3d mechanical software list

[The_Matrix]

Matrix, about ten years ago in the working environment I had met a former manager, told me something about how they started using cad systems.

for example that the fiat rhythm was the first car that they designed completely, totally with cad systems (so around 1975 taking into account the times of design) and that at the time some designers made some resistance to change.

If you want and time maybe you could write some posts on the topic: What did they use? How did they manage the drawings? What computer? I see you have a button on the avatar, is that of the cad unigrafics?

ehmm, I apologize to all other users for ot, but these things fascinate me.

I don't think that fiat drew 100% of the cars in 1975.
at least 10 years later, maybe 15
Maybe he meant the outside.
If I don't remember, fiat used a homemade cad.
then passed to cv.
I think the tecnigraphs disappeared in the early 1990s.

 

[teseo]

the case kodak is however too particular: They didn't realize that technology was dead by now.

Maybe it's the same thing in the automotive industry (I think matrix has something to do by reading the posts). I find it worrying that fiat doesn't have hybrid technology. or worse than in the end I have to buy it: maybe they make 500 hybrid but the design and the components are all bosh or dense aisin (germania or Japan in short).

but looking more in the speech could be: Are we sure that in 10 years companies like tesla will not be the wolfwagen of the future? point on hybrid or step directly to the whole electrical? Improved film or throw everything away and switch to digital?

I'm afraid that you don't search. in the world of the Italian car has since been made out in favor of romiti that the industry does not jump out with some innovative product (common rail apart, gigantic opportunity thrown to the wind. is it possible that industrialization was entrusted to bosh instead of marelli? ).

I am a fanatic of made in italy, but I have as the suspicion that in fiat they are concentrating on making good turntables instead of studying how to make cd readers. Here, German and Japanese already do cds, the tesla makes mp3 readers, fiat turntables.

This is the metaphor that comes to my mind.

I'm a fan of made in italy but we've been really few..........

 

[maxopus]

but... to assert that cad is a secondary tool of design seems somewhat daring to me, it seems rather to want to bypass and not admit the chronic weakness and the fault of certain instruments.
I do not agree that the future is the "feature free". having the features means having control, not having them means risking colossal errors... so much the program you know... never fails anything.
If so there would have been a mass migration, as it happened from 2d to 3d. for me it is marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations.

 

[The_Matrix]

but... to assert that cad is a secondary tool of design seems somewhat daring to me, it seems rather to want to bypass and not admit the chronic weakness and the fault of certain instruments.
I do not agree that the future is the "feature free". having the features means having control, not having them means risking colossal errors... so much the program you know... never fails anything.
If so there would have been a mass migration, as it happened from 2d to 3d. for me it is marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations.

everyone has their own ideas.
recent history teaches that a company rather than changing plm (see daimler) changes the cad.
and examples so I have others.

once he tried to solve all aspects of product development with the cad. . .
now for example no one uses more family tables (or similar ignition) to have different configurations of an assenbly: use plm.
Another example: eliminating the 2d... now aerospace and automotive no longer make tables.
What does it mean to do more or less quickly a sweep if you then send in production the not updated version of the model?

on history free instead you find me quite agreeable.

Hello whale

 

[maxopus]

It is not a matter of speed of the sweep.
the issue is bugs, infernal turns for trivial operations, radial series that do not work, instability that increase from one version to another, or an exported file that you do not know for what reason it weighs 4 times what it should weigh. the list would be infinite but for me these are the differences between

 

[maxopus]

So much to understand, I did a job that with the other cad could not do just because the machines nailed ... irremediably ... after endless tests and tests the only solution was to do it with the cad that bad and bad.

 

[cacciatorino]

but... to assert that cad is a secondary tool of design seems somewhat daring to me, it seems rather to want to bypass and not admit the chronic weakness and the fault of certain instruments.
I do not agree that the future is the "feature free". having the features means having control, not having them means risking colossal errors... so much the program you know... never fails anything.
If so there would have been a mass migration, as it happened from 2d to 3d. for me it is marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations.

everyone has their own ideas.
recent history teaches that a company rather than changing plm (see daimler) changes the cad.
and examples so I have others.

once he tried to solve all aspects of product development with the cad. . .
now for example no one uses more family tables (or similar ignition) to have different configurations of an assenbly: use plm.
Another example: eliminating the 2d... now aerospace and automotive no longer make tables.
What does it mean to do more or less quickly a sweep if you then send in production the not updated version of the model?

on history free instead you find me quite agreeable.

Hello whale

Usually we are brought to give importance to what we live daily, so those who do not directly deal with design but instead devote themselves to integrating systems will have an eye on this last aspect, and vice versa of course.

I've been doing this for a few years, and I see that designers are actually led to think that the cad is the heart of industry, but broadening the point of view is that design is just one of the business functions. This may be better understood than a system that makes the designer lose an hour, but makes two to make it to production is certainly the tool to be preferred.

 

[Polymar]

the world is evolving and the real enemy are not cad functionality, but these 7 words:
we have always done it that way

the 7 most expensive words for business (please ask kodak)

enlightened managers will always look at better ways to run their organizations, and hopefully will always remember the 7 most expensive words in business today: ‘we have always done it that way.’

 

[Lettore espatriato]

I don't think that fiat drew 100% of the cars in 1975.
at least 10 years later, maybe 15
Maybe he meant the outside.
If I don't remember, fiat used a homemade cad.
then passed to cv.
I think the tecnigraphs disappeared in the early 1990s.

:finger:

....
Maybe he meant the outside.
....

shape plans, perhaps?

....
then passed to cv.
....

I read yesterday that, in 2007, the airbus, to update some of its models, had to buy the code of cadds4x .
= ins then loc x0y0z0
I think it's true, "to the face of the latest release, the plm and the latest technologies!"

 

[painaz]

but... to assert that cad is a secondary tool of design seems somewhat daring to me, it seems rather to want to bypass and not admit the chronic weakness and the fault of certain instruments.
I do not agree that the future is the "feature free". having the features means having control, not having them means risking colossal errors... so much the program you know... never fails anything.
If so there would have been a mass migration, as it happened from 2d to 3d. for me it is marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations.

strange life. .

much depends on what we do every day eight or + hours a day.

I have this in mind: company that produces small machinery, little standardization and much on orders. modeling: everything there is as pieces in a tool machine, plus something handling: rollers etc. etc.

style: little or nothing, all sheet music, no printed parts or complex surfaces.

I believe it is the prevailing design target for small and medium-sized mechanical enterprises.

limited budget, I don't have to pursue cad versions (2014, 2015 etc.) to maintain compatibility with files. If I have external collaborations I do not want to be hanged with the type of cad: e.g. guy is good, it is a design studio but uses proe/sw/etc.

If I think of these things I should say that it is the typical portrait of the small mechanical company, I can say that this is the prevailing case. At least it is in the vein, where I reside.

Here, if I think of these things the statement "for me is a marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations. "It all seems to me overturned, I would say that the cad "history feature based" should be the exception and not the rule. I am told that if software such as spaceclaim were more known they would simply bang (in a good way), not because "best" or "longer" them, but because they are more suitable for these needs.

the spread of a tool counts, because it does as a flywheel:

autocad "liscio" teach it in schools for experts, and I cannot imagine (among those I know) a cad less suitable for mechanical design.
but they teach it because it is the "made standard". (and because teachers know that and do not want to bang to see if there are new tools to learn and make learning)

solidedge, solidworks, I create: there are tons of training courses, requalification, teach it in enaip institutes...
tons of videos, tutorials, books. and, let's face it, ton of versions crakkate to download. (I collaborated/worked in at least two companies that definitely had pirate software. start so then step up and buy a license)

so who is in the technical offices knows these tools and seeks collaborators who know how to use these tools, question that generates demand. In short, the most widespread because the most widespread. because you know those.

It's my presumption, my point of view, but I think that if the "feature free" modeling was more known, it would set foot as I described. I find it simply more suitable.

 

[painaz]

... another example: eliminating the 2d... now aerospace and automotive no longer make tables. . .

That's something I'm struggling to imagine. when they finish the design of a base with a hundred quotas the first need that I feel is this: a beautiful "king size" print (long shapes over a0), a pencil, and the drawing rolled on the table for final control. a monitor isn't the same thing, you're pumping it up here but something escapes you.

When I switch it to a third party to do it, I think he needs the same thing. How do you pee on the car? Like the staff? Can I spy here to have a reference, a zero for work? same for complex carpenters. not uncommon that you are asked by the miller or carpenter to change the design on some detail to facilitate realization.

Can you do a concrete case of deletion of paper or 2d drawings? If you tell me that they do it, it is so, the concrete example is just to realize how you get there.

 

[The_Matrix]

:finger:



shape plans, perhaps?



I read yesterday that, in 2007, the airbus, to update some of its models, had to buy the code of cadds4x .
= ins then loc x0y0z0
I think it's true, "to the face of the latest release, the plm and the latest technologies!"

:wink:
Come on! I thought you were extinct!

Yes, I meant the shape plans... few call them so...

 

[cacciatorino]

Can you do a concrete case of deletion of paper or 2d drawings? If you tell me that they do it, it is so, the concrete example is just to realize how you get there.

consider a "ethical" piece, like a mudguard, a windscreen, etc., to quote it in 2d you lose only time, what you do in general is to say to the moldist "here you math, make the mold" and then in the 2d you make a simplified table with only some control points or some testing quota.

to me now happens when I design the cams for automatic machines: to the miller you give the file step and then he thinks about it, without going crazy to quota a development of a track in polar coordinates or stuff like that.

 

[The_Matrix]

That's something I'm struggling to imagine. when they finish the design of a base with a hundred quotas the first need that I feel is this: a beautiful "king size" print (long shapes over a0), a pencil, and the drawing rolled on the table for final control. a monitor isn't the same thing, you're pumping it up here but something escapes you.

When I switch it to a third party to do it, I think he needs the same thing. How do you pee on the car? Like the staff? Can I spy here to have a reference, a zero for work? same for complex carpenters. not uncommon that you are asked by the miller or carpenter to change the design on some detail to facilitate realization.

Can you do a concrete case of deletion of paper or 2d drawings? If you tell me that they do it, it is so, the concrete example is just to realize how you get there.

as well as examples that have brought you hunter you need to distinguish between drawings of components and drawings of assembly.
by now you are going towards the hub (model based enterprise) not only in the car and aircraft, but also in the mechanics,
there is a special site: http://model-based-enterprise.org/index.html
- - - updated - - - -

 

[cacciatorino]

as well as examples that have brought you hunter you need to distinguish between drawings of components and drawings of assembly.

I also had heard of some of my clients who thought they didn't send in the workshop the pallinated assemblies but simply put a computer with the 3d viewer. But the drawings still ask me, you see there was some difficulty in the meantime.

 

[Mendoza]

I have little design experience. I worked for a year using solidworks, and on the modeling plan I would say I know everything, less on the table. zero external cam solutions. now for almost a year a proe (wf4, waiting to pass to creo). with these premises, I must say that I also think it as maxopus. I feel from several parts that the direct is the new frontier, that the features and the parametric are only a useless burden that prevents expressing itself. Instead, as you say, they give control and structure. the direct I think it is useful for those who make prototyping or for those who produce solid models mainly to make us of the cam, which I think is an important part of users who buy solidworks and who is not aware of the existence of direct cads. On the other hand, spulning in various forums, I learned that nx has become totally parametric in all its functions only for a few years (correct me): I do not think a company like siemens would have spent all this money to do so if there was no interest; would only push direct and stop technology.

but... to assert that cad is a secondary tool of design seems somewhat daring to me, it seems rather to want to bypass and not admit the chronic weakness and the fault of certain instruments.
I do not agree that the future is the "feature free". having the features means having control, not having them means risking colossal errors... so much the program you know... never fails anything.
If so there would have been a mass migration, as it happened from 2d to 3d. for me it is marginal technology and niche only suitable for certain operations.

 

[giovanni.a]

Beautiful discussion. I feel like I've been back to the time of juggling.... I confess to understand a little more than half of what you say, (I use only rhino and acad) but I'm passionate. I ask you, if possible, to limit the acronyms... for the ostics like me.
thanks and congratulations to all.

 

[stefanobruno]

I also had heard of some of my clients who thought...

with a client who does testing machines are already two years that I do so.
I'm only doing it if we have to deliver the documentation to the final customer.

 

[The_Matrix]

I have little design experience. I worked for a year using solidworks, and on the modeling plan I would say I know everything, less on the table. zero external cam solutions. now for almost a year a proe (wf4, waiting to pass to creo). with these premises, I must say that I also think it as maxopus. I feel from several parts that the direct is the new frontier, that the features and the parametric are only a useless burden that prevents expressing itself. Instead, as you say, they give control and structure. the direct I think it is useful for those who make prototyping or for those who produce solid models mainly to make us of the cam, which I think is an important part of users who buy solidworks and who is not aware of the existence of direct cads. On the other hand, spulning in various forums, I learned that nx has become totally parametric in all its functions only for a few years (correct me): I do not think a company like siemens would have spent all this money to do so if there was no interest; would only push direct and stop technology.

nx has always been parametric.
in the past there were some parametric implementations that were so to say "questionable".
I would say that from nx8 onwards the product is 100% parametric (which does not mean only that it has the parameters, but much more).
the "direct" part was introduced years ago and had a big thrust nx5.
It is very useful when migrating from another cad to nx... then when you are introduced into the new system, honestly, it is not very used.

 

[ceschi1959]

the "direct" part was introduced years ago and had a big thrust nx5.
It is very useful when migrating from another cad to nx... then when you are introduced into the new system, honestly, it is not very used.

hi beppe,
here opens a speech that no longer ends. you have to make a clear distinction between direct and synchronous and therefore between history mode and history free mode. I find that the direct modeling 'directly', excuses the game of words, has led to a different design approach. Let me explain with an example: the draft or tangent taper to a face failed if done in a certain way, with the move face instead obtained the desired result. Still: the trivial command extrudes 'until extended' is a replace face and I could mention more. the delete face with the option heal or not is of an incredible power. on the other hand it is known that every scarrafone is beautiful to mom soja (and I soja )

Hi.