3d joint study

[oliofrusto]

hello to all, I worked 6 months in 2d in a company that was responsible for making small automated plants for food packaging.So often it started from scratch to create a set and the 2d was convenient to make sketches and tests containing various mechanical pieces and then decide the size of each piece based on the brushes and depending on the other pieces that were in the very near.
now I have changed work and I will go to an office of dingegneristiche consulting so I will take care of some all drawing programs and also of fem.
I wanted to ask how fairy to make a 3d set for a study of quakche produced ocntenente more pieces directment ein 3d? I don't find myself because first in 2d I started from the axieme and created the single pieces in the axieme. then after everything was in place I made the drawings of the individual pieces.

In 3 d it is very difficult because I cannot remember all the measures quotas etc. of the various pieces for singles so as to adjust me and therefore it is a casino perhcè you always have to open all the designs and measure and evaluate everything every time.

not to mention the fact that if I need to recover a quota on model 3d it is messed up to make measures of angles, diameters and distances.



how do you organize the study of a 3d set?
as measured angles diameters etc... on the 3d model of a piece or a set?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

with inventor you have different options.
you can work directly together, creating from time to time the various parts using references from other parts, from geometry etc.
In that way you do not need to open from time to time the parts you need to measure.
another option is to use the parameters and derive the same, perhaps along with the geometry, in the part that must be "legated" to the other. in that way, changing the parameter changes both parts.
a smart thing is to derive in the "secondary" part the geometry that affects the primary part in order to change both intervening only on one.
last suggestion is a method I use forever, i.e. working with a nice sheet below so as to pinpoint, street doing, things to keep in mind.
It looks like a c...ata but I guarantee it works.

p.s. a very important thing is to learn how to use the cad well, with courses, tutorials, help of colleagues and curiosity and want to try. you see too often designers who have learned to use 4 commands and employ 1 hour to do what you can do in half time.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I would tell you first of all to do the tutorials to understand and how it works and reasons a 3d.
Then don't wrap your head.
I also started drawing projects in 2d. the customer gave a layout, maybe made with pieces of machines already existing, and had to adapt everything to the new needs; I'm talking about steel mills where you could finish drawing even a hundred pieces, from the frame to the spacer.
in 3d is the same thing; parts from a 2d layout from which you extract the pieces and models then start assembling them and see, much more easily than in 2d, where it should be arranged. the layout should always be kept open to vanish some verification, take a measure and so on.
Then maybe they tell you: we have this machine already made with all the drawings of the paticolars made but now we need a more height here, less wide there, with another kind of fisasagi the... and you take the drawings and models them one at a time until you build the old machine and then start making the changes asked by adapting the various particulates.
the measures are made with the appropriate instrument supplied to the cad obviously.
I repeat, don't wrap your head for nothing.

 

[oliofrusto]

I worked little with the 3d, so I'm not practical to handle the design work we say.
Until now I have made single pieces of which I already knew the quotas, so I had not to reason putting them in assemblies to decide the size of the road pieces doing, and then I did some together that but had already been done in advance in 2d where I find myself much better to design something simple because I can measure and change the single pieces much more easily in the atoms.

so you are telling me that it is always better to start from a 2d and then when you have already clear ideas remake everything on the 3d if I have well understood... ?

I have not understood the question of parameters... ok I believe that you mean that by varying a various parameter all quotas containing that parameter, but no I have ever done so I don't even know how to set it up and where and how to do it.

for measurements I have seen that you can measure distance and angle but it only makes me linear measures for example if I want to know the height of a component does not make me take the points that I want therefore the measure is wrong and also measure in oblique instead that vertically then the height is wrong... I can't tell them which two faces I want to measure.


After the last university exam then I will try to do the tutorials

 

[PIETRO2002]

Let's say that to start with the right foot it would be useful to take a serious course with a trainer of autodesk or better still with a designer who already uses inventor, it's not money thrown, you immediately learn to reason "right" without losses of time.

I know three ways to create a set in inventor:

top - bottom
you create a basic sketch in 2d and this becomes the master from which all the details are obtained, by this method you reduce to the mimino the constraints, and correcting the sketch "master" the details change accordingly.

bottom - top

shape the components and then bind them into subaxis / assemblies.


mixed system between the two mentioned above

for some subassienas can be useful the first way to others the second, depends on what you are planning.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

so you are telling me that it is always better to start from a 2d and then when you have already clear ideas remake everything on the 3d if I have well understood... ?

as you hardly invent machine from zero of healthy plant, but you change something already existing or that resembles you start already from a 2d.
then there are those who design from scratch directly in 3d (but a sketch on the notebook if it does anyway), but it is not a job you do to a new hire.

After the last university exam then I will try to do the tutorials

first do those and then you can say that the measuring tools don't work

 

[oliofrusto]

No, but I certainly don't say that they don't work, it's me that I can't use them I wonder if those are the only 2 in the 3d mode program.

Anyway thank you for now, you have me reordered some ideas

 

[exxon]

solid modeler does not replace 2d design. some operations (especially at the beginning of the design phase, the one normally called "preliminary design") are done much faster in 2d than in 3d.

I use a huge 2d sheet, where I do sketches, I try geometric interactions (for example the sling of a lift) well before drawing a 3d model of any piece. the scraped sketches do not gate them, but draw us over a large "x" to avoid using them by mistake. I leave them there anyway, to remind me of the paths crossed and discarded (it is a useful thing in the phase of "brainstorming").

once you choose a road and start modeling 3d, in the 2d also finish the table masses of the main parts for verification with the preliminary project.

3d and 2d work together, at least for me.

 

[PIETRO2002]

each of us then, with his own experience and mentality, builds a way of working. it is not said that the method of the designer a, is better than that of the designer b, in the end counts the result.
each company has its own structure, its culture and therefore its way of working!
I'm not very young, I started with the tecnigraph, then I went to 2d, but the big step I think was made with 3d.
personally, since I used the 3d, I almost no longer used the 2d, if not to create the plant layouts. .and also you could shape everything. .machines, plants etc. etc.
Of course, from 3d, I'm pulling the tables in 2d, but it's a pile.
In theory, in the near future, with the so-called factory 4.0 will not even serve the 2d because the models will be given in "pasto" to the cncs.
We basically think and build pieces that have three dimensions, so the switch to the 2d is something superfluous. But maybe this is philosophy!
Of course when I do something new, I create very sketched temporary assemblies, when the idea of maximum is there and meets the required requirements I go with the finals.

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I too am of the idea of pietro2002, the 2d I use it only for the harvests on the table.
It also depends, in addition to the designer's habits, on what you have to design.
I operate in the molds, so a draft in 2d would be practically useless.

 

[exxon]

In theory, in the near future, with the so-called factory 4.0 will not even serve the 2d because the models will be given in "pasto" to the cncs.

I'd say no. I do not see how in a model you could insert dimensional tolerance information or, better yet, form. Of course, since the drawings of the databases, it is possible to enter these data, but the informative contribution for those who have to use it would be very limited compared to the formal coding represented by the table.

thinking that you can do without the technical design is a bit like saying that since there are automatic assembly systems of electronic cards, you can do less than the electrical schematics (then you can give everything in the meal to the machine...).

Luckily, the machines alone do nothing.. .
@tecnomodelfor those who design molds, the preliminary design phase is practically absent. the choices on party-line, injection points, any trolleys, etc. or are already made, or you do much better by turning the 3d model of the finished piece on the screen.

without the table, instead, I don't see how a moldist could work. . .

 

[TECNOMODEL]

I'd say no. I do not see how in a model you could insert dimensional tolerance information or, better yet, form. Of course, since the drawings of the databases, it is possible to enter these data, but the informative contribution for those who have to use it would be very limited compared to the formal coding represented by the table.

thinking that you can do without the technical design is a bit like saying that since there are automatic assembly systems of electronic cards, you can do less than the electrical schematics (then you can give everything in the meal to the machine...).

Luckily, the machines alone do nothing.. .
@tecnomodelfor those who design molds, the preliminary design phase is practically absent. the choices on party-line, injection points, any trolleys, etc. or are already made, or you do much better by turning the 3d model of the finished piece on the screen.

without the table, instead, I don't see how a moldist could work. . .

Now all cads have the possibility to insert pmi, which are exactly like quotas, dimensional tolerances, shape etc.
In addition, with the step242 format there is the possibility of exporting these pmes, so who receives them could do without the table.
This system has already been used and the tables have been removed.
or there are to help understanding but what makes faith is model 3d.

 

[exxon]

that you can do was assodated. I don't think it's the best solution, the one in use or the one to come.

This system has already been used and the tables have been removed.

interesting, do you have any references?

 

[TECNOMODEL]

that you can do was assodated. I don't think it's the best solution, the one in use or the one to come.



interesting, do you have any references?

I read something in a discussion here on the forum, if I remember.