explicit modeling

[CADUSER]

a question, as I have to deal with the purchase:

I would like to know according to you, with an objective opinion,
what can be the limitations of a modelling of this type
as before talking to a dealer
I would like to compare with experienced users.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

if it is spoken until exhaustion, there are pros and cons in explicit modeling compared to the associative parameter and feature based.
depends on what kind of product you develop and engineer.

 

[Er Presidente]

the advantages of the context (are traditionalist) are countless, the disadvantages, few, negligible and instrumentally emphasized by the "malates" of "parastrubbalite"!
:smile:

p.s.: I assure you that I am impartial and absolutely objective, ask around.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

the advantages of the context (are traditionalist) are countless, the disadvantages, few, negligible and instrumentally emphasized by the "malates" of "parastrubbalite"!
:smile:

p.s.: I assure you that I am impartial and absolutely objective, ask around.

Let's start well...

 

[cacciatorino]

a question, as I have to deal with the purchase:

I would like to know according to you, with an objective opinion,
what can be the limitations of a modelling of this type
as before talking to a dealer
I would like to compare with experienced users.

Go see the archive, as Ozzy said, anyway, on two feet:


advantages: Very light models for which the cad manages to load huge assemblies that with a parametric you dream of them, you are facilitated to change patterns that you did not do of which you would not know the logic with which they were shaped by someone else).

disadvantages: very little control over the precision of the models, (almost) impossibility to associate functions to features (e.g.: a gear that automatically changes diameter when by keyboard gives them the input of the number of teeth), modeling generally does not have the constraints of together.

 

[cacciatorino]

p.s.

As you need to talk to the seller, check what forms you need. I had treated the purchase a couple of years ago and needed additional modules even for the most trivial things, such as generating the distinct base.

Maybe now with ptc things have changed, but you better inform yourself.

 

[reb_bl]

a question, as I have to deal with the purchase:

I would like to know according to you, with an objective opinion,
what can be the limitations of a modelling of this type
as before talking to a dealer
I would like to compare with experienced users.

look, switching to explicit modeling was one of the most beautiful things of 2011:biggrin:
Other jokes, quoted in toto the posts above, to say "explicitly" if you make products in series, fine parametric, if you have to make prototypes (and also other than being subject to many changes) use the context.
I don't know the differences in costs, it doesn't even compete if I'd be curious to know the figures (even spannometrics), but I can tell you that now the changes "don't make me fear" :tongue:

 

[The_Matrix]

Go see the archive, as Ozzy said, anyway, on two feet:

advantages: very light models for which the cad manages to load huge assemblies that with a parametric you dream them, you are facilitated to change patterns that you did not do of which you would not know the logic with which they were shaped by someone else).

disadvantages: very little control over the precision of the models, (almost) impossibility to associate functions to features (e.g.: a gear that automatically changes diameter when by keyboard gives them the input of the number of teeth), modeling generally does not have the constraints of together.

I would say that with the techniques of lightweight and streaming this advantage just does not exist.

for the rest is all right. . .

 

[Tequila]

I would say that with the techniques of lightweight and streaming this advantage just does not exist.

for the rest is all right. . .

hi beppe, but the techniques of lightweight and streaming what would be precise? can the lightweight be compared to the simplified part or set that is in solid edge? ...or is a nx bean.

Hi.

 

[Superguido]

Of course it depends on what drawings, if you make a standard drawer that changes its size or if all day you play to change the number of teeth to a gear the parametric is perfect, for all the rest there is modeling (creo elements direct modeling) if you use the dynamic everything else seems prehistory.
However the topic was widely debated in the past and not always with Orthodox terms, challenges were made etc....

 

[cacciatorino]

for all the rest there is modeling (creo elements direct modeling) if you use dynamic everything else seems prehistory.

Now that I use the dynamic, I have a different idea about what is prehistory....:biggrin:

 

[Superguido]

However hunts are all going in that direction....a reason will be there, I don't say that just about everything is better, but in most cases down the timing

 

[cacciatorino]

However hunts are all going in that direction....a reason will be there, I don't say that just about everything is better, but in most cases down the timing

I remain of this idea, which I had already done a long time ago:

It's easier to use, but it brings you less away....

p.s. the others are becoming contextual, but they are maintaining the parameters (and above all the possibility to work on sketches and driving quotas), there is a certain difference.

 

[Er Presidente]

I remain of this idea, which I had already done a long time ago:

It's easier to use, but it brings you less away....

Patrese also said that the "mulet" (regulated with the "desired" of bucket) was inguidable.
:biggrin:

 

[The_Matrix]

after using the st in depth I would say that it is a great system for "mechanics", meaning "mechanics" the management of "machines".
... so:
- models without too much waste
- models without too many fittings, especially if stacked one another or that "mangiano" the reference faces
- models without double curvature geometries
for the rest, when the modeling becomes a little more "tosta" I see it of applicability quite difficult.

and I believe that even with osd the situation is not too different.

on mechanics, instead, it actually goes like a train...
nx customers however have "fear" of this technology: I don't know how to explain.

 

[cacciatorino]

on mechanics, instead, it actually goes like a train...
nx customers however have "fear" of this technology: I don't know how to explain.

It's normal, when one is used to "until" the whole model, he doesn't want to work with the methodology "I leave the box here on the desk and in the morning the meeting where I left it...".

The cocreated designer is sure that in the morning after she finds herself in the same place and with the same shape, the parametrist designer will be afraid that in the night she will fall from the table, or she will turn into a ball or other amenity like that.... :biggrin:

 

[Er Presidente]

after using the st in depth I would say that it is a great system for "mechanics", meaning "mechanics" the management of "machines".
... so:
- models without too much waste
- models without too many fittings, especially if stacked one another or that "mangiano" the reference faces
- models without double curvature geometries
for the rest, when the modeling becomes a little more "tosta" I see it of applicability quite difficult.

and I believe that even with osd the situation is not too different.

on mechanics, instead, it actually goes like a train...
nx customers however have "fear" of this technology: I don't know how to explain.

I confirm! When the fittings twist the pattern too heavy it's hard.
changes for osd, it means first to delete the fittings (one time all, now only those "coinvolts"), "move the face" and then put them back.
removing the "explicit" fittings is not always a walk.

As for the "fear", I can guess. exactly the opposite of the sense of suffocation that takes me every time that in a parametric I have to decide everything first, I seem to be forced to live as in a crowded subway.
Of course after years of life like this, if they say, "go out and take a walk," you get lost anxiety!

 

[Er Presidente]

It's normal, when one is used to "until" the whole model, he doesn't want to work with the methodology "I leave the box here on the desk and in the morning the meeting where I left it...".

The cocreated designer is sure that in the morning after she finds herself in the same place and with the same shape, the parametrist designer will be afraid that in the night she will fall from the table, or she will turn into a ball or other amenity like that.... :biggrin:

without constraints the world is risky!
:biggrin:

 

[The_Matrix]

I confirm! When the fittings twist the pattern too heavy it's hard.
changes for osd, it means first to delete the fittings (one time all, now only those "coinvolts"), "move the face" and then put them back.
removing the "explicit" fittings is not always a walk.
As for the "fear", I can guess. exactly the opposite of the sense of suffocation that takes me every time that in a parametric I have to decide everything first, I seem to be forced to live as in a crowded subway.
Of course after years of life like this, if they say, "Go out and take a walk," you get lost anxiety.!

Here... This is the feeling they feel.. .

 

[Matteo]

Patrese also said that the "mulet" (regulated with the "desired" of bucket) was inguidable.
:biggrin:

Also because I don't think that buckets and paddy have ever run on the same team.