:36_1_4: nooo, do not suffice me so please! I said this because I read some documents on the web that supported this argument here! I didn't say that, but I did. boston engineeringTake it with them, not with me, uffa!!!
:frown: here too other mazzate! marcof I can no longer! I the right button as habit always try to press it, but it is not my fault if when it is time to confirm that beautiful icon that depicts a mouse with green v on the right button always comes out when caxxo wants her and not when it would serve me!!! instead in pro/e the central key is always there under my middle finger, it is for me a certainty! whatever you do, regardless of the cursed icons, you press it and he acts.. .
As for us stef, don't worry! We know exactly what trouble you got yourself into! we are close to you and I hope also the ptc all with the intercession of holy assistance.
interesting! post links to documents?
also told by them I raise my bum!!
I actually told you half the mass... my swx copy (and only my!!) is customised. I have rewritten part of the software because confirmation with the right clik always works when needed.
problems will always be there, but also great news and opportunities. if you do not find something you go up to dx, you click on the lens, you look for the command and it shows its position in the new menu bar. always if there is obviously! otherwise if there is not always the possibility to insert it. if not enough, find the link for online driving and learning connector for exercises on the topic.
Come on, it takes a lot less, I thought worse at first. then the difficult part as in all things is always the beginning, then fortunately the way going forward seems (and I say it seems, because I am at first too!) being downhill...
I do not doubt that a feature is half of two features: I also checked with the calculator and 1 is just double two:smile:.
I'm sorry, but then I don't understand. with creo serve half of the features compared to a mid-range or not?
"being" I imagine is reported to the features. Can you tell me where and what is the wrong integration between the features in swx?
Maybe it hurts to question him... Do you have any idea the lack of a direct feature that damage can do when working? Let us make sure that the workaround exists and functions other than double features, it will take the triple or quadruple if you like it!
I didn't say you always put half of the features. However, there is the simple fact that solidworks in certain industrial sectors will never enter! precisely because (because of a mid-range cad) has congenital limitations that make it such.
I don't know if I say so in these terms in the video. However I must have read something (forgive me but I don't remember exactly where) about the inability or the poor possibility of solidworks to create external references embedded in the features.
it takes much less than half in case of lack of direct feature (as I have already written above) because this would involve a work-around. however, they need less where there is the possibility to integrate multiple references, sketches or entire features.
I got a model. I've never had a chance to remake it in sw to make this comparison. However (not now) but if I have time like this for sports I want to do it again in sw to see what happens. Maybe first I remove all asymmetric fittings just to simplify it a bit. here since there's no direct feature I don't want to make my life too complicated. but just to see the integrity of the features you can try.
well stef, can you explain in short what these potentials would be in your opinion, and the limits you are encountering in the phase of the first formative approach?
I have a question.
Hi.
for the modeling of the pipelines besides the pcx (the extension dedicated to piping), there is much more simply the command "tube". many do not know because in the new multifunction bar of creo is not there. It is a function that you always find in that famous window on the top right for the search of commands.
Okay, I found her, and now I try to use her.
Thank you.
Thank you very much marcof
to the soul of the logical menu - ehhehe definitely has potential beastly the prog (creo) but on the usability, it must still eat pagnotte. . .! when I was talking about input -I wasn't referring to the mathematical points lines etc. of the program. but to people who come from other areas to which I create is opening - product design/vehicle design etc... and not only from the engineering point of view. " but if I write that I create it can be improved "stacci" - ehehhe I do it for you, for posters, and for the old user who because of clicks can not drink beer on the ve sera eheh ciauxhi stef, the important thing is that, in addition to giving advice to ptc, you are committed to learning the new cad, and I assure you that overcoming the initial shock, as happened to many of us, you will appreciate the great potential. especially when you start working in big assemblies, when you use reference series, mechanisms, animations etc. you will close an eye even if some command is seemingly uncomplicated."" x dany - you, thanks to God you go slowly and you have an approach to the most laid answers - thank you for everything
in midd-range programs as well as sw... open to design there is greater usability - surely it is also my limit and not only of the prog. the point is that if I break today and all we break tomorrow, to ptc - they wake up and improve even more.
I don't have much to say about creo I'm learning it not constantly because of the interface.
hello to all
no, stef! the usability is not to find in the multifunction bar all the icons with the functions of the cad. you have idea of the babilonia that there would be?!? the fact is that exatem perhaps did not seek with the right attention the command he needed (or had no neighbor anyone to explain it to him). the usability according to me a user if he creates it by setting up a working environment so that it is accessible and fast for the projects you have to do.then I found that in another post calacc indicated a tool the "tubo" to exatem that not found it in creo to make pipes
as I wrote above, there is no more usability in my opinion. since there is more limitedness in functions, the usability falls accordingly. this because there is less variety in functions and therefore a designer is more limited in his work.
Here, we have reached the crucial point of the discussion at last! the truth for me is very simple. is that unfortunately most users of cad (including myself of course) do not miss enough to learn it and do not even have the opportunity to enjoy proper technical support, which is fundamental especially at the beginning of a new experience. this for many reasons that may be the expiration of the service contract (only the first year required), the fact that you do not take courses on specific areas of design, the fact that you are not looking for consultants who can support you in work etc...
Okay, maybe I've been a little sketchy and rash, but there's a lot of evidence for me. Just do a ride on the forum or get better informed by industry professionals and you will certainly make your idea. simply starting with creo you will see how it is more performing than mid-range even in the most common functions of sketching and modeling.
Of course I'm creating better, but do you think?!? improving however does not mean adding functions that do not serve or that are more limited and trivial than existing ones... otherwise I think you are not going back but back! and then we don't have to worry about how developers have to work! to the ptc already pay fior fior d'ingegneri to do this.Here I write you this I do not do
marcof said:
Have patience eh, but if you feel about the specific function that in I create there and in left swx we do not go anywhere, also because I could find the feature that on swx there is and on creo no, but I do not care about this approach. excluding the areas where I create (assieme a nx and catia) is the only one to have certain features, in the vast majority of cases (traditional mechanics, automatic machines etc.) the features that are used are the basic ones and that I create it uses half of those used by the midrange thus allowing to work about half time (this would sas the direct consequence) imho are panzane. happy to change my mind if you show me a model of 50-100 features that in swx requires 100-200.
Briccone!! You wrote that they said it in those terms.
if I understood correctly you mean the possibility to create the sketch plan or reference geometry (axes, other sketches etc) as internal functions to the feature that you have to create.
and give him the direct feature... even if with creo you have to do a 3d sketch with 20 lines each on a different plane you probably need to define 20 floors and make 20 single sketches shizzi because in creo there is no 3d sketch. with swx those 20 lines are all in one sketch that is rocketed: we are 1 to 40 in favor of swx. However a model is not only made of 3d sketch as it is not only made of asymmetric fittings that are there in creo and not in swx. I hope I managed to explain myself
It's a fictitious integration: you don't see geometry outside the feature definition (I assume...) but the software has to calculate them in sequence and you have to do it in sequancy. The same as what I have to do if I need that plan, to do the sketch, to make the cube:smile:
shizzo 3d... an equal
Huh? ?
No, come on, still with this broken record of the undermined sketches of the rest of the world vs those bound by ptc?
the multibody is very comfortable not only for the structures but also during the normal modeling of parts (especially in combination), not having the obligation to make bodies away together. here I am sorry but we are 4 to 3 in favor of swx:redface:
Orpo! but this is a declaration of unwavering faith, of eternal love to proof of any fierce competition dealer, love sealed with a service contract for 99 years with tacit renewal and cancellation to be sent sculpted on the verse of mosè boards (the original ones of course) :wink:
