direct e feature based modeling

[cacciatorino]

I see that it continues to not understand and this still brings me back to what has been said: There is great confusion. I did not say that a featureless model weighs less I said that direct modeling commands weigh the file and exactly these words: this is one of the inaccuracies that turn, because if it is related to the second mode that I have described, even weighting. This prompts me to think that nothing has been understood about direct modeling and modeling history free by confusing each other.
♪

I would be more cautious to say that designers who have been on the market for years make great confusion and have not understood anything, especially on a topic that has been discussed so much in the past as the st of siemens.

to answer your question;

the model could weigh down if I bind the faces between them
the model will be lighter if it does not bind faces between them

Note that in st you can choose whether to bind or not, or to bind only in part. So your statement is right and wrong at the same time.

 

[cacciatorino]

My question was a trick question. in that video there is nothing st because it is all parametric, and here is confusion: in itself you could have done these things, as in nx, well before the introduction of the st?

I watched the video at low resolution, I just watched him move his face.

However the st is both parametric and non- parametric, at the user's choice (but perhaps we should talk about bound or unscrupulous, because a quota or a concentric bond are not parameters but are constraints, in fact).

In my opinion, with the overflowing questions, we go a little further, reminds me of an old discussion about the constant rope rays in which someone said they were very important, but at a precise question he did not know how to explain the reason for this importance, from which I deduced that the only purpose was to make dust.

 

[ceschi1959]

dear hunter,
the discussion on the constant rope beams has been clarified in its time with paolo intra to which I addressed to ask for clarifications on certain statements that turned on that post and in which not me but others were isolated from the forum. I don't accept it. the qui pro quo, if you remember, was caused by the fact that me and matteo, industrial designer for 20 years, collaborators of siemens and other multinationals, located in the same studio therefore with the same ip we were exchanged for flame burners. with this step and I close.

 

[cacciatorino]

dear hunter,
the discussion on the constant rope beams has been clarified in its time with paolo intra to which I addressed to ask for clarifications on certain statements that turned on that post and in which not me but others were isolated from the forum. I don't accept it. the qui pro quo, if you remember, was caused by the fact that me and matteo, industrial designer for 20 years, collaborators of siemens and other multinationals, located in the same studio therefore with the same ip we were exchanged for flame burners. with this step and I close.

The pro quo here was due to the fact that you were going through a secondary issue, but without being able to explain the reason for that importance. In my opinion (and it is the opinion that matters as I am a moderator in this section) in that discussion you made a flame to highlight a function that had nx, and it seems to me that the trend is the same in this debate: many videos but few explanations and the usual air of superiority of those who dispense every so often pills is wisdom to the humble workers of the cad, who will hardly be able to understand (you still have to explain the difference between direct modeling and hisory free according to your point of view).

 

[ceschi1959]

' precisely in the details that we annihilate the misunderstandings and it is not true that the details are of little account.

Note that in st you can choose whether to bind or not, or to bind only in part. So your statement is right and wrong at the same time.

what you say is not true, you can bind or not depending on whether you are in order mode or in synchronous mode (it seems to me so in if), are the modes and not the commands to make the difference

However the st is both parametric and non- parametric, at the user's choice (but perhaps we should talk about bound or unscrupulous, because a quota or a concentric bond are not parameters but are constraints, in fact).

false even this at least in nx: resize blend is regulated by a parameter, delete face from what is regulated? reorder blend? as you see we are talking about completely different things that have equal names. if and nx are very different in this sense. what are we talking about? of confusion and common places as I said. even siemens has clear ideas and I give you an example: commands, usable in the old versions nx7.5-8, only in free and non-parametric history mode, are now usable in history mode and history free parametric both.
the difficulty of giving indications on the use of the various systems is also in this little clarity of a technology still being developed and launched on the market perhaps more for commercial needs than practices.

Then dear hunter, I don't want to get fleas on things, maybe you explain badly, but maybe you understand worse. He notes the perhaps possibleists and I assure you devoid of every vis controversy. I don't want to make wrong statements taken for good just because they tell you who says:

Dear Marco, the modeling brep instead of feature based is at the end of the fair something that we all "elder" know. is the same mode used by autocad 3d, throw or rotate a face instead of changing the odds of a certain function.

compared to geometric modeling generated by solid construction geometry representation technique (csg), which uses only primitive objects and matching Boolean logic operations, boundary representation is more flexible and has a much richer set of operations. This makes Brep representation a more suitable choice for cad systems. csg technique was initially used by several commercial systems because it is easy to implement. the advent of reliable commercial systems based on kernel b-rep as parasolid and acis, first indicated, led to the widespread adoption of b-rep for cad. in addition to Boolean operations, b-rep extrusion (of all kinds), bevelling, meshing, design, shelling (filling), tweaking (modifications) and other operations that make use of all this. wikipedia

in the world ptc a model without feature weighs less ... you tell me that in the world siemens weighs more ... there is something that does not come back.

It doesn't come back that you didn't read what I wrote and responded to you properly hunter:

to answer your question;

the model could weigh down if I bind the faces between them
the model will be lighter if it does not bind faces between them

 

[maxopus]

I see that it continues to not understand and this still brings me back to what has been said: There is great confusion. I did not say that a featureless model weighs less I said that direct modeling commands weigh the file and exactly these words: this is one of the inaccuracies that turn, because if it is related to the second mode that I have described, even weighting. This prompts me to think that nothing has been understood about direct modeling and modeling history free by confusing each other.
look at these two movies that I did on the fly, so excuse the banality, in one, you start from a file shot and you get through the modeling commands to create parameters. do you not answer the questions I have asked and that is, there is a vague likeness of commands with those I have illustrated of nx?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8a6_zluyzuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j42-yjin2uu

You're joking, aren't you?

 

[cacciatorino]

what you say is not true, you can bind or not depending on whether you are in order mode or in synchronous mode (it seems to me so in if), are the modes and not the commands to make the difference

You're grossly wrong. In synchronous mode I can decide whether to bind or not: for example I can bind two faces to be parallel, or even parallel to a fixed distance, or I can leave them untied. this in the judgment of the designer, staying in a synchronous environment. Now I don't have the cad under my hand to make a video unfortunately.

false even this at least in nx: resize blend is regulated by a parameter, delete face from what is regulated? reorder blend? as you see we are talking about completely different things that have equal names. if and nx are very different in this sense. what are we talking about? of confusion and common places as I said. even siemens has clear ideas and I give you an example: commands, usable in the old versions nx7.5-8, only in free and non-parametric history mode, are now usable in history mode and history free parametric both.
the difficulty of giving indications on the use of the various systems is also in this little clarity of a technology still being developed and launched on the market perhaps more for commercial needs than practices.

Maybe you're the one messing up between constraints and parameters. a parameter is a thing of type a = 2 * b, where for example a and b are two (even non-physical) size of the model. a bond is a static thing, for example a geometric bond fdi parallelism or perpendicularity or dimensional distance between two entities. the st of solid edge however has both constraints and parameters, to be used or not depending on the needs of the moment (resting, I repeat it, in synchronous environment and therefore history free).

Then dear hunter, I don't want to get fleas on things, maybe you explain badly, but maybe you understand worse. He notes the perhaps possibleists and I assure you devoid of every vis controversy. I don't want to make wrong statements taken for good just because they tell you who says:

you're the one who started to say we make confusion, we don't understand, we're back etc. by law, I am convincing myself of the contrary sincerely.

 

[marcof]

My question was a trick question. in that video there is nothing st because it is all parametric, and here is confusion: in itself you could have done these things, as in nx, well before the introduction of the st?

the confusion you can create in users of other cads, not of course of yours, which I imagine they will not get screwed so easily. If "shakes" is clear that I, who I have never used nx, can watch your video without knowing that you are applying a type of modeling other than what I imagine, that is not st but direct modeling or change of feature through handles all linked to the history of the processing.
I have not understood the meaning of all your posts, because the fact that a type of modeling that does not have history, constraints etc. (st or contextual call it as you want but I think we have understood ) is different from that history based we all know well. When I told you that I didn't understand where the inaccuracies you had read before your intervention in post #7 I asked you to quote them and write "no, it's not like this but so"
so much to give you an example, I know very well that all the changes I make in a swx model, irrespective of the mode (publishing odds and features, pull handles, move faces, deform, etc.) are parametric and history based. I never thought that pulling a face was direct modeling, and I'm convinced that users of all other cads know about the funzonation of their (creus, if, inv etc) so you can't think that we make confusion with the tools we know.
It seems to me that the only real novelty is the st, but I would not swear is implemented in the same way in itself and in nx even if I remember that it had been spoken a lot but having never used it I have no idea what happens going to edit a feature that in the tree is found before the start of the modeling with the st, if you can start modeling with the st half of a model based on the features, then

I have the point of all this thread is when it is better to use a contextual or a parametric or, if possible, both modes at the same time.

p.s.
in case it is possible the mixed use of st and parametric to realize a model da zero on nx (or if) I will tell you[mode flame ON]I have the impression that you find yourself in front of a wandering mine ready to explode in your hand just touch some features before the modeling part in st
for the speech of imported models or native models immodificabli because made with feet I believe that the contextual or the planing all the history and going to st is definitely better, but it is a remedy to save goats and cabbages and somehow to come out of it[mode flame OFF] :biggrin:

 

[ceschi1959]

I actually understood wrong because:

a quota or a concentric bond are not parameters but are constraints, precisely.

So what is a parameter or a bond? from what you write is

a bond is a static thing, for example a geometric bond fdi parallelism or perpendicularity or dimensional distance between two entities.

therefore unmistakable. if so it is not in nx and not only: the features can have other 'parameters' besides those that mention.

 

[ceschi1959]

I never thought pulling a face was direct modeling

This is the busillis, marcof, and I don't know how to explain it anymore. in my first post I put some pictures: one represents the nx5 direct modeling commands, the other represents the same commands (naturally in much higher number) but under the synchronous terminology. what you do with sw is direct modeling and it's the second case that I exposed in my first post that I relay:

p(x;y) is, for example, a point of a surface graphically represented on the monitor that has coordinates obtained from a system of equations (b-rep) (features based). I can move it in three ways: redefine basic features (first image modify features), giving it a 'direct' shift (second image features based + direct modeling), moving it sic et simpliciter to another place (history free). Did I explain or not?

in more nx deriso by maxopus in his last intervention there are systems of 'recognition' of the geometries that I challenge any other cad to have. in the film there is a stretch of a face of a sort of asolate bugna. this at first fails as the system attempts to apply stretching even to the underlying bandage. However, it is a possible geometrically and mathematically valid solution until the radius is attached. I then apply a st command (direct modeling or st does not matter) that makes the system recognize that the one below is a fitting. then the system can apply another solution. to the face of the underdeveloped.

 

[ceschi1959]

The pro quo here was due to the fact that you were going through a secondary issue, but without being able to explain the reason for that importance. In my opinion (and it is the opinion that matters as I am a moderator in this section) in that discussion you made a flame to highlight a function that had nx, and it seems to me that the trend is the same in this debate: many videos but few explanations and the usual air of superiority of those who dispense every so often pills is wisdom to the humble workers of the cad, who will hardly be able to understand (you still have to explain the difference between direct modeling and hisory free according to your point of view).

the reason for that importance I explain now that, for obvious reasons, I can make examples. I put some pictures of a job I did (Matthew does similar) in which there is the idea rendered by a well-known design studio that once made seats and flyers... and the particular engineered ready by mould made by the undersigned (the mold costs some tens of thousands of euros incident). all the blends of that project, all had to have particular aesthetic characteristics. I know that not everyone does this job but at the time when a discussion posts that directly centeres the heart of my work I am being silenced to raise dusts. There is a whole section dedicated to industrial design, a branch where, if you allow, I am a bit irony and never even on that site I found people who have my experience or matteo, so it seemed like a dream to be able to discuss it with someone, other than dust! ! !

 

[marcof]

I never thought pulling a face was direct modeling

This is the busillis, marcof, and I don't know how to explain it anymore. in my first post I put some pictures: one represents the nx5 direct modeling commands, the other represents the same commands (naturally in much higher number) but under the synchronous terminology. what you do with sw is direct modeling and it's the second case I exposed in my first post

You're right, I'm sorry, but I assure you that the confusion I make is just terminology, not substance. I used the definition "direct modeling" to refer to the possibility to move or change in real time the geometry of the model, but they are well confused that remains feature based and is not the same modeling that you do with osd or with the st of nx and if.

p(x;y) is, for example, a point of a surface graphically represented on the monitor that has coordinates obtained from a system of equations (b-rep) (features based). I can move it in three ways: redefine basic features (first image modify features), giving it a 'direct' shift (second image features based + direct modeling), moving it sic et simpliciter to another place (history free). Did I explain or not?

you explained perfectly even before, even if it actually seems to me (if I'm wrong you'll "corrigerai") that the first two methods of modeling, which are also in swx, are different in way to say. eventually drag a connector or edit the value of a quota but the engine under the hood to change the geometry does the same calculations.

in more nx deriso by maxopus in his last intervention there are systems of 'recognition' of the geometries that I challenge any other cad to have. in the film there is a stretch of a face of a sort of asolate bugna. this at first fails as the system attempts to apply stretching even to the underlying bandage. However, it is a possible geometrically and mathematically valid solution until the radius is attached. I then apply a st command (direct modeling or st does not matter) that makes the system recognize that the one below is a fitting. then the system can apply another solution. to the face of the underdeveloped.

I think it would be better to put it on the substance of the contender, which is not then a contender, that is when it is better to use the st, maybe from scratch, and when not.

 

[maxopus]

you are apart from the geometric series of the suns that are rectangles or the fact that every time you subtract a solid you have to tell him what you are doing because it does not distinguish a set from one side (the files are called smartly all .prt) and therefore a boring endless repetition of clicks to make him understand in what context you are operating. In short, after a year of unimaginable maturing I can say that at the level cad nx can clean worthyly the shoes I create without fear of being denied by anyone who understands a half ... I do not say everything ... but at least a half.

 

[ceschi1959]

You're right, I'm sorry, but I assure you that the confusion I make is just terminology, not substance. I used the definition "direct modeling" to refer to the possibility to move or change in real time the geometry of the model, but they are well confused that remains feature based and is not the same modeling that you do with osd or with the st of nx and if.

if then the terminology in the various cads is different and subdues different concepts see that you come with me that there is a lot of confusion and common places?, rightly you pointed out before in my footage I could have been 'sgamed' only by a nx user, and even though it was of the same family. It reinforces the fact that even houses do not have clear ideas. in nx the situation is, if possible, even more complex: we have a modeling hisory free parametric, not parametric with direct modeling mixed to a little chocolate and granella.... .

I think it would be better to put it on the substance of the contender, which is not then a contender, that is when it is better to use the st, maybe from scratch, and when not.

starting from here, and leaving every comment
on what appeared recently by those who have time to lose, I use the list of hunter posted before to compare it with nx (not benign from the performance point of view, I have no bisogo to measure myself with anyone, but from a 'conceptual' point of view)

advantages of parametric
1) possibility of more simulation of cinematisms and assemblies
1a) in nx no difference, cinematisms and assemblies act on geometry and not on how it is generated
2) best association model-table
2a) idem as above 1a)
3) possibility to edit complex functions with a few clicks (for example loft, helicoids, etc etc.).
3a) also in nx is beneficial the parametric
4) faster editing (if the models are well made in origin)
4a) what you write in parentheses is often the only discriminating one. ....
5) realization of families of parts
5a) also in nx is beneficial the parametric
6) inter-part relations (imported)
6a) depends, nx expressions can be the same, never had problems

Context benefits:
1) Faster learning
1a) in nx the commands are the same!!!!!!!!!! is the different environment
2) increased ease of editing files from other cad
2a) idem as above 1a)
3) simpler top-down modeling (but not associative)
3a) there is no diversity of membership
4) possibility to work with great assemblies (but this is probably specific to cads I'm using, more than methodology).
4a) I challenge you to load a set of a self-propelled engine of those I say, as you specify in brackets it has nothing to do with it.

 

[cacciatorino]

then, to clarify one of the points that had appeared in the discussion:

they tell me that in creo/direct every move operation face is actually recorded in the feature tree, tree that is not shown because we are in direct, but that you will see if we are in parametric (note that we are talking about two different software, which require two distinct licenses).

So, extremizing, if I have a cube and move my face back and forth 100 times, I will have a file with a model tree with 100 operations, while always dealing with a simple cube. That's what it's called, it sounds like a conceptual exaggeration, but it's not that much longer if we think we're going to make new parts from an existing one and saving them by name. If we think that each part is inherited all the moving files from which it comes, the situation does not seem very positive.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

as soon as I saw the post #7 with the picture of the point I thought: This is the good time I'm clearing my ideas...

but at the end of the whole discussion I am even more confused. I don't know st, but I thought I knew a cad direct (spaceclaim)... in those 3 figures I'm associated with spaceclaim in the 3rd case (third figure). but I read "synchronous technology"... but how... on the spaceclaim site I have always read articles and seen video where you compare a feature based (stop calling it parametric, because it confuses ideas, even when drawing a circle the function requires the "parameter" diameter) with a direct modelling... never talked about st!!! so spaceclaim would be a st?

 

[cacciatorino]

as soon as I saw the post #7 with the picture of the point I thought: This is the good time I'm clearing my ideas...

but at the end of the whole discussion I am even more confused. I don't know st, but I thought I knew a cad direct (spaceclaim)... in those 3 figures I'm associated with spaceclaim in the 3rd case (third figure). but I read "synchronous technology"... but how... on the spaceclaim site I have always read articles and seen video where you compare a feature based (stop calling it parametric, because it confuses ideas, even when drawing a circle the function requires the "parameter" diameter) with a direct modelling... never talked about st!!! so spaceclaim would be a st?

synctech is a trade mark of siemens-plm. If spaceclaim incorporates a work mode similar to the one that siemens call synctech no matter. ;-)


spaceclaim manages to bind together the entities of a solid, for example to hold concentric two faces, or parallel or perpendicular two more? If he does, he's like st.

 

[ceschi1959]

as soon as I saw the post #7 with the picture of the point I thought: This is the good time I'm clearing my ideas...

but at the end of the whole discussion I am even more confused. I don't know st, but I thought I knew a cad direct (spaceclaim)... in those 3 figures I'm associated with spaceclaim in the 3rd case (third figure). but I read "synchronous technology"... but how... on the spaceclaim site I have always read articles and seen video where you compare a feature based (stop calling it parametric, because it confuses ideas, even when drawing a circle the function requires the "parameter" diameter) with a direct modelling... never talked about st!!! so spaceclaim would be a st?

It's just a matter of terminology. It is for what I repeat that there is a lot of confusion (I put myself to piè pari tra i confusi) if instead we say: option 1 2 e3, pippo pluto and duck looking at the figures that I posted then the conversation maybe could be more profiqua.
for what concerns nx (the cad that aopero) has all three modes in the same environment.