choice technical office boot program

[tmp_fra]

Hello everyone, not knowing how to start the speech I immediately go to the firm:

I am a designer with a few years behind experience in the mechanical sector.


I worked both in a small company, where I basically worked with autocad, and in a large company where I faced inventor.

on other occasions I happened to have to deal with solid edge and solid works but for short periods.


Now I've been making a proposal a little bold. . .

create in a small company a technical office starting from scratch.

the company has existed for some ten years but has remained at rather rough levels.

now to get back into play, and return competitive on the market, decided to "modernize" and create an effective technical office in parallel to one of quality and with time to develop a development research office.

in my short experience I know that in a technical office the basic needs for the design aimed at production are:

-formats of files compatible with vendors programs;
- possibility to carry out also "rapid" fem analysis; (in a future it will also be thought of a fluiddynamic analysis program)
-rapidity in modifying and managing revisions;
- signalling by the program of impossibility to carry out work or couplings;
- possibility to manage even not simple surfaces such as turbine blades;
- possibility of creating parts between them functional (to create an addiction7adactivity between the parties)
- ability to manage in a genaral set of subaxiencies dependent on each other;
- Possibility to create program codes through which by inserting the basic data of the project executes (following assigned rules) the choice of variable parts and generates a distinct base (list of components) to be sent to production;
- Possibility by means of a replace to quickly create the table of identical components of form but with different sizes;
-creation of good quality and quite similar;

...I'm sure I forgot more... but for now we start with this.


Do you know a program that gives me at least all these possibilities?


I for now working with inventor many of these points I can satisfy them.. . .
I have issues on managing files tied up between them and placed within a larger set,....I have some issues on managing revisions that without a storage program is practically unmanageable. . .mentre is very comfortable for the table harvests and the management of simple files dependent on each other...and very useful also the possibility of creating i-parts (for those who understand) .. or i-assembly tablers.


I know that of other treads on this matter have already been opened but I noticed that many are of dates too old... I would like to have opinions on the last versions. .

here is the defect of inventor is that it gives you the possibility to save in autocad.... but with a version equal to its..so for example if you have inventor 2011 saves you a compatible file for autocad (at least 2010) more in the back does not go....
and that does not give you the possibility (unlike autocad) to save inventor files in previous versions... only in the current one! ....


However, it has the i-logic function to write command lines, if cycles to make choices on the axiemi automatically that I find really useful in case of development of standard pieces with few variable parts (typically table tables variable parts).



Now I let you answer based on your experiences...if you have suggestions or notes on the utility of a 3d within a technical office and that I escaped...well come! ! !

I trust most of your answers in order to choose the program for my adventure and conscientiousness I will choose the "machine" that will be able to support/better the chosen program.

thank you very much for the availability to all!:finger:

 

[maxopus]

pro/engineer does all these things, I use it for 4 years after being passed by different parametric programs and are increasingly satisfied with it.
It's a high-level program, the latest versions are absolutely user-friendly and is accessible at all prices similar to much lower level design programs.

 

[re_solidworks]

from what I think of cpaire is all feasible also with solidworks. I think you won't find a single package that can satisfy you but you'll need some additional application.
for example if you want to manage how you owe the revisions a pdm helps you a lot and in this you open a problem in the problem: the choice of the pdm could be more difficult than that of the cad.
Are you sure you'll need everything you mentioned? In my opinion, you need enough experience and skills to address the problems of companies that you will serve and a system to put on paper/file your ideas and your projects.
I would say that at first with in inventor base / solidworks standard / proe foundation you might have enough.
before you throw too much meat on the fire you have to know your problems, risk spending money and time uselessly.
you can buy everything immediately if you have experience managing theut and then know to menadito all the issues of the case.
where would you go to work? I think it's essential to know what software you need. for example how does the inventor quarry with the surfaces?

 

[meccanicamg]

solidworks is able to do everything you asked, even fluid dynamic analysis with cosmos floworks.
the strengths are:
- parametric modeling with standard configurations, electronic sheet configurations, objective search for optimization
- static analysis and for professional and subsequent dynamic versions, impact, vibration, peak load and other
- basic distinct generation with internal table or excel sheet
- more realistic internal and external rendering engine via photoview 360
- file opening in step iges parasolid format and others including stl
- change and management revisions depends on how you want to do them
- setting the company standards and not only saying the carticles, lines, characters but rather according to the park machine tools determine the work done and not. you set the parameters and you already know if it is feasible or not
- regarding couplings and geometry consistency losses there are relative error messages
- dedicated surface module for years
- adaptability parts and assemblies, everything
- you can replace it with the solidworks explorer module but more correctly you make configurations of the same component and configuration properties you introduce different coding

If you want to send me an mp with the company's name and if you need staff. ..we can assess.

 

[tmp_fra]

from what I think of cpaire is all feasible also with solidworks. I think you won't find a single package that can satisfy you but you'll need some additional application.
for example if you want to manage how you owe the revisions a pdm helps you a lot and in this you open a problem in the problem: the choice of the pdm could be more difficult than that of the cad.
Are you sure you'll need everything you mentioned? In my opinion, you need enough experience and skills to address the problems of companies that you will serve and a system to put on paper/file your ideas and your projects.
I would say that at first with in inventor base / solidworks standard / proe foundation you might have enough.
before you throw too much meat on the fire you have to know your problems, risk spending money and time uselessly.
you can buy everything immediately if you have experience managing theut and then know to menadito all the issues of the case.
where would you go to work? I think it's essential to know what software you need. for example how does the inventor quarry with the surfaces?

look at the azine has been open for several years so the base I really believe that there is already...it just needs to be reorganized undamaged and that it is provided with a correct flow of things.

As far as the development of new products is concerned, it is obviously long-term. .but since we are in renovation if you could make a long-term investment would be nice....because it is true that programs become easily outdated but it is also true that buying a license has a cost to buy the upgrade has another one...

I said that...

the main product of the company are impellers for fans and turbines, rather than small complete turbomachines and electric motors. . .


I don't know exactly the issues related to the production of these elements but I have experience from the small company to the big company and what I have learned for now is that a good basic organization with a clear flow and as simple as possible but that anticipates the maximum traceability of everything that is managed is very useful to cope with any type of problem.

of course it is necessary to have skillful and competent staff but that I have lost to understand that the company has a know-how not indifferent for which in regards to the part of the specific and technical design, in addition to taking the books in hand, I will certainly be able to count on their experience and availability.



However, if you have any advice to give me about the organization, I'm always beautiful acetti.


Back on the program, look at right now I have underhand inventor 2011 ....for how much it became considerably more userfriendly than it was already...continuous to have a big difficulty developing to surfaces that are not regular....and speaking with an instructor in the past, I confirmed that in fact for this type of surfaces is not the best solution.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

if you have to address the speech turbine blades and a little complex surfaces,
pro/e mating to mathcad and bmx is ideal, not to mention the product development aspect and other countless benefits.

if you need more detailed info about this please contact me in mp.
I have a presentation of a typical case on not indifferent turbine blades that can make you understand how much a job of this kind can be pushed.

greetings

 

[re_solidworks]

I also think that for this type of product proe is the most indicated cad as it is parametric as many others but the management of proe parameters for such specific problems is considerably greater than all.
the degree of control of curves and surfaces is excellent, so if you want to be sure you do not have problems go on this.
It may be enough for you to solidworks, but as I told you it can be and if you want to make the investment on the "safe" product go on this.
I have a license, but putroppo for a long series of vicissitudes I used it little and I'm not using it at this time. from what little I've seen is a great software.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Firstly, congratulations. of these times the companies remain still, reduce the costs to the bone and wait to narrow teeth that torments it steps. giving such a corporate bang is risky, but if the company goes well into a new world. so much hat.

said this, only a few comments:

- attention to the fem. the "simple" fem milleantato from many programs is great to make the colorful figures to put in the brochures, but those are also made with photoshop that costs less. to make serious fem it takes two elements: 1) a dedicated and serious engine and, much more important 2) a technician can use it. point 2 typically costs even more than the software, and there are a few of them around. I strongly advise you to believe in the curricula, I've been shocked several times!

- for the size of the company, run away from software for example catia type, would not need much, although I see it was not even mentioned, so we find ourselves online.

- for the management of "complete" surfaces as you say, I would throw myself on solidedge or solidworks. even if I don't know pro-e, or rather, I used a very old version at university times, and it was far from user friendly, but I think things have changed considerably.
However, the blades of a turbine do not seem to me to be particularly complex, they are easily generated in matlab. if we talk about car fairing/motor/imbarking, then it takes a software or package dedicated to surfaces.

- evaluate the type of market. usually ask you native models of some software in particular? for the construction usually suffice the boards, or at most a 3d in neutral format, but if instead worked for larger companies... well, those want the natives, and there the choice of the software is a little obliged.

before you throw too much meat on the fire you have to know your problems, risk spending money and time uselessly.
you can buy everything immediately if you have experience managing theut and then know to menadito all the issues of the case.
where would you go to work? I think it's essential to know what software you need. for example how does the inventor quarry with the surfaces?

I feel like I'm pulling in full hands. attention, if until now it has drawn in 2d, knowing how to do well your work does not mean knowing the new problems that will introduce the 3d. the way of working changes, the problems will be new, so the advice to start by degrees, without taking paths from which it is then difficult to go back is to follow. of course if it is economically affordable.

the concept of innovation. ..consider that the mindset of "we have always done so, what reason there is to change" is often overshadowed in companies. before stepping up, assess people's attitude. if employees are over 35/40 years old, start preparing to "holy". For example, promising heaven on earth and thirty virgins each for those who will enter the fantastic world of 3d's balots. If the idea cooks for a few months, then they will be much more willing to make the jump.

then, once you choose the software, it is the case of doing a course. If the employees who will use it are more than someone, it is the case of organizing it internally. I advise you to organize "demonstrations", typically come with models already made or with demos prepared ad hoc. then ask him a specific question and start to stutter. It is not a lack of the program, but those who go around making demonstrations typically know how to do only that. those who do courses are usually more prepared.

 

[tmp_fra]

Firstly, congratulations. of these times the companies remain still, reduce the costs to the bone and wait to narrow teeth that torments it steps. giving such a corporate bang is risky, but if the company goes well into a new world. so much hat.

All lucky I admit it....

attention to the fem. the "simple" fem milleantato from many programs is great to make the colorful figures to put in the brochures, but those are also made with photoshop that costs less. to make serious fem it takes two elements: 1) a dedicated and serious engine and, much more important 2) a technician can use it. point 2 typically costs even more than the software, and there are a few of them around. I strongly advise you to believe in the curricula, I've been shocked several times!

I know...

I feel like I'm pulling in full hands. attention, if until now it has drawn in 2d, knowing how to do well your work does not mean knowing the new problems that will introduce the 3d. the way of working changes, the problems will be new, so the advice to start by degrees, without taking paths from which it is then difficult to go back is to follow. of course if it is economically affordable.

What do you mean by grades? in the sense the passage from 2d to 3d is drastic and the 3d has problems already its basic..... having already a basic knowledge on the classical problems of a 3d program....I think it is already a discreet start....certain that if you point on a program that I do not know....will be a little jump in the void....how should I proceed to go to degree? ...my intention is certainly not to say that from tomorrow only 3d and end....I believe that the 2d should remain anyway. ..both for management with suppliers as not all have 2d programs...and especially many are rather "base" so the 2d I don't think will ever be completely abandoned (and as 2d I mean brutally autocad obviously)

the concept of innovation. ..consider that the mindset of "we have always done so, what reason there is to change" is often overshadowed in companies. before stepping up, assess people's attitude. if employees are over 35/40 years old, start preparing to "holy". For example, promising heaven on earth and thirty virgins each for those who will enter the fantastic world of 3d's balots. If the idea cooks for a few months, then they will be much more willing to make the jump.

then, once you choose the software, it is the case of doing a course. If the employees who will use it are more than someone, it is the case of organizing it internally. I advise you to organize "demonstrations", typically come with models already made or with demos prepared ad hoc. then ask him a specific question and start to stutter. It is not a lack of the program, but those who go around making demonstrations typically know how to do only that. those who do courses are usually more prepared.

about the experience of hostile designers...I also experienced this experience....and I know quite well...that beyond a certain age it is practically impossible to make him change program....it is also why I think it is the case to keep part 2d.... trying to give it only to this type of people..the young I hope that after a series of courses (can make it more than one distance of time would be a great thing. .especially if organized on different levels of difficulty) they will have no problem to pass to the new program...and for this the company from the maximum availability... so I hope not to find great difficulty on this.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

What do you mean by grades? in the sense the passage from 2d to 3d is drastic and the 3d has problems already its basic..... having already a basic knowledge on the classical problems of a 3d program....I think it is already a discreet start....certain that if you point on a program that I do not know....will be a little jump in the void....how should I proceed to go to degree? ...my intention is certainly not to say that from tomorrow only 3d and end....I believe that the 2d should remain anyway. ..both for management with suppliers as not all have 2d programs...and especially many are rather "base" so the 2d I don't think will ever be completely abandoned (and as 2d I mean brutally autocad obviously).

I intend not to buy a full suite of a program, including packages with miraculous names and that you do not know well what they can do. above all do not do ten-year maintenance contracts, do not tie hands and feet to software that may not be what it does for you.
Although, actually, parametric software is quite difficult to go wrong. . .

As for the 2d, it's okay to leave him. could make the passage more gradual. and then who says that a washer must be drawn in 3d?

 

[cacciatorino]

and then who says that a washer must be drawn in 3d?

the assembly line.... .

You don't want to put on hand the list of parts that comes from the cad!

 

[Fulvio Romano]

the assembly line.... .

You don't want to put on hand the list of parts that comes from the cad!

I didn't mean "wash" as an axisymmetric element integral part of a bolted connection. I meant " washer" as the only component of the project, as an allegory of a very simple set. . .

Maybe I could have said "if you have to draw a turned tree, maybe the 3d doesn't come back so useful"

 

[cacciatorino]

I didn't mean "wash" as an axisymmetric element integral part of a bolted connection. I meant " washer" as the only component of the project, as an allegory of a very simple set. . .

Maybe I could have said "if you have to draw a turned tree, maybe the 3d doesn't come back so useful"

Yeah, but that tree will always be part of a car set. you could also make a simplified representation of the tree to put in the 3d and then keep as good the table made with autocad for the workshop, but it seems to me a complication that could lead to remarkable disasters in the future, like that in 10 years the young designer will send in production the table of the simplified piece since the old designers who knew that of that particular existed the design "real" in Australian autocad will now be retired or dead .

 

[Fulvio Romano]

Yeah, but that tree will always be part of a car set.

If that's how you're right, but I was talking about the case where you're not. If they only commissioned me the tree, should I have a cad 3d?

it is not my job, but perhaps for the design of the wartsila-sulzer rta96-c, it is easy that the only tree, or the only biella were given outsourcing.. .

and anyway, the concept remains. for very small assemblies, of thirty pieces including screws, without breathtaking cinematics and for custom projects, are we sure that the 3d is indispensable?

 

[maxopus]

If that's how you're right, but I was talking about the case where you're not. If they only commissioned me the tree, should I have a cad 3d?

it is not my job, but perhaps for the design of the wartsila-sulzer rta96-c, it is easy that the only tree, or the only biella were given outsourcing.. .

and anyway, the concept remains. for very small assemblies, of thirty pieces including screws, without breathtaking cinematics and for custom projects, are we sure that the 3d is indispensable?

No, it is not indispensable, as it is not indispensable cad 2d.
a good tecnigraph, 3 pens, a compass, some leaves, a tin and a nomograph.
The calculator can also be useful.

 

[meccanicamg]

quoto perfectly maxopus.

everything needs and nothing needs. I would say that converting everything that is in the company historian must be done for those components that are used frequently. Moreover it would be good if there existed the same old design 2d and new 3d indicate on the table of the old one: replaced by new 3d .... or something like that, in order to avoid making browneries.

 

[tmp_fra]

quoto perfectly maxopus.

everything needs and nothing needs. I would say that converting everything that is in the company historian must be done for those components that are used frequently. Moreover it would be good if there existed the same old design 2d and new 3d indicate on the table of the old one: replaced by new 3d .... or something like that, in order to avoid making browneries.

Yes, I share this in full.

we say that computerizing everything serves mainly for a greater ease of communication of drawings to suppliers and perhaps to reduce the paper that requires space....certain computerized stuff also brings many risks....but just equip yourself to prevent them... then you know that bad luck sees us very well....but it goes well.

said that to return to the theme .... I should be able to pass first by inventor program that I know and then with time, and having better understood the needs and needs of the new company think to equip itself with something more serious or wait a bit of time continuing brutally with cads or drawings of tecnigraphs..(which I think I have understood are widespread in the company) and then carry out analysis of the case.


in reality a 3d program wanted to be taken quickly also to be able to develop, besides setting the "new design procedure", of the images in order to be able to produce new brochures etc.


How do you suggest we proceed at this point?

 

[Fulvio Romano]

In my opinion it is important to pass immediately to the 3d, hoping that it does not only serve to make the brochures though!

on the choice of software...if you are familiar with inventor, and prices are comparable, maybe it could be an idea. do you think it has all the necessary features to your work? I'm sorry, but I don't know him...

 

[Matteo]

I would also turn myself on swx or proe: each with advantages and disadvantages, also depends on the possibility that customers ask you for a delivery in native format (in this case you have to adapt to their standards).

proe is more suitable to manage (magari together with mathcad or matlab) the whirlwind speech (you also do it with swx but less automated), swx gives you greater openness to the cfd world (though the module for the cfd is very expensive and is a fem code, less "flexible" than other software, for example, to finite volumes).

 

[tmp_fra]

You don't have to worry about that.

I have been working fulltime with inventor for three years now... now I have just taken 2011 ....

more than anything else I think it is more userfriendly and maybe it can be less violent as a passage.. . .

proe I don't know it.. I saw some tutorials to make me some ideas but to skin it seems more complex.....

solid edge or solidworks as setting for sketches seemed much more similar to the 2d autocad... .
inventor at first was hostile to me because you had to immediately set the constraints in the sketch and quote it all immediately..or better first sketches and you can quoti..but with this version I have now.. they adapted it a little more to the autocad immediately asks you the quota and so you don't have to remake the ride to requote everything... and cute quasta version has an immediate modeling.... I explain better. ..when you need to make a connection for example. .does not show you the preview while keeping under the original piece but immediately makes the account for which you immediately see if it manages to make certain stories .... Okay. . But... help a little...

then I am actually a little skeptical about other things...with calm I will try to see if it has improved and correct problems I had encountered in previous versions.....

but in principle I believe that for what I have to do.. At least for the first part of what I have in mind..both more than enough...for std parts I think it is more than suitable.

for the part of development and research.. I don't know... but that I will evaluate with time I understand and learn better what I have to develop.