design with spaceclaim

[Andrea - Overcam]

no, but believe me is not a problem (unless work associated with pieces like screw, hole, dice associated with each other).
I'll explain. in spaceclaim there is no trace of particular processes such as sunshades, pockets or other in the structure tree (similar to your features tree, but that shows the list of present geometries, components, solids, surfaces, curves). are part of the geometry and if I want to change the use of the 2d sketch, the drag, or move it. to suppress everything you told me is enough to press the "fill" button instead. I can fill holes, sunshades, pockets, bevels, fittings, extrusions/protusions, sunshades, and all that "complicates" geometry. I can also select a hole and automatically select all equal holes (see figure).
nothing special, but it also works with an imported model, like a step of which we have no history... That's where she's holding a feature based.

only exceptions to this (of all not necessary, but they have inserted them for the very affectionate ones) are the particular holes (displaced, blind, threaded) and the processing on the sheet as forms of punches (soles, grids, pockets) and edges worked (smusses, grooves, fittings), which in figure you see colored because editable not with drag, but changing the properties of the old working (but I remain better).

 

[cacciatorino]

I'll explain. in spaceclaim there is no trace of particular processes such as sunshades, pockets or other in the structure tree (similar to your features tree, but that shows the list of present geometries, components, solids, surfaces, curves). are part of the geometry and if I want to change the use of the 2d sketch, the drag, or move it. to suppress everything you told me is enough to press the "fill" button instead. I can fill holes, sunshades, pockets, bevels, fittings, extrusions/protusions, sunshades, and all that "complicates" geometry. I can also select a hole and automatically select all equal holes (see figure).

So it's an irreversible operation. What I'm doing with the filling is a deletion of the processing, not its deactivation.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Yeah, right. I can, however, before canceling the asola, copy it (ctrl+c) and then "paste it". but what's the point of deactivating a sunflower and then reactivating it?

 

[cacciatorino]

Yeah, right. I can, however, before canceling the asola, copy it (ctrl+c) and then "paste it". but what's the point of deactivating a sunflower and then reactivating it?

mah, for example to evaluate design variants, or to lighten the model during the design (for example a toothed wheel with 200 teeth: suppress the toothing and then reactivate it only for the table).

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

for evaluations on design variants I would do all the work, then the disabled re-empting and save as a new version. to lighten the toothed wheel on spaceclaim there is the command "light row"... it shows you, but it doesn't make you change it... However (I don't remember where it is handled!) there is also an interesting article that compares the most famous 3d cads on a particular with motor shaft etc... it turns out that sc is among the first 3 lighter (because obviously does not use the features).

 

[marcof]

Yes, I understood, many (including me a few years ago) I thought spaceclaim was not "parametric", but then I repented. the bonds of asses are there. the correct terms you used are feature based or history based (which are the opposite of direct modeling), but in common use it is also called "parametric", although it is a wrong term.

are the limits of the axis of which you speak concerning those for lassembly of separate parts making coincidence faces, axes, edges etc. or are also constraints intended as references to the geometry between the parts for which it is possible to make of the top-down modeling where a parent part commands a daughter and there is never possibility of interference by changing one of the two?

However surely (and here I agree) it is easier to make the piece in sc than to change it once done everything changing section or path (even if I think that sw would have difficulty if I changed from omega to double t) for this reason I said "it is simple if you have clear ideas" just because you are little, 10 minutes, but if you change totally section or path then better to remake much of the work taking 8 minutes instead of trying to change. .

you have to see from time to time, so it is clear that in the example of the sheet gronday pass from a profile to omega to a completely different one could interfere with the functions of development, lacerations etc., both with sc and with swx (or if, create etc) but if you create for example a sweep or a loft also complex profiles or paths you can almost always change them also heavyly (using the head eh...) that at the end. do the omega then change it in circle (and it is not even necessary to delete the old geometry but just convert it to the flight in construction lines) and when you leave you have instead of the gutter a tube. with sc you delete everything and do it again. with swx you take 5 seconds and with sc you need the 10 minutes you used the first time, and if you want to pass to the square profile as you need the 10 minutes again. I extremized but the concept seems clear to me.

Ultimately if you have to do with the same model to "reconfigure" better a "feature based", you put more to create it, but less to change it substantially. if you always have different models or you have to make small changes better a "direct modeling".

I'd have to try a cad like a sc to know, but I've been through these paturnies. .
But what I don't understand, with regard to creation from scratch (and simplifying), is why you have to do before me to create for example a coil pipe. you have to profile the section, you have to do the helical path, you have to set the profile size and section exactly as I do. I only have the impression that I change diameter of the pipe, thickness of the wall, step of the helid, diameter of the helid number of coils or length then a fraction of the time you use. type 5 or 6 odds and regenerated the model in half a second.
are then of the idea that hardly the changes require to switch from a centrifugal pump to a conveyor belt, so if the changes are within the same "genre" of product, i.e. larger pump, greater number of palettes etc, rather than longer conveyor belt, less wide etc then changes of a well-made cad model "parametric" twist any contextual.

iho the main advantage is the lightness of the models so the ability to manage very large assemblies. on the management of imported models it seems to me that functions of direct modeling of se and nx completely cancel the advantages of contextuals.

 

[marcof]

for evaluations on design variants I would do all the work, then the disabled re-empting and save as a new version.

if the variants are three you have to create three files and replace them every time in the axieme? So in the case of merging parts with the crude and machine-work you need to make two files?

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

are the limits of the axis of which you speak concerning those for lassembly of separate parts making coincidence faces, axes, edges etc. or are also constraints intended as references to the geometry between the parts for which it is possible to make of the top-down modeling where a parent part commands a daughter and there is never possibility of interference by changing one of the two?

the bonds of assemblies concern assembly (in practice when moving a part or creating a mechanism the elements remain bound).
When you move an object or part of it you can select more objects together. es: select with a selection box 2 coaxial holes 1 screw and a nut and move them to the right of 50mm. or extend a beam and move together the last 2 holes and a team. or even increase the height of a locker, moving together the top, handles, stretching sides, back and doors.

you have to see from time to time, so it is clear that in the example of the sheet gronday pass from a profile to omega to a completely different one could interfere with the functions of development, lacerations etc., both with sc and with swx (or if, create etc) but if you create for example a sweep or a loft also complex profiles or paths you can almost always change them also heavyly (using the head eh...) that at the end.

what does not work in fact, is the modification of particular surfaces, for example a ring with bright square section that twists (sweep or loft) I can create it with spaceclaim, but I can no longer change the diameter of the ring according to the size of the fingers, which instead a feature based egregiamente since it is as if it reconstructed everything from the first operation repeating everything.

do the omega then change it in circle (and it is not even necessary to delete the old geometry but just convert it to the flight in construction lines) and when you leave you have instead of the gutter a tube. with sc you delete everything and do it again. with swx you take 5 seconds and with sc you need the 10 minutes you used the first time, and if you want to pass to the square profile as you need the 10 minutes again. I extremized but the concept seems clear to me.

Yes, I agree, you're less, but only if you have clear ideas... Of course if you change from omega to circle maybe you didn't have them quite clear!

I'd have to try a cad like a sc to know, but I've been through these paturnies. .
But what I don't understand, with regard to creation from scratch (and simplifying), is why you have to do before me to create for example a coil pipe. you have to profile the section, you have to do the helical path, you have to set the profile size and section exactly as I do.

I would be less on certain things, and on others we would be the same time.
reasons why sc takes less time to create certain details/assemblies:
-do not put constraints during design
-usi 2-3 commands, no cascading menu
-you can create a set while modeling a particular (for example you can split a single solid into more details)
- See what you're doing while you do it interactively (no x+ commands, measures, constraints and then send and see what it did! )
-you can use a dxf with 3 views to turn it into solid, in some cases you can take 2-3 minutes to make a fairly complex figure
- has intuitive commands, so it is just faster the "problem-think-action-solution" flow. I mean, for what is my experience, you don't get stuck thinking "ok... and how do I do it? with what function? "

But in my opinion the focus is not on which system is faster (which then to do what? depends!), but:
-modify a 3d (and use a 2d) as if you had done it <-- this is the first fundamental advantage, the reason why it was born
-I would create a prototype faster <---- no assemblies and constraints during modeling, only remains the "lude" and creative part
- a 2-day neophyte is able to create quite complex geometries, so it is particularly suitable for those who are not a full-time designer, and has no time to learn a feature based.
- if I am a third party, I have to open the models of my client, change them slightly and work them (e.g. sheet development for cutting and bending) for a matter of costs and times is by far the optimal solution. other software would be less indicated and more expensive (they do more than necessary)

are then of the idea that hardly the changes require to switch from a centrifugal pump to a conveyor belt, so if the changes are within the same "genre" of product, i.e. larger pump, greater number of palettes etc, rather than longer conveyor belt, less wide etc then changes of a well-made cad model "parametric" twist any contextual.

When a potential client asks me the sc io demonstration first I ask him what the company is doing for. If the answer is "we produce centrifugal pumps and we need a cad to design the different versions of a pump" I reply "to sw, if, proe, ... "
sc would definitely be unsuitable. different speech if you design structures, frames, etc. that are far more suitable for sc

iho the main advantage is the lightness of the models so the ability to manage very large assemblies. on the management of imported models it seems to me that functions of direct modeling of se and nx completely cancel the advantages of contextuals.

do the same thing, but there is a discreet cost advantage from sc! we have customers who import a step geometry of customers and press "develop" a hundred times a day, some of these times are forced to change a fold with a soldering or vice versa, or change a little something. I'm sure there's no better solution at the same price.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

if the variants are three you have to create three files and replace them every time in the axieme? So in the case of merging parts with the crude and machine-work you need to make two files?

Bah... I don't know how to do different things:
-copy and paste of the same solid 3 times on the same component, simple with fill 2 copies, and "in the axieme" I turn off one or the other solid to see what are the differences
-the components can be physically separated from the axieme or internal versions (so all or some components saved internally to the file together, which probably not in all cads can do). Therefore I can save 3 different axioms with 3 variants, or save the axieme with 3 variants that I then turn off at my liking.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

....if you explain to me I learn something.. .

we say that you understand well if, instead of "drawing" the edge of 20mm you do 200mm. you can not mate the 3 parts together because it forms a high angle difference, not 1,6° as in the case that it has made you (that is what I asked and I realized also with sw). from there I decided to fix the top by creating surfaces (on solid) parallel to the upper edges of the profile (of the initial omega profile) so that the coupling of the 3 brushes was right, but all this complicated and extended my work on solidworks. then, as I repeat, in my specific case it is okay everything also because the piece was delivered before I drew it, but wanting to learn to draw the correct solution is what I posted, the most complex!

If I have not explained well, as I think, I make a practical example. . .

 

[marcof]

But what I don't understand, with regard to creation from scratch (and simplifying), is why you have to do before me to create for example a coil pipe. you have to profile the section, you have to do the helical path, you have to set the profile size and section exactly as I do.

I would be less on certain things, and on others we would be the same time.
(cut)

It's not like you answered me. . .
in the example above, where you model a substantially simple object but whose shape depends on more variables, why should you do before me? Is the modeling sequence completely different, so it's just three line operations, and I need double?
for the modifications of the seprentina mentioned above, with sc how do you adjust step, height, diameter, number of edges, diameter of the pipe , thickness of the pipe? I know that with a parametric cad change 5 or 6 numbers in 10 seconds and in two seconds I have the completely remade model. serpentine is an example of a simple object that, however, requires the change of many parameters. How do you do that? Would you post a video?

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

marco give me some of you, we are in a forum :d
It seems to me that you have created a flat area useful to make the assembly of the parts easier.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

marco give me some of you, we are in a forum :d
It seems to me that you have created a flat area useful to make the assembly of the parts easier.

That's the reason.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

It's not like you answered me. . .

no marcof, of course a "simple" object like a spring serpentine is easy to draw in all two types of cad, with the same number of operations, and the modification is much simpler in a feature based. If I had to make helical coils or loft surfaces, sweep to be changed at will I would not use sc (but it is not the case of my customers!). I had made you the example of the ring with brilliant "loft" (with rectangular section that twisted on itself) of which I could not change diameter (of the finger) once drawn. the spring falls into the category of models not suitable for sc, it is done in 30 seconds, but you can not vary step, section (you can change the diameter of the tube and thickness though, even if it amounts one step!). On the other hand, if I give you a step of a serpentine, what would you do to change? nothing! the problem in this case is the double curvature... curves are difficult to change. You could, with a minimum of programming, write a configurator (in the sc) that draws the springs according to the size you want. if you make springs always worth it and it is not difficult.
However, even in sc there are typical feature based operations, I can create a series of elements to form for example a 2d refrigerant coil.
In the example of the image, in addition to the diameter and thickness of the tube, you can change the number of edges, the height of the serpentine (even the step, but you should change the single coil), you can change the width of the coil. the "series" element is editable at any time and is a real "feature". also copy functions, mirrors, etc. are functions that persist just like a feature.


you are less, and use few tools (in the example drag and mirror) to do something like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vad63vcx1k0&index=6&list=pla14fba58231f146e

 

[cacciatorino]

a curiosity:

I would like to know how sc handles files:

1) every solid file? or can I decide how to make the rescue granulate, for example having different geometric entities inside a set that exists in the file system as a unique file?

2) when I create a new part, I have to save it on disk at the same time as I create it, or stay there in the computer ram and is written on the hard drive at the time when I save the father (current axieme? )

 

[marcof]

the spring falls into the category of models not suitable for sc, it is done in 30 seconds, but you can not vary step, section (you can change the diameter of the tube and thickness though, even if it amounts one step!).

thanks for the answers, more or less I think I have understood how sc works and what are the advantages of that type of modeling.

On the other hand, if I give you a step of a serpentine, what would you do to change? Nothing!

the question of the ease of management of the imported files in a contextual cad is obviously a lost race at the start for any parametric cad, unless the synchronous modeling of se or nx is implemented.

I was interested in understanding the use of the cad to work natively, not having the need to import for changes anything from anyone.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

una curiosita':

I am very happy to confront you!

1) every solid file? or can I decide how to make the rescue granulate, for example having different geometric entities inside a set that exists in the file system as a unique file?

exist mainly 3 simple entities: solids, surfaces, curves. these may belong to a component or be at the base of the main design. when I open the program I have a design1 (the classic "no name"), if I create any element, or even more than one (e.g. 3 solids) these will be saved with the design (drawing1) with a name (e.g. poplar). on my pc I will have only 1 file pippo.scdoc. if I make the table (in sc drawing sheet) this will be saved inside the pop. if I divide the various solids into components (and possibly in sub-components), they will always be part of poplar. I'll always have 1 file. But I can save someone as an external file (for example if I designed a component that I want to reuse, a handle, a plate with the company logo...). In this case we talk about external components, I am immediately asked where to save the file (for example in a folder dedicated to standard components). I will then have "pippo.scdoc" and a series of files "plastrina-logo.scdoc" etc. when amounting on another document it will appear as an external document, and if I modify (the best) when except for the new document the modification will be made to all the axioms that use it (but I can obviously make the file inside). Ultimately I choose whether to have a single file or multiple files, but I tend to leave "inside" to the file most of the work.
when amounting one step for example all components are internal... I can convert some in external, but only if it is useful (why have so many files that I do not use in other projects?). On the other hand I can always change things and/or make a simpler copy/paste between models.

2) when I create a new part, I have to save it on disk at the same time as I create it, or stay there in the computer ram and is written on the hard drive at the time when I save the father (current axieme? )

[/QUOTE]all in ram, and in a autobackup file for a possible recovery in case of crash. However, since I convert a component from internal to external, the system immediately asks me where to save the external component.

 

[cacciatorino]

all in ram, and in a autobackup file for a possible recovery in case of crash. However, since I convert a component from internal to external, the system immediately asks me where to save the external component.

apart from the fact of having model and table in the same file, which is something I think is interesting, the rest of fashion is quite similar to cocreate, which I find very comfortable. above all the fact of being able to create new parts in the model space without the need to first save the relative file on the hard drive is a very comfortable thing, which speeds up the work very much.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

I was interested in understanding the use of the cad to work natively, not having the need to import for changes anything from anyone.

Mah... I don't think it's the software for you. You have few advantages. one of the advantages is the ease of learning... but if you're an expert on another cad... even the advantage of the price... if you have already bought the software.. .
But I'm sure you'd find it interesting! Anyway, if you want, I'll give you a demo to have some fun. the thing goes for everyone to ask and will be given (without any commitment!).

 

[marcof]

Mah... I don't think it's the software for you. You have few advantages. one of the advantages is the ease of learning... but if you're an expert on another cad... even the advantage of the price... if you have already bought the software.. .
But I'm sure you'd find it interesting! Anyway, if you want, I'll give you a demo to have some fun. the thing goes for everyone to ask and will be given (without any commitment!).

In fact it would not be for me but for a colleague/friend to whom I have given a hand sometimes to solve situations of design and evaluation of the encumbrances (or forms) and that they are da delirio if you try on acadlt that he uses. every now and then he tells me he would like to go to a cad3d but not mine because he sees it too difficult and has the impression that there are a lot of input to give. I believe that in the end the inputs go data even with sc if you want the machine to work rather than enter the space destined to it, then in the end or you decide to give up the 2d and spend some time to a 3d otherwise they will all be indifferently difficult. For now I see my colleague still too uncertain and especially with no desire to change the way to imagine his machines.
We'll see. . .
When I have a little time, maybe I'll really ask you a demo to try and see if it'll make me a better osd effect