marcof
Guest
Come on, please... eek:, the "time to market" let the assault business!! :smile:
calacc
Guest
:biggrin::biggrin: bella marcof!!!
eh oh il time-to-market I don't know. It will be because I read "commercial" in the eccleto profile and so I was inspired accordingly!
Anyway, come on, I don't want you to shoot the flies with the cannon, but at least with a nice sniper shotgun. to take them, however, eh, even the little ones:wink:!
Anyway, at least we agree on the parametric solution! personally if the boss told me: I think I should make an appointment with the psychologist! I don't know if I could handle the shot myself!
cacciatorino
Guest
Excuse the question, are you a commercial ptc? If so, the site policy would be to sign a link to the company you work for.
Bye.
ECCLETO
Guest
However ptc I create to see it on youtube does not seem at all simple, if nothing else because it is all in English and I completely lack the basics of the 3d...I do not want to make a caxxata in the sense that as it said marco, risk to buy a ferrari to go to 50 an hour and beyond the expense (how much would it cost for 1-2 licenses someone know to tell me?) but above all I can not quantify the time necessary to start making a design. I did not find manuals in Italian but not even tutorials contrary to autocad.
I mean, my fear is that if it is too difficult and long, all here continue to use autocad and the ptc (or other sw) remains in the menus of the pc (with huge pleasure of our owner! )
then last thing, but instead of buying a ferrari and going to 1%, but really there is nothing already "predisposed" for us planters, since in the end you ask only to make pipes, curves and brags, not to design the shuttle?
I mean, my fear is that if it is too difficult and long, all here continue to use autocad and the ptc (or other sw) remains in the menus of the pc (with huge pleasure of our owner! )
then last thing, but instead of buying a ferrari and going to 1%, but really there is nothing already "predisposed" for us planters, since in the end you ask only to make pipes, curves and brags, not to design the shuttle?
cacciatorino
Guest
all the most popular current cads have the user interface translated into English.
calacc
Guest
no hunting, go quiet:wink:! as you see in fact I happen to use also other systems besides creo parametric! only that now for reasons of force majeure I only find myself on that system there because it was implemented 2 years ago in the company I work with. So what do you want... maybe I'm so caught that I dream of it at night too!
Look, the parametric cads are all tough! you can ask any mechanical designer who has passed (like me) from autocad to any parametric cad. but this is not the point, it is that to do well this passage you need to change your mindset, change style and way of thinking! it takes a lot of humility especially at the beginning if you want to really improve! Then another thing: the investment that the company does does not exhaust itself with the purchase of licenses (the price of which can vary a few thousand euros from one sw to another) but is a continuous loop of learning/improvement. Maybe just buy the licenses! would be like to buy a nice fast car and expect to become almost immediately of the excellent drivers... It does not exist! then clearly it also takes some predisposition to change from the technical office. I personally love the changes (I am aquarium
) because I find them very exciting and exciting! the cad as I have already said I am learning it myself, without having done courses, and above all without anyone near with the though little idea about it! It's a matter of will! nowadays, unlike once, there are all the tools available. Just document yourself, there is the network, there are communities on social media, there is youtube etc... I found bread for my teeth!If you do some research you find a lot of material around the net! From autocad blocks to more complex files for parametric cads. then it is in you to set everything in order to facilitate your work. Of course there's not everything. What's not going to happen!
MarcoBi
Guest
OK, I see that the discussion is turning in typhus (forza juve!!) and it is not the case of going beyond.
I think that eccleto must first get an idea of how to work in 3d and then make his choices. Surely there is that those who work on a contract and in the planning (at any level) would never buy a parametric sw to have curves, brags and transitions automatically because "the variables" in a "committed" plant are endless because there are almost never two identical orders as the layout and process conditions are always different and provided by the customer... (and hopefully you have so many different customers).
then as already mentioned, rebuilding a 3d furniture so that I can then insert my 4 parametric components I don't think it's the case with different sw from autocad.
marcof
Guest
That's like saying I'm typing while you're doing the gown, impartial, and with the hand regulation, right?
then you say you don't go any further and you go. or maybe you were telling me not to go any further because you whistled the end of the game?
Anyway, let's go further.. .
what makes you assume that with a parametric cad you can't do every time a different plant by changing existing components much faster than you do with autocad for me remains a mystery. but then I ask myself: Is the word "parametric" really sorrowful to make it look like a scarf, not even the origin of all the evils?
Take care that we are talking about naked and raw autocad, not equipped with application dedicated to piping. Are you sure that its 3d, editing management and creating parts families is really so fast? I can doubt it strongly or are at risk yellow cards
and give them with the parametric used as " intimidating word". I'm sorry, but when you do a parallelepiped with autocad somewhere you enter numerical values to tell the software how great to do this damn parallelepipedo or autocad reads you in thought? Here, those numbers you put in command line handles or typing them in the appropriate field, with a "parametric" cad put them in the values of the quotas that manage the parallelepiped. It doesn't seem like such a far-reaching procedure: three numbers you type with autocad and three I type with swx. then I change the numbers and my parallelepipedo resizes, you think it has to work a little more, much more.
if then I of that parallelepipedo want to make a family of parts with 50 variants of measures fill a table and the variations are already beautiful that ready when I leave the table. change the table and the variants change; with autocad perhaps is "a little more complicated"
do the same thing.if they are 4 components probably just go to the eye and with a meter and a sheet of paper the plant is already made "in mind". If you have to make the furniture in 3d, simplified or not, it is always 3d. imho is done first and better with a parametric cad that with naked and crude autocad, because if I don't understand you are proposing this solution, not the autocad application dedicated to piping.
MarcoBi
Guest
"..what makes you assume that with a parametric cad you can't make every time a different plant by changing existing components much faster than you do with autocad for me remains a mystery. "
I knew.
See you soon.
I knew.
See you soon.
cacciatorino
Guest
do you have a link to a video on youtube on how to manage 3d changes in autocad? I don't know this software at all, so I have no idea what it's like to work on it.
MarcoBi
Guest
No hunter, I have nothing.
changes in autocad depend a lot on the version you want to consider. .
but the point is not this and perhaps I did not explain well.
the company of eccleto, as far as I understand, works on commission and provides plant engineering of intake/ventilation systems. eccleto clearly indicated what are the activities it carries out:
- receives a 2d design or a 3d model of the factory in which the suction system is designed and installed
- on this elaborate (printed) a path for the channel is hypothesized and appropriate process considerations are made (reductions, speed, flow rates etc.)
- a 2d design is processed using the customer base and "inserting" the hypothesized plant.
- manually prepare a separate pieces (conductors, shutters, blowers etc.) and package the offer to the customer.
- in case of order you pass the elaborate to the sub-suppliers who care to detail the individual components and build them.
Currently, as it says eccleto, the activities of drawing them with autocad 2006 program that learned from self-taught.
I believe that I interpret well the difficulties of eccleto when he speaks of the remarkable "perdite of time" that he has in defining the transition pieces to 3 streets. In fact, if there are branches of conducted arbitrarily oriented in space, it is very complex to come to head in 2d without spending much time.
of course he also feels the need to be able to have a library of components (2d-3d) that allows him to save time in the realization of his designs/preventive.
from here the need to improve its performance using a 3d and a library of components.
I imagine a new furniture where eccleto must represent all the distribution of the intake lines the corrspondence of each machine. Maybe the furniture is placed on 2 or 3 floors of a building and maybe the layout is very articulated.
the advantages of a 3d modeling must necessarily understand an interference control (visual), the possibility of thinking and modeling the support of all elements, the possibility of extracting processed in plant and raised and assonometric views of the installation and more.
therefore the environment provided by the customer must be obligatoryly replicated in 3d then "accogliere" the system supplied by eccleto that will consist of a series of transitions "ad hoc" and a preponderant amount of std pieces.
I argue that you can do it with autocad base.
changes with autocad, in the specific case, are a different arrangement of the components, an extension or a reduction of horizontal or vertical traits of distribution channel or, at most, the modification of a transition or piece to y.
therefore the parameterization here is not justified and the investment would never be repaid.
See you soon.
changes in autocad depend a lot on the version you want to consider. .
but the point is not this and perhaps I did not explain well.
the company of eccleto, as far as I understand, works on commission and provides plant engineering of intake/ventilation systems. eccleto clearly indicated what are the activities it carries out:
- receives a 2d design or a 3d model of the factory in which the suction system is designed and installed
- on this elaborate (printed) a path for the channel is hypothesized and appropriate process considerations are made (reductions, speed, flow rates etc.)
- a 2d design is processed using the customer base and "inserting" the hypothesized plant.
- manually prepare a separate pieces (conductors, shutters, blowers etc.) and package the offer to the customer.
- in case of order you pass the elaborate to the sub-suppliers who care to detail the individual components and build them.
Currently, as it says eccleto, the activities of drawing them with autocad 2006 program that learned from self-taught.
I believe that I interpret well the difficulties of eccleto when he speaks of the remarkable "perdite of time" that he has in defining the transition pieces to 3 streets. In fact, if there are branches of conducted arbitrarily oriented in space, it is very complex to come to head in 2d without spending much time.
of course he also feels the need to be able to have a library of components (2d-3d) that allows him to save time in the realization of his designs/preventive.
from here the need to improve its performance using a 3d and a library of components.
I imagine a new furniture where eccleto must represent all the distribution of the intake lines the corrspondence of each machine. Maybe the furniture is placed on 2 or 3 floors of a building and maybe the layout is very articulated.
the advantages of a 3d modeling must necessarily understand an interference control (visual), the possibility of thinking and modeling the support of all elements, the possibility of extracting processed in plant and raised and assonometric views of the installation and more.
therefore the environment provided by the customer must be obligatoryly replicated in 3d then "accogliere" the system supplied by eccleto that will consist of a series of transitions "ad hoc" and a preponderant amount of std pieces.
I argue that you can do it with autocad base.
changes with autocad, in the specific case, are a different arrangement of the components, an extension or a reduction of horizontal or vertical traits of distribution channel or, at most, the modification of a transition or piece to y.
therefore the parameterization here is not justified and the investment would never be repaid.
See you soon.
cacciatorino
Guest
as I said I don't know autocad, so I avoid talking about it, but as you described this work of tubers it seems to me that it would be very well done with a 3d parametric.
Let us make a preliminary distinction, since this is often confusing:
an account is the parameterization of the parts, an account is the driving quotas:
- using the guide odds means editing from keyboard the size of the solid to change it, which makes the job very quick and fast.
- parameterizing means imposing mathematical constraints between these quotas, for example that the inner diameter of the pipe will be equal to the outer diameter - 2 times the wall thickness. In this case, by inputting the value of the outer diameter from the keyboard, the internal diameter will be automatically modified, if I have defined a priori the thickness of the sheet.
To make a model of type 1) is trivial, that of type 2) requires a minimum of extra work, but then it is smarter (i.e., it will make us reap time in subsequent changes). the same we could go for all the variables of the model, increasing gradually the complexity of the preparatory work.
Now if I'm a company that does a different machine every time, I'm probably gonna work like 1). If I do stuff like that, I'm probably gonna use method 2).
our excelled user in what land is located? At first sight it would be to say 1), because it makes plants always different. I think it's in 2), because the type of parts you use is always that.
I mean, If I have a straight pipe dest=200 l=3000 with flange d300, make it become l=4000 dest=250 dflange=350 will be a boy's game, as well as a flanged curve section: If I've done it before, and catalogued a curve r=500 alpha=45°, but for the new plant I need a r=600 alpha=90°, having the new from a copy of the old is really a ten-second job. then the parts I'm going to do will have already memorized the mating surfaces, so if a straight stroke passes from l=1000 to l=1500, all the downstream part of that tube will shift 500 mm. Besides, having already memorized the couplings of every single piece, the next time he uses it he will go to magnet right, and he will be magnetized even with all the changes I will make to the other parts of the tuberia.
for those who have never used a modern 3d in depth, these methods may appear complex and perditempo, but instead they are a huge speed of drawing production, which is what ultimately counts.
MarcoBi
Guest
I'm sure if you have an example to display on youtube, eccleto will be able to do it in the idea.
cacciatorino
Guest
I don't take care of this kind of work, so I had nothing ready.
I did this video in 5 minutes:
[youtube]8pw_y3an5s8[/youtube]where I simulated a column that appears just where my tube passed, and a modification of the pipe path to circumvent it.
to do well done things I should have drawn the pieces from the library, edit them and assemble them, but I do not have this library. I hope, however, we understand the agility of the instrument in the process of modification.
MarcoBi
Guest
Nice. What are you doing with the video?
cacciatorino
Guest
I use camstudio, but I think there are more efficient programs (for a fee). videos made with camstudio then I have to convert them with vlc otherwise they are huge.
ECCLETO
Guest
your explanation and your video are very interesting and I've been clarified better by the concept of parametric. to answer your question if I am1 or 2 I would tell you that I would definitely want to be in situation 2 but I would also be satisfied with the 1, I explain better.
if I could already make a method of copying/paste of the various pieces using the quotas guides, i.e. I create a library of components (we assume from d.1000 of all types, tubes, curves tee etc) and from time to time I quoto the single piece so that I change according to the diameter (obviously in the tubes and curves I will have only 1 variable, in the tee I will have 2-3 variables), then I will be ready I will sit it in the right position.
in situation 2 where I can parametrate, I understand the comfort in some areas, it is not clear to me how and to what I could parametrate my channels, since there is no need to do automatic calculations to establish diameters or lengths, just because as I explained a few msg above, the project we always do it manually.
that is ultimately enough to me that that tube you created on solid, could be created piece on piece as a puzzle, but I still have not understood whether and how these components can create and manage them. for example tubes are generally in pieces from 1-2-3 mt, curves or 45 or 90° etc. etc. Can I create a component menu, yes or no?
you guys don't get angry if I insist but all of you have a method of explanation that you certainly understand, but for me that I am a neophyte doesn't always manage simple and when I read your suggestions always very interesting, but I always have the impression that (you hear the criticism but take it in the good sense) you miss the real need and that of making a little more "automatic" the construction of the design, that you look after is not a true plan. In concrete I would like a hunter who knows solid or a marco who knows autocad to tell me if that sw can do exactly that, no more. as I said I do not have to design machinery or speed up the time-to market, I just need to find a way to draw pipes, curves and branches in the mnor time possible and as easily as possible. in my head (from ignorant) I had imagined a sort of buttonhole with the various components: you know there is a sw that can do it because among the many speeches and sw proposed, I have not yet understood?
In short, without annoying you further, and apologising to me again for the outburst, with all the respect and gratitude I owe you (see patience), I kindly ask you only to give me answers a little more "concrete" and earth/land because I need this. Fortunately or unfortunately I only have to draw tubes. Thank you.
cacciatorino
Guest
I didn't mean by fluid-dynamic calculations, you pull out the pipe diameters, I used to make more earth-ground examples.
we see the example of the tube with constant sheet thickness to which the outer diameter changes: in autocad if you have to make a pipe of different diameter with the same wrapped sheet, you must first change the outer diameter, and then the inner one. if you have set a mathematical relationship on the thickness (a very simple thing), just change one of the two diameters and then think the cad alone to calculate the other diameter.
Yeah, it works here like an autocad block library with x-refs. Look at this other video.
[youtube]ffppfmdm1ni[/youtube]This is a very basic example, clearly the dedicated packages make everything starting more or less from a unifilare pattern. Try looking for cadmatic on youtube, to get an idea.
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
eccleto, perhaps you mean something similar to the video that I attach you, where you can manage with lines and libraries that fit the component to which they connect.
I clarify that the program, solidworks in case, is the only one I know so I looked for a video accordingly. and that that seen is a not basic application.
but the substance of the 3d parametric remains that for all three-dimensional programs
[video=youtube;Xpu-TMLDfew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpu-tmldfew[/video]
I clarify that the program, solidworks in case, is the only one I know so I looked for a video accordingly. and that that seen is a not basic application.
but the substance of the 3d parametric remains that for all three-dimensional programs
[video=youtube;Xpu-TMLDfew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpu-tmldfew[/video]
MarcoBi
Guest
"...I had imagined a sort of buttonhole with the various components: you know there is a sw that can do it because among the many speeches and sw proposed, I have not yet understood? "
Excuse me, but do you know the common autocad blocks?
you know that you can define a block and assign to the same a number of attributes?
Do you know that you can build any kind of menu? both 3d components, and 2d symbols? callable to video or keyboard?
these last statements of yours "short the terms of the discussion" and it seems superfluous to talk about comparisons with parametric sw when your variables are reduced to the elongation or shortening of the straight tube section and the rest is a "mounting" of components one behind the other drawn from a library.
Excuse me, but do you know the common autocad blocks?
you know that you can define a block and assign to the same a number of attributes?
Do you know that you can build any kind of menu? both 3d components, and 2d symbols? callable to video or keyboard?
these last statements of yours "short the terms of the discussion" and it seems superfluous to talk about comparisons with parametric sw when your variables are reduced to the elongation or shortening of the straight tube section and the rest is a "mounting" of components one behind the other drawn from a library.