3d for suction systems

[calacc]

I think the exepro program piping 2d and/or 3d is the one closest to my needs

Yes, I also seem in line with your design needs. But I see her a little too restrictive as a choice. I try to explain the reasons:

a cad is a fundamental tool that allows companies to form their know-how on developed products. therefore needs some flexibility because it has to adapt to all entrepreneurial initiatives. companies (especially if small ones) have to survive having a certain variety of programs, so maybe today you can go well, tomorrow instead the market can ask you more and you have to be able to offer it. creo is undoubtedly a more complete tool and in this case I think it can offer you better guarantees for a more adequate investment.

once at regimen with creo you don't have to go back, or think minimally about changing system because there you already have everything you need and that will serve you in the future. At most it is about implementing some extensions, but laughing stuff in comparison to change cad. I would look calmly before making decisions, thinking especially of the future. when three years ago we implemented creo parametric in the company we considered this. and even before looking for the cad the old manager/owner of the company said to us words: "If we buy, we have to buy a good stuff!" in the sense that a choice cannot go well immediately and tomorrow we don't know, otherwise it becomes a half choice.

then (as I said before) personally I did not find myself well with autodesk products because I saw that they are really too slow and I found myself working badly both with autocad mechanical and with inventor. I also noticed that all files are exaggerated (including installation files). I still happen to work with autocad lt (and I say lt!!!) and create parametric 1.0 (because I still have some stuff to convert to 3d) on the same pc, and if I want to pull autocad lines is much slower and when I quoto goes to snaps.. .
...
part cut by the moderator
...

 

[ECCLETO]

then (as I said before) personally I did not find myself well with autodesk products because I saw that they are really too slow and I found myself working badly both with autocad mechanical and with inventor. I also noticed that all files are exaggerated (including installation files). I still happen to work with autocad lt (and I say lt!!!) and create parametric 1.0 (because I still have some stuff to convert to 3d) on the same pc, and if I want to pull autocad lines is much slower and when I quoto goes to snaps.. .
...
part cut by the moderator
...

I can't understand what you mean by slow, you probably have to do with much more complex systems than ours since we have speed problems with autocad we never had.
However more than a matter of slowness, I would put on the plate a question at all secondary and that is the experience and knowledge that we already have of autocad. I believe that implementing a tool that still works on the same interface is much simpler and faster than learning from scratch a new software like creo or solidedge. By the way, who would teach us, would sellers send technicians to teach us? what experience do you have about it? Thank you.

 

[cacciatorino]

I believe that implementing a tool that still works on the same interface is much simpler and faster than learning from scratch a new software like creo or solidedge. By the way, who would teach us, would sellers send technicians to teach us? what experience do you have about it? Thank you.

It depends a bit on the average age of your ut, but my personal experience is that it's not very complicated to learn a modern 3d. courses are generally agreed during the purchase, i.e. in the negotiation the necessary course days must be listed, made by technicians sent by the seller (no one prohibits to turn to other of its own confidence, of course).

 

[MarcoBi]

I see you use autocad 2006. Why not continue with that? if you properly organize a component library and create a bit of lisp to extract data from automatic blocks (to have a distinct pieces) I think it is still the best choice before introducing a parametric cad.

I think I understand what you do, for example, intake plants for paper mills (better?) and maybe you stop at the layout without making the constructors of the individual pieces. If so, modeling infrastructure with a parametric cad is pure madness and autocad (pure) still represents the best choice.

If you purchase a modern parametric cad, the advantage will be in the achievement of developments and cutting plans for all the ducts the transition pieces and the hoppers you will have to build.

 

[calacc]

I can't understand what you mean by slow, you probably have to do with much more complex systems than ours since we have speed problems with autocad we never had.

I mean that autocad lt 2011 is much slower than creo parametric 1.0 mounted on the same workstation. and one is parametric, the other is not... to say in conclusion that autocad is an inefficient system from the point of view of programming. Of course if you have only autocad you will never know if and how slow it can be, you only have that, so there is no meter of comparison.

I believe that implementing a tool that still works on the same interface is much simpler and faster than learning from scratch a new software like creo or solidedge.

As I have already said, it may be simple and fast as implementation in the very short period, but I would not consider it an important investment because I am seeing today (and here in the forum will be able to confirm in many) that the qualitative leap is done when you pass to the parametric. then it is always to be evaluated if the game is worth the candle.. .

By the way, who would teach us, would sellers send technicians to teach us? what experience do you have about it?

I personally create parametric I have learned (and I am continuing to learn) alone having the online guide, the forum and e-learning libraries containing videocorsi (purchased separately from the cad). It takes no doubt much commitment and patience. the gain usually gets in medium-long times. and given the amount of companies that made the investment I would say that it is worth facing the obstacle!

 

[ECCLETO]

I see you use autocad 2006. Why not continue with that? if you properly organize a component library and create a bit of lisp to extract data from automatic blocks (to have a distinct pieces) I think it is still the best choice before introducing a parametric cad.

the problem is that it takes an eternity to create a library and especially certain components such as, hoppers and branches are endless. for this we are looking for something that instead has parametric characteristics to draw quickly, maybe it is enough in 2d (the 3d would already be a luxury in our field) but parametric without doubt.

I think I understand what you do, for example, intake plants for paper mills (better?) and maybe you stop at the layout without making the constructors of the individual pieces. If so, modeling infrastructure with a parametric cad is pure madness and autocad (pure) still represents the best choice.

If you purchase a modern parametric cad, the advantage will be in the achievement of developments and cutting plans for all the ducts the transition pieces and the hoppers you will have to build.

normally we make plants for wood sector (woodworking, sawmills, furniture etc.) and we stop at the layout without making constructions. for all channels and sheet developments, there are software dedicated to the various plasma/laser cuts that do not require implementation being already extravagant and efficient.
what is currently missing is an automatic distinction of the pieces that need and yield that a parametric cad could prepare it without problems (currently happens by hand). but this is not what we press, instead we are interested in speeding up the drawings and possibly having a better graphic rendering, I repeat, possibly even in 3d.
- - - updated - - - -

I see you use autocad 2006. Why not continue with that? if you properly organize a component library and create a bit of lisp to extract data from automatic blocks (to have a distinct pieces) I think it is still the best choice before introducing a parametric cad.

I think I understand what you do, for example, intake plants for paper mills (better?) and maybe you stop at the layout without making the constructors of the individual pieces. If so, modeling infrastructure with a parametric cad is pure madness and autocad (pure) still represents the best choice.

If you purchase a modern parametric cad, the advantage will be in the achievement of developments and cutting plans for all the ducts the transition pieces and the hoppers you will have to build.

the problem is that it takes an eternity to create a library and especially certain components such as, hoppers and branches are endless. for this we are looking for something that instead has parametric characteristics to draw quickly, maybe it is enough in 2d (the 3d would already be a luxury in our field) but parametric without doubt.

 

[MarcoBi]

As I thought. The bookstore practically creates it by developing the shop. in other words I recommend you maintain your 2d working methodology for some time and,parallely, start developing 3d components.
I understand that the sections of the channel can be almost different as it is linked to the layout of the system but if you organize it would be enough to "archive" the sections to call and extrude "at the moment".
Of course, first of all, you should take 3d second autocad.
in any case even opting for a parametric cad would not ease you in the construction of the layout or in the 3d representation of the infrastructures in which "insert" your project and, finally, consider that a parameterized component will never have the "improved" graphic look that you are looking for as the "parameterization" is well suited to non particularly complex morphology.

 

[ECCLETO]

As I thought. The bookstore practically creates it by developing the shop. in other words I recommend you maintain your 2d working methodology for some time and,parallely, start developing 3d components.
I understand that the sections of the channel can be almost different as it is linked to the layout of the system but if you organize it would be enough to "archive" the sections to call and extrude "at the moment".

What do you mean by "extruding at the moment"? Keep in mind that drawing in 2d lines of channeling is very trivial (2 horizontal rows and many vertical rows each meter that with the copy/paste you make at km in a few moments) the problem (in terms of time) arrives when you have the curves (at 45 or 90°) and especially when you have the branches at 2 or 3 streets. the branches go from time to time drawn as you have 3 variables: arrival diameter, vertical output diameter and curve output diameter. the 3 variables make you that every holy time, we have to draw the piece and here believe me you lose a lot of hours.
possible that there is nothing about autocad that can solve these components (very)?
I didn't think it was so difficult and honestly I thought that you are much more experienced than me, you would have given me a fairly unified answer, instead there are really very different opinions and contrasts. moral, I'm still in confusion and above all my branches continue to make me miss a lot of time.. .

 

[MarcoBi]

Perhaps the doubts come to you because you do not know the 3d autocad (I deduct it from your answer).
the time you lose to make the very trivial rows and belts copy and paste is the same for the 3d.
for curves at 45 or 90 is the same.
for the pieces to y or to 3 streets you need a little more practice but I do not see anything particularly complex indeed, than the 2d you are definitely advantaged by modeling in 3d.
I repeat: to do what you want, it can suffice to autocad (maybe a slightly more recent version that allows you to sweep).

 

[ECCLETO]

Perhaps the doubts come to you because you do not know the 3d autocad (I deduct it from your answer).
the time you lose to make the very trivial rows and belts copy and paste is the same for the 3d.
for curves at 45 or 90 is the same.
for the pieces to y or to 3 streets you need a little more practice but I do not see anything particularly complex indeed, than the 2d you are definitely advantaged by modeling in 3d.
I repeat: to do what you want, it can suffice to autocad (maybe a slightly more recent version that allows you to sweep).

I'm really ignorant, really! I can try with a 2012 autocad that I can have through a friend, maybe in the meantime I look for a 3d course for autocad...sweep this stranger! then the pieces to y I would draw them in 2d to lines and with the sweep I can convert them to 3d? thanks for the precious advice.

 

[calacc]

in any case even opting for a parametric cad would not facilitate you in the construction of the layout or in the 3d representation of the infrastructures in which "insert" your project

I don't think I understand what you mean here. That is, I am convinced of the opposite! I believe that instead it is decisive to reduce the time-to-market set a parametric project of the plant... Perhaps it will be because I don't know the world of plant well, but you want to put the power that can give you a parametric management of a plant according to the logic of top-down design? I'm not talking about mars, but here are people around who set up parametric projects of plants for industrial automation that are composed by automatic lines of machines for 50 meters of lughness. in which you just set precise inputs and the plant lives out of itself with a few clicks, including the constructives of details, sheets etc...

consider that a parameterized component will never have the "improved" graphic look that you are looking for as the "parameterization" is well suited to not particularly complex morphology

I think it has nothing to do with parameterization. . If you can do it, you can really parameterize everything, even very complex surfaces if you want. However, you must have an environment that allows you to manage the material of the pieces. to do this I found formidable the tool of family-tables of pro/e (creo parametric), for example I created variants for y or t fittings and from a single model, thanks to guide quotas, I can create all the pieces that I want through relationships/tables.

 

[calacc]

sweep this stranger! then the pieces to y I would draw them in 2d to lines and with the sweep I can convert them to 3d? thanks for the precious advice.

the sweep function allows you to create trajectories in space and you just have to impose one or more sections and he tracks them along a defined trajectory. with this video You can clarify your ideas.

 

[MarcoBi]

eccleto,
the sweep is only one of the functions you should use for modeling, along with predominantly extrude and loft (do not understand that this is enough for you, but the functions you will use at 80% are these 3 commands).
you said that your company does not realize constructions, so I assume that you take care of process sizing (conduct, blowers etc.) and layout based on your customer's needs.
so you would like to be able to model the infrastructures and plants of the customer you receive in 2d (or maybe even in 3d) and insert your components then get a distinct pieces and drawings of accommodation (views assonometrics, plants, sections and details).
considers that I have done so for at least 30 years and typically do so almost all plants companies working on a contract (obviously those using autocad).
to return to your final question, yes, the pieces ad y do them extruding 3 regions (or even 3 rectangles) according to the respective path. Obviously someone will object that you will not get any constructive or development sheet from these models and not even weight the center of gravity etc. but here would be a long speech that I don't think meets the needs you have expressed.

 

[MarcoBi]

Hi calacc,
I understood that the plants that our friend wants to model in 3d are "auxiliary" of plants already built by others.
For example, in a sawmill it is necessary to "spirate" the powder and the chip produced. the predisposing of the aspirators connected to a series of conduits that end in corrsipondence of the above machines.
not always the layout allows a linear channeling and placing of the machines near the utilities for which the layout of the suction system can also be complex and articulated.
I agree with you that you can parameterize a machine even complex (I recall the sorting machines made with pro-e) but here we talk about plants where the parameterization at most can refer to a conduit, to a brag, to a piece of transition... and is not required to produce sheet metal developments or other as you could do with sheet metal or similar modules.
also on the graphic dress allow me to clarify: If you want to parameterize also the chord it is obvious that you can do it (with a robust sw and several months (or years) of experience in defining and assigning the variables, in a family table of one hundred rows and one hundred columns, to avoid regeneration errors from which you don't go out) but it doesn't seem to me the case in question and working "on commission" you wouldn't exploit the benefits of parameterization so thoroughly (it you would always need).
See you soon.

 

[calacc]

Hello, Marco, now I'm more clear about the sense of intervention. the idea that I had instead is to use the design approach in top-down using the parametric capabilities of customization of the system. This is precisely the typical way of proceeding of companies working on a contract. I try to explain myself better.. .
the company x we realize that it is a sawmill, commissions me the development of the aspiration system inside its establishment.
as input I receive the layout of their machines, near which I will have to place aspirators, conduits etc...
so I proceed by defining my parametric layout of the lines, parameterized by taking customer references, and I resell it in 3d with my tubes, my t my reductions, etc...
In this way it is possible to manage in a very efficient way even any changes in operation, because the lines I have built run exactly behind the machines of the company customer. therefore any variation, modification, particular configuration is exactly predictable, and allows me to meet quickly and flexible at any request. once the time-to-market would be down drastically with a similar approach (compared to a traditional approach). all the documentation connected to my system would be automatically updated: technical boards, layout drawings, distinct base, techic cards etc...
Now our eccleto will certainly do well to look around to understand which tool is best suited to its needs, but I think it should not be exempted a priori by evaluating an approach like this.

 

[ECCLETO]

Hi calacc,
I understood that the plants that our friend wants to model in 3d are "auxiliary" of plants already built by others.
For example, in a sawmill it is necessary to "spirate" the powder and the chip produced. the predisposing of the aspirators connected to a series of conduits that end in corrsipondence of the above machines.
not always the layout allows a linear channeling and placing of the machines near the utilities for which the layout of the suction system can also be complex and articulated.
I agree with you that you can parameterize a machine even complex (I recall the sorting machines made with pro-e) but here we talk about plants where the parameterization at most can refer to a conduit, to a brag, to a piece of transition... and is not required to produce sheet metal developments or other as you could do with sheet metal or similar modules.
also on the graphic dress allow me to clarify: If you want to parameterize also the chord it is obvious that you can do it (with a robust sw and several months (or years) of experience in defining and assigning the variables, in a family table of one hundred rows and one hundred columns, to avoid regeneration errors from which you don't go out) but it doesn't seem to me the case in question and working "on commission" you wouldn't exploit the benefits of parameterization so thoroughly (it you would always need).
See you soon.

marco and calacc, in the meantime I thank you for the availability. I would like to better explain what I intend to find, so as to give more details. Forgive me for any backgrounds/banking that I will probably write, but as I told you I am a commercial technician and I learned self-taught without any specific notion, so my knowledge is really very limited.
However, I realize what would be necessary for our company to improve quality (especially in terms of image and presentation) and speed up design and production operations.
in practice how it works: normally we receive from the customer a layout in 2d, a planimetry with some machine tools knows having to connect to our plant, (in 3d it happened only 1-2 times to receive it and anyway our project was reported in 2d).
we print this layout and pencil, we draw the hypothetical suction lines, calculating diameters and air flow rates all manually with diagrams and calculator. on this aspect I understand that you could already open a very long chapter of automation, but in all honesty I tell you that really this phase inherent in the design for now does not affect us to automate it or at least it is not our current goal.
finished the sketch, proceed with the drawing on the layout provided us and here you start to bring in the plant all the channelings and various accessories (ventilators, silos, substations etc.) that already are present in archive (all strictly in 2d).
I would like to analyze each component individually so that it is clear what we would like to do:
pipes: to draw the tube now pull 4 rows, 2 horizontal l=1000 mm. and 2 vertical l= (depending on the diameter)
curves: 2 parallax arches are drawn and then 7 lines to draw the ears each from 15° (6 for the curves at 90° and 3 for those at 45°). normally the only trick that is often used is to hold a d.1000 curve and then reduce it with the scale command, to avoid each time redesigning it as head. However here it would not be difficult to create a mini-library for every diameter to use always on every occasion.
brags: they draw each time from head because each time the variables of the diameters are 3 or 4 depending if they are 2 or 3 ways.
hoppers-reductions-special pieces as for the brags are designed every time.

what I would possibly want to achieve is to create (or find a sw already prepared) of the 8uno buttons for the tube, one for the curve, one for the brags etc.) that once crushed I propose to insert the or the diameters I need, automatically creating the piece that then I will go manually to paste to the system in the right position.
I don't think it's so hard to do, do I? possible that there is nothing around the market that does this?
the maximum then would be able to have a separate automatically of the pieces inserted, so that at the moment when the order of production should be, it would be enough to deliver in production the list of materials to be made (mt xx tube d.xxx, n°xx curved d. etc.)
That's what you'd need, and here I'm just talking about 2d.

if then all that described above was feasible even in 3d even better, it would mean that in addition to the dorsal lines, we could also add the cd. descends to the machines, thus completing in all its part the distinct (in practice to the list would be added the flexible tubes, the possible valves to lock, etc. that in the 2d are never represented).

I'm asking too much, right?

 

[MarcoBi]

I don't think you've added anything more than that so far.

to make a circular canal in 3d:

- circle (of the outer diameter of your canal)
- extrude (of the desired length or according to a path or giving 2 points)

End.

if you know how to use autocad the time employed (together) in 3d is less than 2d.

Say hi.

 

[ECCLETO]

I don't think you've added anything more than that so far.

to make a circular canal in 3d:

- circle (of the outer diameter of your canal)
- extrude (of the desired length or according to a path or giving 2 points)

End.

if you know how to use autocad the time employed (together) in 3d is less than 2d.

Say hi.

Marco, but with autocad can I also create buttons and a separate piece? Thank you.

 

[calacc]

if then all that described above was feasible even in 3d even better, it would mean that in addition to the dorsal lines, we could also add the cd. descends to the machines, thus completing in all its part the distinct (in practice to the list would be added the flexible tubes, the possible valves to lock, etc. that in the 2d are never represented).
I'm asking too much, right?

do not ask too much, the tools are there and just use them so. how did Ozzy say the solution would be I think parametric with the limit I think schematics that guides you in 3d drawing of the plant paths. if you want you can (maybe in the future) optimize the cycle to the maximum and reduce the time-to-market implements you PCx and go a thousand an hour.
with that I would feel sure to improve compared to now.
then it is useless to add that these are investments of a certain type and before leaving you must see an economic return in useful times to the company, and here we are not sure to establish it! if eccleto is here to seek answers to his doubts, we do not know exactly if for him it is better a parametric solution, rather than autocad with bookcases or the tecnigraph... He will decide that in accordance with the direction. what we can do is give advice so that he can be better oriented in a conscious way.

 

[marcof]

I don't think you've added anything more than that so far.
to make a circular canal in 3d:
- circle (of the outer diameter of your canal)
- extrude (of the desired length or according to a path or giving 2 points)
End.
if you know how to use autocad the time employed (together) in 3d is less than 2d.

However with autocad the time to devote to the creation of families of parts or to the modifications of the plant is enormously longer than with any parametric cad where of curves to elbow or design one and all the thousand variants of radius and diamond I fly with a simple data table. idem for brags, various fittings, hoppers and all parts "like" but with different sizes.
as simple as the work that needs to manage excel, if it has to work in 3d, it will be faster and faster with a parametric cad. less than specialised and expensive vertical applications, it seems to me that today I think working in 3d with autocad is at least anachronistic.
said this imho perhaps there is not even need to shoot at the flies with the cannon as I have the impression that it proposes "calacc" (creo schematics, pcx etc.)