cad board for technical office

[luca2750]

Good morning.
Forgive me, the theme is sad and retrite, but precisely for this I cannot reach a conclusion.

technical office of a metal company producing exhaust systems for large engines: so a little piping, flange, light carpentry in general (with development of sheet) and a few mechanical pieces. We usually use autocad lt (!!!) and want to evolve without losing the database. we also have pro-e but it is not "graded" for its complexity. I personally know inventor (previous work) and another colleague uses solid edge. variegated situation... we need a suitable software and possibly easy to use.

What could we do for you?

Thank you very much.


♪


is it possible to sell the pro-e license?

 

[maxopus]

you have the best cad for mechanics and you want to get rid of it just for corridor talk.

in a 5-day course I would make you change your mind completely.

I don't know if you can resell the license, in any case it would serve ptc's consent, try contacting who sold it to you.
What version is it?

 

[Matteo]

having proes in the house I would say that it is not worth looking around: there would be theoretically alternatives, but it is not worth losing time: with proes you can do everything you need.

In my opinion your problem is not that it is "complex", but the fact that you cannot change the minds form of approach 2d.

 

[meccanicamg]

If you have everything done with autocad, the evolutionary step at 3d is inventor. if you already have any other 3d modeler there are no substantial problems. the only thing you need to see the management of the codes and the historian.

 

[maxopus]

If you have everything done with autocad, the evolutionary step at 3d is inventor....

Hello mechanicalmg, excuse me but I disagree.
the 2d of autocad is readable correctly from any parametric cad (pro/e included).

 

[MarcoBi]

If you use autocad, I'd like to relaunch myself saying: ..with a course of 3 biggrin days and autocad (from 7 on) I explain how to model 3d and get everything you want.
if you want to invest in a piping application, you can evaluate cadworx (now distributed by intergraph, complete with isogen module).

 

[stef_design]

If you use autocad, I'd like to relaunch myself saying: ..with a course of 3 biggrin days and autocad (from 7 on) I explain how to model 3d and get everything you want.

Yeah, but is autocad parametric?

 

[Matteo]

It seems to me that the problem has not been properly framed... I read terms like "piping" (tubs treated as monodimensional for large plants when here the tube is the main object of the design, if I see a wide use of sweep, swept blend, surfaces etc.) or use "improper" of software, e.g. autocad for the mechanical 3d, inventor seen as "evolution of autocad" (yes, in the sense of commercial evuolution).

you have at home proe and look for a parametric/associative: use it!!! :

if the problem is the 3d modeling philosophy, different from the 2d, rather throw yourself on a direct modeler (spaceclaim, cocreate, ironcad), but in my opinion it would only postpone a change of mentality in the approach to the cad instrument however necessary.

regarding the "reuse" of existing dwg: all cad 3d serious (especially all listed ones) read them smoothly (some have also wizards for the transformation of the 2d in model 3d but there is always to work on it): clear that you would have part of the archive in 2d and part in 3d, but it is inevitable.

 

[Rennye]

we are obliged to use inventor that is not bad. I personally prefer given the level of complexity, solidworks.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

what I feel. . .
instead of progress we go back.:frown:

for your information the pro/e license like that of many other sw can not be sold, so you have to hold it and if you were in you I would try to make the investment fruit , instead of squandering money unnecessarily in other cad 3d that surely do not solve the underlying problem.

to have the luck of having already in the house a system that solves all you ask is not just, perhaps more than a different cad serves as matteo a change of mentality and above all of approach.
a few days and you're good.

It is a shame to read certain things, they make me shiver...:smile:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

If you use autocad, I'd like to relaunch myself saying: ..with a course of 3 biggrin days and autocad (from 7 on) I explain how to model 3d and get everything you want.
if you want to invest in a piping application, you can evaluate cadworx (now distributed by intergraph, complete with isogen module).

We're not kidding. . .
modeling in 3d in autocad? with the ucs the Boolean operations. . We're at prehistory.

Yeah, but is autocad parametric?

Of course not.

 

[The_Matrix]

We're not kidding. . .
modeling in 3d in autocad? with the ucs the Boolean operations. . We're at prehistory.



Of course not.

then an exhaust system, if you want to shape it seriously and quickly it is not trivial stuff. . .

If they have bvp go ahead with that and make a little effort to learn it.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

then an exhaust system, if you want to shape it seriously and quickly it is not trivial stuff. . .

If they have bvp go ahead with that and make a little effort to learn it.

I bet the person who understood the bvp at his time is gone....:smile:

 

[MBT]

I bet the person who understood the bvp at his time is gone....:smile:

and what do you expect to propose as a supplement replacement? :smile::biggrin::tongue:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

and what do you expect to propose as a supplement replacement? :smile::biggrin::tongue:

no better than not.... after they say I'm only here to sell...

 

[RS4]

you have the best cad for mechanics and you want to get rid of it just for corridor talk.

in a 5-day course I would make you change your mind completely.

I don't know if you can resell the license, in any case it would serve ptc's consent, try contacting who sold it to you.
What version is it?

having proes in the house I would say that it is not worth looking around: there would be theoretically alternatives, but it is not worth losing time: with proes you can do everything you need.

In my opinion your problem is not that it is "complex", but the fact that you cannot change the minds form of approach 2d.

what I feel. . .
instead of progress we go back.:frown:

for your information the pro/e license like that of many other sw can not be sold, so you have to hold it and if you were in you I would try to make the investment fruit , instead of squandering money unnecessarily in other cad 3d that surely do not solve the underlying problem.

to have the luck of having already in the house a system that solves all you ask is not just, perhaps more than a different cad serves as matteo a change of mentality and above all of approach.
a few days and you're good.

It is a shame to read certain things, they make me shiver...:smile:

then an exhaust system, if you want to shape it seriously and quickly it is not trivial stuff. . .

If they have bvp go ahead with that and make a little effort to learn it.

All colleagues :finger:

you really have the best cad for mechanics, :smile: and you want to change it, with a little application and maybe of the courses you will be able to do everything you have described go quiet, sure at first it will be hard but you will see that it will give you a lot of satisfaction the great pro/e or bvp.... as it was called years ago in this forum


greetings

♪

 

[luca2750]

Thanks for the answers.
We will evaluate with my colleagues other questions to ask you.
for example: which cad "build" piping from an isometric line?
inventor seems very strong on the part of the bookcases (viteries, flanges etc.).
solidedge vs inventor as far as we do: what better?
pro-e vs solidedge/inventor at ease use: really more complicated?

Thank you.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Thanks for the answers.
We will evaluate with my colleagues other questions to ask you.
for example: which cad "build" piping from an isometric line?
inventor seems very strong on the part of the bookcases (viteries, flanges etc.).
solidedge vs inventor as far as we do: what better?
pro-e vs solidedge/inventor at ease use: really more complicated?

Thank you.

I press that I do not know the piping of if or inv, but I know very deeply the piping of pro/e and I can assure you that it has a power of fire not banal, sure as in all specialized packages you need a moment of settaggio if you want to go as a lightning and the thing becomes of a disarming simplicity.
the pro/e piping & cabling package has two completely different modes:
first: guided by specification
second : not guided by specification

if you use the first you can command your p&id schematic or other types of patterns through the ard which is the two-dimensional for the schematics in pro/e, if you adopt this mode, the scheme commands on your design in 3d, driving you in the drafting of the line and not allowing you to use other components that is not in the schematic and following the schedula charts of the tubes, then the particularist in 3d only has to do

If you use the second instead, it is free but always leaning on the libraries created specifically with family table, so if you are spreading for example a dn50 line, pro/e allows you to insert any terminal components (flange,gomiti,t,reductions,valves) but as long as they respect the dn of the line, then automatically filters you only those that you actually can mount, let's say that this mode is also semi guided.

In the same way with this package you can also extend the electric wiring, however I repeat and reiterate, with this module once set, go like a train, if it is not set to duty then it becomes complicated.

I hope I have clarified some ideas, in any case I highly recommend you make a custom demo on this application.

greetings

 

[MarcoBi]

yeah, but is autocad parametric?

well, in the initial discussion it was not explicit that they wanted to use a parametric cad. i absolutely do not want to remove anything to pro-e (which i used a lot in the past) but, if as i believe, they have done without until now (there is certainly not parametric) can go on like this. the variation can be switched from 2d drawings to 3d models without "trauma parts". since they have pro-and cases are 2: or have not had the right preparation by ptc or have rationalized that pro-e is too challenging for what they do.
i agree with those who say that "if you know how to use it" then there are no limits (almost) to what you can do but you have to admit that using autocad and using pro-e is not exactly the same thing and i refer to the approach that a sw com pro-e requires to be exploited.
autocad can be used very proficiently if as an interpreter you work on order where of parameterizable there are then always and only the materials from the trade (intensive as piping components) because the rest always ends up changing also significantly for the various needs of the final customer. :mixed:
in any case i apologize to pro-and users even for comparison between the two sw.

 

[Matteo]

Well, in the initial discussion it was not explicit that they wanted to use a parametric cad. I absolutely do not want to remove anything to pro-e (which I used a lot in the past) but, if as I believe, they have done without until now (there is certainly not parametric) can go on like this. the variation can be switched from 2d drawings to 3d models without "trauma parts". Since they have pro-and cases are 2: or have not had the right preparation by ptc or have rationalized that pro-e is too challenging for what they do.
I agree with those who say that "if you know how to use it" then there are no limits (almost) to what you can do but you have to admit that using autocad and using pro-e is not exactly the same thing and I refer to the approach that a sw com pro-e requires to be exploited.
autocad can be used very proficiently if as an interpreter you work on order where of parameterizable there are then always and only the materials from the trade (intensive as piping components) because the rest always ends up changing also significantly for the various needs of the final customer. :mixed:
in any case I apologize to pro-and users even for comparison between the two sw.

I don't know. I who "I was born" professionally using a cad 3d, after having started with proe I put 2 weeks to learn swx, 3 days to learn spaceclaim and 1 septiamana for inventor and ironcad... When I have to work with autocad I ask external collaborators because I just cannot become productive (a little like the company in question with proes). I repeat: I think it is a question of form miners (from 2d to 3d) more than software