cad board for technical office

[luca2750]

I'll give you an example of what we do.
considered, as well as in figure, a few more tubes (with possible triggers and/or branches of other pipes) and the inner part of the silencer.

 

[Tequila]

And what about those who "no but you know the duck-cad I'm upset because they're miserable finacially, I don't know if you'd better, maybe in the future you'll never be supported..." in the past I've also happened to people like that, there's no limit to indecency... :frown:

We've also... he told us to let them lose that they only sell smoke...(no drugs:biggrin

 

[maxopus]

We've also... he told us to let them lose that they only sell smoke...(no drugs:biggrin

like that swx seller who told me not to take pros because it was so complex that I would forget it every time I went to vacations? (he said it... not laughing). :biggrin:
and since then I have not made more holiday for fear of forgetting it:hahahah:

 

[MarcoBi]

I'll give you an example of what we do.
considered, as well as in figure, a few more tubes (with possible triggers and/or branches of other pipes) and the inner part of the silencer.

seems to me a rather simple and feasible model with autocad.
any application (cadworx) if you want to extract distinct material and sketch for the pipe part.

 

[RS4]

I'll give you an example of what we do.
considered, as well as in figure, a few more tubes (with possible triggers and/or branches of other pipes) and the inner part of the silencer.

you do this with all the cad 3d figurative with pro/e:wink:

 

[maxopus]

if the piping scheme is so simple you don't even need additional modules, just the basic license (which probably costs less than autocad with all the fines).

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I'll give you an example of what we do.
considered, as well as in figure, a few more tubes (with possible triggers and/or branches of other pipes) and the inner part of the silencer.

Well a parametric as pro/e here can really make the difference, maybe actually without even taking piping package.

We've also... he told us to let them lose that they only sell smoke...(no drugs:biggrin

Well in some cases it can also happen, see thinkdesign...:wink:

 

[Matteo]

I'll give you an example of what we do.
considered, as well as in figure, a few more tubes (with possible triggers and/or branches of other pipes) and the inner part of the silencer.

As I thought, it's not "piping" but "normal" modeling. proe goes well (even in basic real estate), as would be good any other 3d cad from the "mid range" level up.

a question (eye we are spaceclaim partners so they are part of the question): but if the parametric is difficult to digest, why not think about a cad "direct modeling" (i.e. without the concept of feature)? the workflow is much closer to that of autocad while being a 3d associative to all effects.

 

[cacciatorino]

Well a parametric as pro/e here can really make the difference, maybe actually without even taking piping package.

to consider also the " scalability" of a software as pro/e, in case in the future the business needs should become higher.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

As I thought, it's not "piping" but "normal" modeling. proe goes well (even in basic real estate), as would be good any other 3d cad from the "mid range" level up.

a question (eye we are spaceclaim partners so they are part of the question): but if the parametric is difficult to digest, why not think about a cad "direct modeling" (i.e. without the concept of feature)? the workflow is much closer to that of autocad while being a 3d associative to all effects.

without anything to remove to spaceclaim, with the launch of I create also this "problematic" will no longer exist.
can choose whether to work in parametric or explicit.

to consider also the " scalability" of a software as pro/e, in case in the future the business needs should become higher.

This is the cherry on the cake.:finger:

 

[Matteo]

without anything to remove to spaceclaim, with the launch of I create also this "problematic" will no longer exist.
can choose whether to work in parametric or explicit.

This is the cherry on the cake.:finger:

I look very curious indeed.

I am convinced that "feature based" and "explicit" are two distinct and not really integrable representations, so proe+cocreate and proe+spaceclaim can be alternative solutions. I would like to see what will be creodirect (it will be called this?) before worrying

for now the best integration (as far as possible) between "feature based" and "direct modeling" I saw it in ironcad (precursor both of the st of siemens and of the future creo), but I fail that it would be ot to stretch me on this.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I look very curious indeed.

I am convinced that "feature based" and "explicit" are two distinct and not really integrable representations, so proe+cocreate and proe+spaceclaim can be alternative solutions. I would like to see what will be creodirect (it will be called this?) before worrying

for now the best integration (as far as possible) between "feature based" and "direct modeling" I saw it in ironcad (precursor both of the st of siemens and of the future creo), but I fail that it would be ot to stretch me on this.

I am very curious too, leaving aside the speech of integration that I will want to tastare with hand before unbalance me, I only spoke of the faculty of choice that will have the user, whether to work in one way or another, with a single reference of sofware house and a single extension of the files.
Therefore if the company in question will opt for this solution, it will simply be able to choose the way it considers correct to work on dependence on what it has to do.

it will be called creo will no longer exist nor creo elements/pro ne creo elements/direct, these are only names given temporarily to facilitate customers in understanding what they had before with connection to the past (for pro/e and direct for co-create), with the connection to the future , just creo 1.0.

But we're not going too far.

 

[Matteo]

I am very curious too, leaving aside the speech of integration that I will want to tastare with hand before unbalance me, I only spoke of the faculty of choice that will have the user, whether to work in one way or another, with a single reference of sofware house and a single extension of the files.
Therefore if the company in question will opt for this solution, it will simply be able to choose the way it considers correct to work on dependence on what it has to do.

it will be called creo will no longer exist nor creo elements/pro ne creo elements/direct, these are only names given temporarily to facilitate customers in understanding what they had before with connection to the past (for pro/e and direct for co-create), with the connection to the future , just creo 1.0.

But we're not going too far.

last ot: when do I grow up? will it be possible to have temporary trials (e.g. 30gg)?

 

[RS4]

I am very curious too, leaving aside the speech of integration that I will want to tastare with hand before unbalance me, I only spoke of the faculty of choice that will have the user, whether to work in one way or another, with a single reference of sofware house and a single extension of the files.
Therefore if the company in question will opt for this solution, it will simply be able to choose the way it considers correct to work on dependence on what it has to do.

it will be called creo will no longer exist nor creo elements/pro ne creo elements/direct, these are only names given temporarily to facilitate customers in understanding what they had before with connection to the past (for pro/e and direct for co-create), with the connection to the future , just creo 1.0.

But we're not going too far.

Bye-bye

although I now use catia v5 I have been fond of pro\e:biggrin: I used it until wf2 was the cad that launched me in the 3d world

I am curious to see how it developed in creo and where it has pushed with its already known potential


I'm sorry, but the bvp deserves it.


Hi.

♪

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

last ot: when do I grow up? will it be possible to have temporary trials (e.g. 30gg)?

the roadmap says summer 2011, so everything is good between 21/06 until 22/09.:smile:
The wf5 was out on September 16th, let's see how much they're gonna make us feel.
for trials, I think so for potential prospects at least is safe.

Bye-bye

although I now use catia v5 I have been fond of pro\e:biggrin: I used it until wf2 was the cad that launched me in the 3d world

I am curious to see how it developed in creo and where it has pushed with its already known potential


Hi.

♪

hi rs4, as they say in these cases: the first love never forgets?

be at least for your luck you didn't finish working on a respectful product, do you think if you had to jump back? :biggrin:

I will keep you updated.

 

[re_solidworks]

I am very curious too, leaving aside the speech of integration that I will want to tastare with hand before unbalance me, I only spoke of the faculty of choice that will have the user, whether to work in one way or another, with a single reference of sofware house and a single extension of the files.
Therefore if the company in question will opt for this solution, it will simply be able to choose the way it considers correct to work on dependence on what it has to do.

it will be called creo will no longer exist nor creo elements/pro ne creo elements/direct, these are only names given temporarily to facilitate customers in understanding what they had before with connection to the past (for pro/e and direct for co-create), with the connection to the future , just creo 1.0.

But we're not going too far.

would you say that if I return to subscription I find myself with an explicit cad in the house? Do I understand?

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

would you say that if I return to subscription I find myself with an explicit cad in the house? Do I understand?

I don't know yet how they mean to "pack" the ptc thing.
You probably have to do an upgrade, I will have more spiders soon.

 

[RS4]

the roadmap says summer 2011, so everything is good between 21/06 until 22/09.:smile:
The wf5 was out on September 16th, let's see how much they're gonna make us feel.
for trials, I think so for potential prospects at least is safe.


hi rs4, as they say in these cases: the first love never forgets?

be at least your luck You're not finished to work on a product of all respect, do you think if you had to jump back? :biggrin:

I will keep you updated.

I'm done you mean:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I'm done you mean:

ops, I swear it wasn't meant to be this. ;-)

 

[Gabriele SWX]

an exhaust model like what has been posted I think is very simple to achieve with any 3d cad.
I have used autocad for the 3d for some years and for a few years I use swx.
I still wonder how I was "modeling" with autocad, it was a real hell.
to give you an example: if you have to change the diameter of a flange with the "real" cad 3d just edit a quota, with autocad you have to delete it and remake, or untick with the boolean to cut the excess geometries or to add those that are lacking.
in the "real" cad 3d the puts on the table follow the model, so also change the quotas of the design, autocad this did not do it, sometimes I was forced to remake ex novo the puts on the table because of trivial changes of geometry of the piece.
I believe that your best investment is deepening the knowledge of pro-e, which you already have, is a powerful and stable cad.
do not give up in front of the "hostical" withoution that can give you, after some experience the mastery of the cad is guaranteed.
with any 3d cad that you will use the first thing to do will be "forget" completely the modeling in autocad style.
when in the company decided to buy a cad 3d the only thing that prevented me to take pro-e was the price at that very high time.
we chose solidworks, which cost much less to equal application, and I can tell you that I am fully satisfied with the choice (version 2008 apart).
I think I would be satisfied with solid edge, with inventor a little less (at that time - year 2004 - was still very perfect, while now it seems to me at the same level as the other midrange).
everything was definitely better than autocad within the three-dimensional modeling.
Bye.