cad for design and management of materials

[FlatSix]

for large lines I have understood the process, it would be useful to have concrete examples so as to be able to properly analyze the flow.
If you want, I'll be available to know what you could do.

maxopus, you have a private message.

look that it is very much + simple to take your program and integrate it into the cad that interface it and make it create geometry... Believe me...
If you leave it outside you will always have big data limits from how you can send to the cad the "instructions" and what the cad itself can do.

I think it depends on the degree of openness to the outside of the various cads and the vastness and quality of the bees.
Unfortunately on this point commercials are almost totally unprepared and I am documenting on the net.

ps. for what you have to do according to me osd is not good... too little "automated".

Today I visited the technical office of a friend's company where they have onespace cocreate.
Now I think I have quite clear the difference between parametric and not: let's say that the parametric requires a discipline and knowledge of the remarkable tool to avoid reaching the end of the project and find an undesirable bond in case you have to make a change or you encounter an unexpected problem.
the non-parametric leaves more freedom, it seemed more immediate in use and does not require an in-depth knowledge of how I came to define a form or geometry.
probably for non-continuous use, on many projects picked up in hand maybe months away, not having constraints can be an advantage.
On the other hand, it seems to me to understand that all those 'rules' are lost which allow to avoid trivial errors (type to impose coaxiality of two holes, interassi proportional to the size of the piece, etc.).
I seemed less exous than hardware resources, but I didn't like the fact that with a license you can open one project at a time!
at the moment the parametric is in advantage: My forms are simple and repetitive, so the features of the various projects (stamps) should be simple and very similar.
In addition, knowing me, if I gave me too much freedom to do and undo what I want, I would be able to combine some crazy cases:
better to lose some time in training and planning, but then to be able to have relationships and constraints between the various components and to be able to parameterize the basic models to get some variations by changing the right parameters.
I thought I'd find a pdm, given the business size, but they also manage everything by hand, in the sense that they rely all on descriptive file names, the organization of file system folders.

If you like the "explicit" approach there are cads that this approach have it together with the parametric.

out the names:biggrin:

Thanks again to everyone.

 

[re_solidworks]

Today I visited the technical office of a friend's company where they have onespace cocreate.
Now I think I have quite clear the difference between parametric and not: let's say that the parametric requires a discipline and knowledge of the remarkable tool to avoid reaching the end of the project and find an undesirable bond in case you have to make a change or you encounter an unexpected problem.
the non-parametric leaves more freedom, it seemed more immediate in use and does not require an in-depth knowledge of how I came to define a form or geometry.
probably for non-continuous use, on many projects picked up in hand maybe months away, not having constraints can be an advantage.... .

is the usual pantomin that tell the commercials of contextuals. if you go into chains of relationships without head or tail is because you cannot use the tool.
parametric is not at all difficult to use and maintain history helps in future changes.
in your case configurations can help you a lot for the various instances.
I would look at proe+windchill productpoint and solidworks+ready2works.
the demos of the cad+pdm are fundamental and see a company at regime is even more, especially regarding the pdm.

see demos and ask the dealer that you contact to see his client on a regime with him.

Good choice!! !

 

[The_Matrix]

out the names:biggrin:

Thanks again to everyone.

for now only 100% nx.
If you have any limits.

In a couple of years at most they will all be aligned.

 

[The_Matrix]

is the usual pantomin that tell the commercials of contextuals. if you go into chains of relationships without head or tail is because you cannot use the tool.
parametric is not at all difficult to use and maintain history helps in future changes.
in your case configurations can help you a lot for the various instances.
I would look at proe+windchill productpoint and solidworks+ready2works.
the demos of the cad+pdm are fundamental and see a company at regime is even more, especially regarding the pdm.

see demos and ask the dealer that you contact to see his client on a regime with him.

Good choice!! !

It's not a pantomime.
Of course, if you make cubes it will never happen to you... guaranteed.
if it were as you say:
osd would not exist for a while
nx and if they would not have st
ptc would not be thinking of integrating it
cat would not have live shape
swx would not be there to put it in 2011

both approaches have their value.

 

[The_Matrix]

at the moment the parametric is in advantage: My forms are simple and repetitive, so the features of the various projects (stamps) should be simple and very similar.
In addition, knowing me, if I gave me too much freedom to do and undo what I want, I would be able to combine some crazy cases:
better to lose some time in training and planning, but then to be able to have relationships and constraints between the various components and to be able to parameterize the basic models to get some variations by changing the right parameters.
----
I thought I'd find a pdm, given the business size, but they also manage everything by hand, in the sense that they rely all on descriptive file names, the organization of file system folders.

you have already given the answer: Go with a parametric. You have great advantages.

Remember this: a pdm is not the "solution". It's like a lamp on a desk. If you don't get the light on your desk, it doesn't fit. It just makes you see your mess better.
If you are about to sell the "system" is not a deacon, it will spend 1 day to understand how you work and propose the best implementation solution:
- naming.
- workflow approval
- associated documentation
- visibility rules
- safety
- classification
- import and management of the historian (I hope you don't forget)
- etc.

ps: the company you visited does not have a pdm...

 

[cacciatorino]

both approaches have their value.

synchronous or explicit systems according to me are very suitable for use in multi-cad environments, while if the workflow takes place all within the same company, the parametric should be much better, at least to hear the comments on the American forum of if users who try to make with solids a minimum complex... :wink:

Then, actually, compatibility goes one way, and that's from small fish to big fish, otherwise you don't understand why even companies that have explicit or synchronous cads invariably ask you to buy the same cad they use. If these instruments were really so versatile, these demands would not be made.

however for those who opened the topic: explicit or synchronous no, because they do not support the association between parts (at least those of cocreate and solid edge, fortunately if it still has the traditional environment)! I mean, if you change the head of the screw from 6 to 8 sides, the mold will stay six.

 

[The_Matrix]

synchronous or explicit systems according to me are very suitable for use in multi-cad environments, while if the workflow takes place all within the same company, the parametric should be much better, at least to hear the comments on the American forum of if users who try to make with solids a minimum complex... :wink:

Then, actually, compatibility goes one way, and that's from small fish to big fish, otherwise you don't understand why even companies that have explicit or synchronous cads invariably ask you to buy the same cad they use. If these instruments were really so versatile, these demands would not be made.

however for those who opened the topic: explicit or synchronous no, because they do not support the association between parts (at least those of cocreate and solid edge, fortunately if it still has the traditional environment)! I mean, if you change the head of the screw from 6 to 8 sides, the mold will stay six.

I have known dozens of superfighi with the parametric that put in front of an assembly with pieces of medium complexity, not made by them, have been hours to analyze parameters and relationships, try modifications etc...

I have seen ptc technicians who after 6 hours of attempts to change a cup of oil of a v8 engine made to hammer from a Dutchman have exported and reimported, eliminated the duct and done from scratch to deliver.

Surely you are not among these.

 

[The_Matrix]

Let's understand.
I'm not a supporter of st.
I don't like the sleeves.

 

[cacciatorino]

Surely you are not among these.

I'm just turning back and fried, when I have 10 features in the tree I'm already starting to think I'm wrong with modeling.

 

[The_Matrix]

I'm just turning back and fried, when I have 10 features in the tree I'm already starting to think I'm wrong with modeling.

You're lucky.
I normally have to deal with models a minimum more complex.
However in this case you are right: flat_six will deal with cubes and similar, making molds.

flat_six = what I think?

 

[FlatSix]

It was not my intention to unleash a war of religion:
the opinion that I have done so far is that in my case, with simple and repetitive forms, interdependent among them, modular, some obtained simply by linearly climbing a given geometry, the parametric is better.
the demos and visits of retailers continue: I hope that all the time I am devoting to this selection is well spent.

the company you visited does not have a pdm...

Yes, that's what I said.
the thing surprised me enough: considering the company size, the complexity of their molds and considering that they have more personal in the mold department than I have in the whole company, I thought they had my own problems multiplied n times and therefore they had already implemented a pdm.

flat_six = what I think?

If it is equal to what I think, yes :wink:
apart from the jokes, it is the name of one of the most peculiar motors, blasoned and longevous, for almost 50 years on the breach, although lately it has been totally overwhelmed.
Is that what you thought?

 

[The_Matrix]

It was not my intention to unleash a war of religion:
the opinion that I have done so far is that in my case, with simple and repetitive forms, interdependent among them, modular, some obtained simply by linearly climbing a given geometry, the parametric is better.
the demos and visits of retailers continue: I hope that all the time I am devoting to this selection is well spent.



Yes, that's what I said.
the thing surprised me enough: considering the company size, the complexity of their molds and considering that they have more personal in the mold department than I have in the whole company, I thought they had my own problems multiplied n times and therefore they had already implemented a pdm.



If it is equal to what I think, yes :wink:
apart from the jokes, it is the name of one of the most peculiar motors, blasoned and longevous, for almost 50 years on the breach, although lately it has been totally overwhelmed.
Is that what you thought?

No war. Don't worry. simple exchange of views.
If we're all getting along, right?
then, discuss not product x and y, but design philosophy is challenging.

I know a few of them... the environment is "refractory".
I have seen, in this field, just 2/3 examples.

Okay. then let's talk about the same flat_six.
charming motor (and charming car in general)

 

[michele81]

the thing surprised me enough: considering the company size, the complexity of their molds and considering that they have more personal in the mold department than I have in the whole company, I thought they had my own problems multiplied n times and therefore they had already implemented a pdm.

There are areas where buying a cad3d seems to throw the money figured a pdm.
then I think it depends on the habit of working in a certain way that it has always gone well and you get a little hard to buy a software that completely revolutionizes the company (although probably better). in some small businesses I think it is actually a useless expense. However congratulations on the will of innovation! !often it is advisable to take a step at a time to fully understand the corporate changes that are being made. . .

 

[The_Matrix]

There are areas where buying a cad3d seems to throw the money figured a pdm.
then I think it depends on the habit of working in a certain way that it has always gone well and you get a little hard to buy a software that completely revolutionizes the company (although probably better). in some small businesses I think it is actually a useless expense. However congratulations on the will of innovation! !often it is advisable to take a step at a time to fully understand the corporate changes that are being made. . .

on the fact that for certain company size it is a useless expense... mah... If you allow me, I disagree.
I will personally I had a company pdm (easy, helpful, intuitive) even to do doc management I would be happy. . .
Do you know how many documents/mails etc I can no longer find or the time lost to look for them when I need them?
Surely if a company is small it must go to look for a pdm of type "express" (easy, helpful, intuitive).

 

[FlatSix]

nuntio vobis gaudium magnum habemus cad 3d :smile:I resume this old thread to thank all those who have given me a hand in the choice and to tell you that I finally came to the point: standard solidworks with a basic pdm.
I don't make names since a commercial almost certainly snagged me: I'm not sure, but I think he read this thread and did 2+2.. .

all the cads analyzed seemed to me overwhelmed for my needs and given the premises I made at the opening of the thread, in the end they prevailed these considerations, in order scattered and not of importance:

- the intuitive interface.

- dissemination and community on the internet, for the speech of programming bees, documentation, macros, tutorials, etc.

- the clarity and simplicity of the offer: 3 well defined configurations, nothing thousand thousand modules to see, sum, integrate.
with some of the other cads at every request for clarification on just more specific functions was added a module, resulting in rising costs or being hijacked on top class software, of which obviously I had not seen anything during the initial demos.
the lists are an opinion, the shameless discounts, the imagination of the infinite commercials.

- greater diffusion at companies of size and characteristics similar to mine and by my rapid informal investigation it seemed easier to find technicians already formed on sw than on other cad.

- licensing and service fees policy.
not that sw is the maximum from this point of view, but since I heard what I asked from some of its competitors, let's say that on this aspect the feeling was that I chose the least worse.
of the series... I had to be locked up, the mandingo sent him a bottom to the row and chose the lazy :smile:

After having finally seen the 'real' implementations of pdm in a couple of technical offices and spoken with people who use it daily, I am even more convinced that the introduction of pdm will have an impact much less comparable to that of the introduction of cad 3d, both in terms of required resources and in terms of potential benefits: Let us say that from what I could learn so far I do not see how to conceive a profitable use of a design cad without a pdm.

Thanks again to everyone.

 

[The_Matrix]

Good luck with the choice.. .
and thanks for having related: so you do... give/have

for culture, in the short list who was finished?