Focus
Guest
a little invitation to stay calm, please.
MarcoBi
Guest
No, I don't think so.
I support cadmatic that I use for a long time but I have no problem boasting features and merits of other sw. this on claim to extract perfect isometrics by crushing the button is not, in my opinion, a topic of discussion true since you refuse to use the tools that the program puts to dipsosition to make a perfect extraction of isometrics.
See you soon.
I support cadmatic that I use for a long time but I have no problem boasting features and merits of other sw. this on claim to extract perfect isometrics by crushing the button is not, in my opinion, a topic of discussion true since you refuse to use the tools that the program puts to dipsosition to make a perfect extraction of isometrics.
See you soon.
telecad
Guest
kind mrcobi,
Would you post an iso please?
Would you contact me with your admin?
Would you post an iso please?
Would you contact me with your admin?
MarcoBi
Guest
Excuse Telecad, what if you say that you are currently assisted directly by the cadmatic?
my iso is all passed by pipes, which is not an optional but well the sw preposed to the extraction and management/modification of isometrics.
places rather its iso produced with other sw (I see that it uses many) "scratching the button" so as to have an idea of the level of complexity and the amount of information contained therein. Otherwise it seems a bit of a one-way speech: we understand that he is not satisfied with how cadmatic extracts histometrics. the solutions have been proposed/indicated as it has been in this forum for a long time and without any other purpose (I, not finding sw of any kind) except to evaluate pros and cons. I remember that you posted for example a flange-curva-flangia-oriented sketch: I have already replied that with pipes and 2 minutes of his time he would extract and print that hysus without any problem of legibility. If you don't want to believe me, I'll be reassigned.
See you soon.
my iso is all passed by pipes, which is not an optional but well the sw preposed to the extraction and management/modification of isometrics.
places rather its iso produced with other sw (I see that it uses many) "scratching the button" so as to have an idea of the level of complexity and the amount of information contained therein. Otherwise it seems a bit of a one-way speech: we understand that he is not satisfied with how cadmatic extracts histometrics. the solutions have been proposed/indicated as it has been in this forum for a long time and without any other purpose (I, not finding sw of any kind) except to evaluate pros and cons. I remember that you posted for example a flange-curva-flangia-oriented sketch: I have already replied that with pipes and 2 minutes of his time he would extract and print that hysus without any problem of legibility. If you don't want to believe me, I'll be reassigned.
See you soon.
telecad
Guest
cadmatic update
Hello, it seems correct and necessary to update users about the program in question.
the other day sig gricozzi came to the company with two of his technicians and together with the it company, after two days of work (uninstalling and reinstalling the program on the server updating and setting all the necessary parameters) they arranged everything. we have recharged the work and to the iso test, these come out perfect. It is true that there is the pipe module (the one through which you can do the “adjustments” before export) but it is really satisfying to see that the iso extracts do not need to maneuver any in the pipe and that therefore you can yarn export, gaining precious time. I can now say that the cadmatic I use is equal to the one seen in the program presentations. kind gricozzi, thank you for taking care of the situation and restoring the real “functional normality” of the software that I now think is really competitive. I am sorry to have believed that the sw was unable to meet the needs... but who could know that this was not working well? That's why Marcobi and I didn't understand each other... we had two different functions!
said this, a greeting to all
Good evening
Hello, it seems correct and necessary to update users about the program in question.
the other day sig gricozzi came to the company with two of his technicians and together with the it company, after two days of work (uninstalling and reinstalling the program on the server updating and setting all the necessary parameters) they arranged everything. we have recharged the work and to the iso test, these come out perfect. It is true that there is the pipe module (the one through which you can do the “adjustments” before export) but it is really satisfying to see that the iso extracts do not need to maneuver any in the pipe and that therefore you can yarn export, gaining precious time. I can now say that the cadmatic I use is equal to the one seen in the program presentations. kind gricozzi, thank you for taking care of the situation and restoring the real “functional normality” of the software that I now think is really competitive. I am sorry to have believed that the sw was unable to meet the needs... but who could know that this was not working well? That's why Marcobi and I didn't understand each other... we had two different functions!
said this, a greeting to all
Good evening
numero1
Guest
ohhhh well:finger: now you have made me come + want to see him tomorrow.
Thank you and hello.
Thank you and hello.
MarcoBi
Guest
Well, I'm happy for you, telecad.
good work.:smile:
corrado.galluzzi
Guest
Excuse me if I reexhume the discussion after so long.
It was very informative and fun at the time reading the various barrels and response.
I didn't know absolutely cadmatic if not to say.
Now I think I know something more.
Thank you.
I would just like to add my modest consideration.
the choice of a cad 3d system for planting today must be guided almost exclusively by what requires the market.
and nolenti or willing today the owners operators ask had or intergraph. point.
the day that cadmatic will be required as well as them, then we will gladly give him the well-comed!
It was very informative and fun at the time reading the various barrels and response.
I didn't know absolutely cadmatic if not to say.
Now I think I know something more.
Thank you.
I would just like to add my modest consideration.
the choice of a cad 3d system for planting today must be guided almost exclusively by what requires the market.
and nolenti or willing today the owners operators ask had or intergraph. point.
the day that cadmatic will be required as well as them, then we will gladly give him the well-comed!
MarcoBi
Guest
Well... This consideration is entirely superfluous, who works in this environment is well that it is very difficult to introduce a new sw even if valid and it is evident that if a customer has a history in pds, pdms or other will want to continue to have archives compatible with each other.
I would advise you, in this regard, to deepen your knowledge about cadmatics included eshare and other tools that allow you to easily exchange models generated towards cadmatic without losing any data.
I would advise you, in this regard, to deepen your knowledge about cadmatics included eshare and other tools that allow you to easily exchange models generated towards cadmatic without losing any data.
gricozzi
Guest
Good morning!
I am pleased to see that you are interested in knowing better cadmatic in had!
two brief considerations:
- when I met you in the presentation that years ago you did together with daniel the software was far from being present and required...but you were called to evaluate a solution that seemed interesting (then I worked for an engineering company that never bent to use only the solutions imposed). If we had applied your reasoning, don't even look around me and I think this "remaining attentive" to "new" always enrichment, don't you agree?
- who can today (if the costs are not covered by the customer) take charge of license costs that can reach 7-10 €/hour/man?
Well of projects also recent followed in important cadmatics there are many, such as:
- the tap (both Greek/Albania, and lecce) shaped with our system (https://www.tap-ag.it/)
- plants enel of final emilia and macchiareddu (modelled with cadmatic and with eshare in use in the phases of construction and then for those o&m)
- zohr (used the eshare system to display feasibility data in the construction phase in the 3d pdms model and access the model via web portal, not cloud!) (https://www.eni.com/it_it/attivita/upstream/modello-esplorativo/zohr-egitto.page)
Perhaps then in your considerations we forget that there is not only o&g!
advantage points in using our system? here they are listed:
- distributed modelling on multiple integrated locations natively in the software without additional costs and without complex administrative activities
- performance of the graphic engine unknown to other systems that allow to import any mechanical format (not a limited set of formats!) or model from other systems (such as those of had and intergraph) without geometries losses and with presence of all the data of the same then editable, here is an example:
- compatibility with projects requiring bim and possibility to import and export models into ifc format- review system (downloadable and tested for free here: cadmatic ebrowser) and sharing of the model that allows to avoid further aggressive costs having to equip itself with the Naviswork navigator, that allows navigation and interrogation of model (also imported) with considerable fluidity and visual quality, as below:
- use of the clouds of simple points and without impact on performance during modeling
- isometric sheet and spool data are automatically set to the model so that you can connect the isometric group and spool to model objects
- comparative management of 2d documentation created with the previous revision
- export of 3d model and 2d documentation without limits to formats such as dwg, in addition to the possibility of exporting the attributes of blocks
so good day and good choice to all!
I am pleased to see that you are interested in knowing better cadmatic in had!
two brief considerations:
- when I met you in the presentation that years ago you did together with daniel the software was far from being present and required...but you were called to evaluate a solution that seemed interesting (then I worked for an engineering company that never bent to use only the solutions imposed). If we had applied your reasoning, don't even look around me and I think this "remaining attentive" to "new" always enrichment, don't you agree?
- who can today (if the costs are not covered by the customer) take charge of license costs that can reach 7-10 €/hour/man?
Well of projects also recent followed in important cadmatics there are many, such as:
- the tap (both Greek/Albania, and lecce) shaped with our system (https://www.tap-ag.it/)
- plants enel of final emilia and macchiareddu (modelled with cadmatic and with eshare in use in the phases of construction and then for those o&m)
- zohr (used the eshare system to display feasibility data in the construction phase in the 3d pdms model and access the model via web portal, not cloud!) (https://www.eni.com/it_it/attivita/upstream/modello-esplorativo/zohr-egitto.page)
Perhaps then in your considerations we forget that there is not only o&g!
advantage points in using our system? here they are listed:
- distributed modelling on multiple integrated locations natively in the software without additional costs and without complex administrative activities
- performance of the graphic engine unknown to other systems that allow to import any mechanical format (not a limited set of formats!) or model from other systems (such as those of had and intergraph) without geometries losses and with presence of all the data of the same then editable, here is an example:
- compatibility with projects requiring bim and possibility to import and export models into ifc format- review system (downloadable and tested for free here: cadmatic ebrowser) and sharing of the model that allows to avoid further aggressive costs having to equip itself with the Naviswork navigator, that allows navigation and interrogation of model (also imported) with considerable fluidity and visual quality, as below:
- use of the clouds of simple points and without impact on performance during modeling- isometric sheet and spool data are automatically set to the model so that you can connect the isometric group and spool to model objects
- comparative management of 2d documentation created with the previous revision
- export of 3d model and 2d documentation without limits to formats such as dwg, in addition to the possibility of exporting the attributes of blocks
so good day and good choice to all!
corrado.galluzzi
Guest
Hello, Jacob!
Thank you for your time and for your interesting information.
I was very pleased.
I realize I've been too tight and "categoric" in my commentary and so I've been misunderstood.
I didn't mean to sound arrogant.
I remember our first meeting. had not yet been so widespread in Italy. while abroad was already a widely established company.
I agree absolutely with your considerations.
Forgive me for a curiosity. you talked to me about licensing costs of 7-10 €/hour/man. I imagine you were referring to us and hexagon.
but cadmatic is free?
I'm joking of course. ...
You're okay. A hug. See you soon!
Thank you for your time and for your interesting information.
I was very pleased.
I realize I've been too tight and "categoric" in my commentary and so I've been misunderstood.
I didn't mean to sound arrogant.
I remember our first meeting. had not yet been so widespread in Italy. while abroad was already a widely established company.
I agree absolutely with your considerations.
Forgive me for a curiosity. you talked to me about licensing costs of 7-10 €/hour/man. I imagine you were referring to us and hexagon.
but cadmatic is free?
I'm joking of course. ...
You're okay. A hug. See you soon!
gricozzi
Guest
Corrado,
by commercial I think an offense talk about free!:tongue:
no of course is not, but surely we talk about costs that do not rise beyond 3,3€/hour/man (p&id, model, isometrics and spool) or 2.8€/hour/man (if we exclude the p&id license) .
soon... on a happy day. ..caner close the same day with eni and enel does not happen often, at least for us "small" suppliers!
by commercial I think an offense talk about free!:tongue:
no of course is not, but surely we talk about costs that do not rise beyond 3,3€/hour/man (p&id, model, isometrics and spool) or 2.8€/hour/man (if we exclude the p&id license) .
soon... on a happy day. ..caner close the same day with eni and enel does not happen often, at least for us "small" suppliers!