Constraint elimination

[mcbramby]

I have sent lists of errors, malfunctions and/or improvements, but never considered, except one .
for the costrain jump speech to the deletion of a face has always been so, unfortunately.
on the 2d we cast a veil.........
I with the cam for example, are 3 relics, and a dozen service packs that icons within the controls are not aligned, possible that no one has noticed .... mah ........ I have been present, but we wait for someone to notice the bmw or airbus, otherwise it remains so.
but I don't think the others are free from these problems.........

 

[falonef]

I just opened at the ds a sr01060482.

Let's see what they say

 

[falonef]

I wondered how it worked.

 

[falonef]

ds answer:

we have analyzed the issue and it is working as designed. an engineering connection (or constraint) is defined between geometric entities of the part bodies (e.g. plane, surface, line). when any feature of the body is deleted (hole in this case) which is created before defining engineering connection, then the engineering connection(constraints) fails. this is the designed behavior according to the specification. suggestion: avoid creating engineering connection (constraints) on parts that are not fully finished or if user wants to modify the geometry after applying the constraint, then user has to reselect/reconnect the missing entity as soon as update fails. hope the above information will be helpful and satisfactory for you. i am now returning this ticket to you for closure. if further assistance is needed with this issue or you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. thank you for understanding & cooperation. best regards, dassault systemes user success

 

[Fabietto]

ds answer:

we have analyzed the issue and it is working as designed.

I see that even ds responds as ptc with creo...
I have lost all hope (with ptc) to see implemented every suggestion,
and I'm not just talking about my suggestions, but any user who uses I create for work, and who for years tries to suggest improvements, even banal, to wrong modeling logic. .
the answer is always the same -> the system works as designed. . .

 

[falonef]

in fact their response I hate her la

 

[Lettore espatriato]

... I have been present, but we expect someone to notice the bmw or airbus, otherwise it remains so.
but I don't think the others are free from these problems.........

in part.

In fact, in large companies such as airbus, boeing and various automotive oems, there is always a direct contact point with those producing cad, whether dassault, siemens, ptc, autodesk or similar.
If someone raises a problem worthy of note, having from 1000 users up, it is clear that the answer is probably more concealed. Although the fact that they responded to falonef in a day, it seems quite comforting.

not true, because there is a fundamental difference between those who work on the cad in those environments and in a small/medium Italian company .
almost certainly in those environments, before you even get access to the software (let's forget to draw and release components ) , they made you do a nice course on how to use that cad within that company.
For example, how to structure the logical tree of a part or how to build a simple cube with a hole.
1) there are no unexpected problems in the valley, with perhaps a few thousand interested components .
2) even if the component is opened 5 years later by a Chinese, Californian or Indian colleague, you will be able to understand exactly what to go looking for and changing a part.

Incidentally, I am quite sure that among the modeling rules of some of these environments there is, for example, to avoid using the brep selections.
go to the solid and click the face is exactly "use a brep".

Incidentally, it seems to me to recall something similar to nx, so that even there existed (I speak of geological eras ago) the "famous" method "chunky".

 

[Lettore espatriato]

And does that sound right?
You need to cuff every time you cancel something.

We're talking about high level software.

I imagine why, in this case you have "only" a hole . but for the software that could be a hole or a dig or a background or any other profile . how to decide whether to consider "prevalent" the planar face you clicked or the rest?

If, on the other hand, you already know that that flat face is a basic point of your modeling, then the solid, instead of building it for heights, build it with " up to " and give it as a limit that plan.

If you build a hole, you don't build it by clicking on that face, but at least you have created an intersection point (of an axis with that plan) that will remain the origin of your hole.

If you want to work "a lot at the kilo" then it is so much in the cv that you are good at working with v5/v6/nx/creo/solidworks/solidedge/inventor/etc, then these are the results.
and with smartworking, where it is always easier to have some office in some remote area of the planet able to make lower prices, good luck .

 

[mcbramby]

in part.

In fact, in large companies such as airbus, boeing and various automotive oems, there is always a direct contact point with those producing cad, whether dassault, siemens, ptc, autodesk or similar.
If someone raises a problem worthy of note, having from 1000 users up, it is clear that the answer is

I agree, I work in a small company and I don't even send my "problems" directly to dassault, but step by step the company that follows us and sells ca...... .
It is obvious and also predictable, but not natural, that if a company with 1000 licenses asks for something that is done, and it is right that cmq there is a control upstream, I could have a "problem" but that maybe I only have it or maybe x solve it you should make changes that then impat other commands..................... but often I wonder if I only use it, because some things are absurd......... I have to remain firm x some problems to the balls in the 2d (baloons) to the spk1 of 2022 xché from the spk2 up and to 2023 until the last spk there are problems............... From 2022 onwards in the cam, within each command the selection icons are shifted to the fixed ones, I now go to memory and I have no problems, but the company that follows us has found the problem is almost 2 years that there is.......... this because........ because airbus, bmw etc. etc. are not yet passed to that version and are stopped perhaps to 2019 , I fortunately design x my workshop and I can install what I want, but I pay like others and I would claim that cmq someone would fix things, cmq are bugs......... There are others that I don't remember now, because I got tired of denouncing problems that remain unheard.......... .
I use it from the r3 (it seems that it was our first version) , and I consider it the best having tried other cad , even if not in a assiduous way as with catia ............ .

 

[falonef]

bugs are officially announced regardless!!! always!!!
otherwise you find yourself in your situation stuck to a version because in subsequent versions there are no improvements but regressions of the software.

I said this I wanted to point out that the anomalous with the constraints I announced it directly to ds because we have a direct contract with them regarding the support and no longer with the so-called intermediaries var.

according to mé high-level software can not have this behavior. It is useless that they come to tell me and to make theory that in order to avoid the problem you have to use public elements or auxiliary elements such as plans, points or axes.

Are we kidding?

I want to create a hole on a plate, below bind in an assembly the plate with another component and don't give a damn about knowing that if I delete the hole later the bond in the assembly will be defective. software must be able to handle this situation.

how do we put it with an assembly of 300 or 400 components?
will all constraints be defective for this reason?

the ds have responded to me that the component must be bound, in this case the plate, in its rough state. so even before processing it in its details I must already use it in an assembly to bind it and anticipate the faulty bond.

I rated their answer with 2 stars out of 5...

the very strange thing is that in more than 20 years of experience cv5 had never happened to me this scenario. and no user I have ever noticed.

I do not believe that users who use public elements or anticipate the problem by using constraints already in the rough state.

some bugs or software behaviors are simply clamorous.

to correct a quota problem by screaming the scale factor 100:1 c have put almost 10 months.

once they corrected it but they forgot about the range 15:1 another time of the range 80:1.

We had hanged and finally ran it with sp2 hotfix 26.
It's all documented.

remains bitter in the mouth because at every migration there are bugs for us serious.
and ds on our question (must) correct them!

 

[emanuele grasso]

Excuse my ignorance.. But how do I make a ds report?
Thank you.

 

[falonef]

I believe that in your case you have to turn to your var (value added reseller) practically those who provide you with licenses for use.

normally you pay annually a fee for using licenses and you should be able to ask them to officially open the so-called service request at the ds to report anomalies.

in my long experience, I never had to deal with a var who was happy to take care of these things...

but the license money and support cash them on time:-(