of "upgrading" "new codes" to menad, without any shadow or doubt and, above all none excluded the components of the working group.
if you commit yourself to the bottom and no one "addores" to the headboard (read all minds "logics" and "wake") is not impossible.
However, sincerely, given the "theological" effort you should face, maybe learning mm is easier and, besides, mm gives you dedicated tools that osd "base" does not have (read "load partial") which is worth using.

p.s.: I have worked for a decade and more with osd without caxxi and laxxi, but I don't text.
:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

design in record time a small automatic machine .
for this reason the choice (even a little to use new tools ) fell on direct modeling 18 .

If you think you're working faster using a cad you don't know and you have to learn, and it's called modeling, I think you're making a rash choice. after a few months that I use modeling, I think I can say that it is a very slow cad, especially in change, and for nothing suitable to design automatic machines that is presumed will contain cinematisms to simulate, parts to mate etc. this obviously if you do not buy the additional modules for the functions that modeling does not make available in the basic package, which among other things are very expensive. In short, if you have no obligation on the part of the customer to use modeling, I strongly advise you if you are already experts on another system.

speaking with the boys ( 5 ) unfortunately or bad luck depends on the points of view, who followed us managed to inculcate the need (laws obligation) to have at least mm .

for how it works modeling, the use of a pmd system is practically mandatory. management of pkg or sda or sdc or sdp files is in fact so complicated that they really make it complex to work in teams, unlike other systems fall more 'modern and simple to understand.

said this, model manager is a great tool that allows you to put a big piece on top of certain intrinsic limitations of modeling in the management of parts and assemblies.

Consider that:

1) would be a minimum customized, and then created dictionaries of materials, treatments, etc., generators of numbers, coding rules, "packets" and "projetcs" etc. etc. etc. all this for one job? Boh!

2) the "connector" that allows to generate separate drafts starting from metadata on the sql server is paid separately (it looks amazing but is not included in model managers), keep it in mind when you make the offer.

 

[Steeve]

First of all thanks for the promptness of the answers:4425:

If you think you're working faster using a cad you don't know and you have to learn, and it's called modeling, I think you're making a rash choice. after a few months that I use modeling, I think I can say that it is a very slow cad, especially in change, and for nothing suitable to design automatic machines that is presumed will contain cinematisms to simulate, parts to mate etc. this obviously if you do not buy the additional modules for the functions that modeling does not make available in the basic package, which among other things are very expensive. In short, if you have no obligation on the part of the customer to use modeling, I strongly advise you if you are already experts on another system. .

right your observation but the idea would be to "recover" as much as possible with the advent of creo 3 or 4

for how it works modeling, the use of a pmd system is practically mandatory. management of pkg or sda or sdc or sdp files is in fact so complicated that they really make it complex to work in teams, unlike other systems fall more 'modern and simple to understand.

said this, model manager is a great tool that allows you to put a big piece on top of certain intrinsic limitations of modeling in the management of parts and assemblies.

Consider that:

1) would be a minimum customized, and then created dictionaries of materials, treatments, etc., generators of numbers, coding rules, "packets" and "projetcs" etc. etc. etc. all this for one job? Boh!

2) the "connector" that allows to generate separate drafts starting from metadata on the sql server is paid separately (it looks amazing but is not included in model managers), keep it in mind when you make the offer.

the idea of inserting mm would be only to avoid situations of "brain brains" and consequent loss of work also because having already' pdmlink we would like (to a finite prog ) bring all the material to pdmlink

 

[reb_bl]

First of all thanks for the promptness of the answers:4425:




right your observation but the idea would be to "recover" as much as possible with the advent of creo 3 or 4



the idea of inserting mm would be only to avoid situations of "brain brains" and consequent loss of work also because having already' pdmlink we would like (to a finite prog ) bring all the material to pdmlink

I'm sorry if I interfere.
I just saw the presentation of the new creo, honestly I think it will take a lot of time yet to assimilate all the cocreate commands to create, in my way to see we are still a lot back, ergo I would think well before I adventured in flip-fly flights with future versions, let alone update the all to finished project putting it in the pdm (this actually involves not having finished the project until it is inserted in the pdm).
citing meccbell I would say few ideas, but well defined.
starting a project where you have to be fast with a new program, as it said caccciatorino is risky at least, personally I learned to use cocreate in a short time, but not for everyone it must be so.
If you have a pdm, use it! we do not but update everything after, because keeping updated a pdm saves you time: a trade filed makes you save you you don't know how much time! tried on my skin.
If you want to invest on creo, cut with the past and start on the head low, it will cause fatigue and sweat, but everything will be rewarded if you firmly believe in the program.

@ hunter personally I have always seen in cocreate the greatest value to manage the changes in an excellent way, what you tell me you find slender and slow, would you make me an example just to understand?

 

[Steeve]

ciao reb_bl

I'm sorry if I interfere.
I just saw the presentation of the new creo, honestly I think it will take a lot of time yet to assimilate all the cocreate commands to create, in my way to see we are still a lot back, ergo I would think well before I adventured in flip-fly flights with future versions, let alone update the all to finished project putting it in the pdm (this actually involves not having finished the project until it is inserted in the pdm).

I've also seen I create 2 and I'm already using it, as far as it's a f001 version, the times aren't around the corner but then you finish them ...I want to say if we had started with, for example, sw remained there on his own..

citing meccbell I would say few ideas, but well defined.
starting a project where you have to be fast with a new program, as it said caccciatorino is risky at least, personally I learned to use cocreate in a short time, but not for everyone it must be so.

5 guys say smart starting from scratch so we don't know about pro/e ne modeling with the latter we've already started training included ..

If you have a pdm, use it! we do not but update everything after, because keeping updated a pdm saves you time: a trade filed makes you save you you don't know how much time! tried on my skin.
If you want to invest on creo, cut with the past and start on the head low, it will cause fatigue and sweat, but everything will be rewarded if you firmly believe in the program.

@ hunter personally I have always seen in cocreate the greatest value to manage the changes in an excellent way, what you tell me you find slender and slow, would you make me an example just to understand?

the pdm we do not have it or better we have pdmlink that to the current version does not manage the modeling files then to tend (project laws practically finished ) everything will end in a pdm (pdmlink ) the file system at this moment between all disadvantages allows me a fast management no more sw and no costs and various mess between updates and various problems... or am I messing ?

I would like to ask the Commission to take the view that it is not possible to take the necessary steps to ensure that we are able to take the necessary measures.

 

[cacciatorino]

@ hunter personally I have always seen in cocreate the greatest value to manage the changes in an excellent way, what you tell me you find slender and slow, would you make me an example just to understand?

I had to stretch a frame, and this change took place behind the change of the carter: you do not know the time lost to iron the carter, change the pattern of the holes, change the pattern of the screws..... with solidedge or solidworks are two keyboard clicks, with modeling each time at least 20 commands... .

if the parametric model has been conceived decently there is no history, even for the problem of the absence of geometric constraints in modeling.

 

[cacciatorino]

Good morning to all
I am responsible for a small reality that uses pro/e from a lifetime and that has welcomed an important challenge: to design in record time a small machine .

5 guys say smart starting from scratch so we don't know about pro/e ne modeling with the latter we've already started training included ..

do you have a pro/e historian or not?

a machine of 5-6000 components however you can handle it well without pdm and team, provided that cad is not modeling. if it's modeling, it's practically mandatory to use a pdm, then you see whether to use modelmanager or that of other manufacturers (sit, cdm, eit, etc etc.).

 

[Steeve]

Wait a minute...
we have a pro/e historian
we have accepted the request of a customer (a super fast design in a very short time )
we therefore called some collaborators that we formed on modeling and put them on low head to draw ...

It is clear that by proceeding the doubt of using a pdm is breaking us...

 

[Er Presidente]

... if it's modeling, it's practically mandatory to use a pdm...

I "permct" to dissent in a "stop" way.

I mean a little less than "absolute" and much more than "decided."
:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

I "permct" to dissent in a "stop" way.

is the system that must be under stress, not the user....

If I have to employ 30% of my daily energies to think about how to save a file.... :wink:

 

[Er Presidente]

is the system that must be under stress, not the user....

If I have to employ 30% of my daily energies to think about how to save a file.... :wink:

you don't have to employ 30% of your time, you have to learn some basic rules and use them with rigor, and at first you get a little tired, but then you become natural.

p.s.: that then learn to distinguish a "version" from a "revision" would do well to all, regardless of pdm.
:smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

It is clear that by proceeding the doubt of using a pdm is breaking us...

I forgot something important:

modeling "smooth" does not allow to write anagraphic info in the rows of geometry sd* (to speak of things like thermal treatments, materials, various paints, surface treatments, custom fields etc.). these info must be written in the sql database and recalled at the time of creation of the distinte-base via model manager and "editor of the distinct base".

If you don't have mm+bom editor, what you can do is write these things by hand in the tableware, as you usually do with cad 2d.

 

[Er Presidente]

I forgot something important:

modeling "smooth" does not allow to write anagraphic info in the rows of geometry sd* (to speak of things like thermal treatments, materials, various paints, surface treatments, custom fields etc.). these info must be written in the sql database and recalled at the time of creation of the distinte-base via model manager and "editor of the distinct base".

If you don't have mm+bom editor, what you can do is write these things by hand in the tableware, as you usually do with cad 2d.

I go to memory, 3d notes?

 

[reb_bl]

I had to stretch a frame, and this change took place behind the change of the carter: you do not know the time lost to iron the carter, change the pattern of the holes, change the pattern of the screws..... with solidedge or solidworks are two keyboard clicks, with modeling each time at least 20 commands... .

if the parametric model has been conceived decently there is no history, even for the problem of the absence of geometric constraints in modeling.

if you do not use already 18, (I am still at 17) does not already manage the multiple 'streches' or is it only from 18.1? I don't know what to say about patterns, personally I don't use them.
I still feel good if I have to change one or more details, because I can change them without having the features shaft. it is always necessary to consider that I make special machines, therefore hardly repeatable and standardizable, probably if you think of a standard machine to be made in multiple versions, it makes more sense to think it well in parametric.
I'll have been used badly, I don't question this, but I have one shot one kill machine better to let go of the parametric, even because most of the time you "remember everything from full" :tongue:

 

[cacciatorino]

you don't have to employ 30% of your time, you have to learn some basic rules and use them with rigor, and at first you get a little tired, but then you become natural.

I was talking about mental energies, not the time it took! :biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

if you do not use already 18, (I am still at 17) does not already manage the multiple 'streches' or is it only from 18.1? I don't know what to say about patterns, personally I don't use them.

Let me understand, if you have to make a plate with eight holes, give the command eight times? and if you have to put 8 screws m12, positions eight times??? ? ?

I still feel good if I have to change one or more details, because I can change them without having the features shaft.

The features tree is a great thing if used intelligently.. . .

it is always necessary to consider that I make special machines, therefore hardly repeatable and standardizable, probably if you think of a standard machine to be made in multiple versions, it makes more sense to think it well in parametric.

I also make special machines, and I find that I can design based on sketches, driving quotas and constraints gives me a remarkable advantage, compared to using a sort of "autocad 3d". and this especially in the context of study. I found myself very often to draw unifilari patterns of cinematisms in solid edge, and once proportioned, move to modeling.

I'll have been used badly, I don't question this, but I have one shot one kill machine better to let go of the parametric, even because most of the time you "remember everything from full"

I think of the opposite, but they are personal habits....

 

[cacciatorino]

I go to memory, 3d notes?

So I looked at the manual, it seems to me that I should:

1) create a document plan in 3d
2) create notes on the pd, one for every property.
3) in annotation, create views on the basis of the document plan defined in 3d
4) transfer notes from the document plan to the active sheet....

It seems a little complex. However, in the companies I visited, they use the pdm or they fill in by hand.

 

[reb_bl]

Let me understand, if you have to make a plate with eight holes, give the command eight times? and if you have to put 8 screws m12, positions eight times??? ? ?I create a sketch where they have to fall my holes then use the puncture command and where they fell, the process is more or less the same as I used the swThe features tree is a great thing if used intelligently.. . .I agree, sometimes though even if used with intelligence impappinates me everything, or at least with me did I also make special machines, and I find that I can design based on sketches, driving quotas and constraints gives me a remarkable advantage, compared to using a sort of "autocad 3d". and this especially in the context of study. I found myself very often to draw unifilari patterns of cinematisms in solid edge, and once proportioned, move to modeling.



I think of the opposite, but they are personal habits....

Yes, I think I'm also personal tastes, there's to say that if the great majority use a different method from mine, I'm probably the one that "does not"... currently what I do is more than egregiously and I wouldn't go back.
on the pdm I think if you can talk about it too much, they are made in my opinion quite bad, I saw that of the eit that is made by people on the piece probably.

 

[cacciatorino]

on the pdm I think if you can talk about it too much, they are made in my opinion quite bad, I saw that of the eit that is made by people on the piece probably.

I have long used that of eit, and I think it has merits and defects. The most serious defects in my opinion are that it does not handle light loads and excessive "verbity", in the sense that it asks you too much confirmation to every operation.

What do you mean "people on the piece"?