focus on usability

[cacciatorino]

I thought I would propose comparisons between our cads, chosen among those most frequently in my professional practice.

for those who will answer: attention is on ease and speed of use, not on the power of functions! Surely (almost) all the cads we use can run the tasks described, but how long will it be necessary for each software? :smile:

I have identified these typical problems, if other significant ones come to mind let me know that we add them to the list:
1) move the processing plan of a holeAfter performing a hole on one floor, we realize that we have to move it to another floor.
2) Run derived boardrun a table similar to an existing one.
3) move assiduous by variablessimulate the positions of a cinematism by changing the variables of the members that compose it
4) copy with referencesadd to a set a part or subaxieme in repetitive form, how to speed up the selection of constraints?
5) assign custom properties to partsadd the same property to all members of a set (typical: import of a step)
6) repair broken links model/tablean external collaborator provides us with models and disconnected table due to different paths, how to restore links on our server?
7) long curve patterna chain made of sludge, a conveyor belt, how do we handle them at assembly level?
8) welded-finished table managementhow to put on the table a carpentry, adding the views of the welded and the worked?
9) variable sweep on straight path
10) variable sweep on sketch trajectory

 

[Matteo]

hi, it seems very interesting to me the idea of a "organized" and methodical comparison.
two questions:
1) What kind of answers can we provide? a qualitative comparison between the cads we have or a numerical value (e.g. voting or estimate of the time necessary)? in case I make this example: completely satisfied/partially satisfied/unsatisfied/functionality not used or not known. the whole would be to be related to the 0 use that is made of cad: construction design/preliminary design/consulency/treatment geometry for fem/cfd/cam.

2) I would add other functions not strictly geometric: expandability to third-party products (e.g. fem solutors, cam software), quality and cost of maintenance/assistance, flexibility in transferring the license from one machine to another, availability and degree of satisfaction of the associated pdm. . .

 

[flaviobrio88]

hi, it seems very interesting to me the idea of a "organized" and methodical comparison.
two questions:
1) What kind of answers can we provide? a qualitative comparison between the cads we have or a numerical value (e.g. voting or estimate of the time necessary)? in case I make this example: completely satisfied/partially satisfied/unsatisfied/functionality not used or not known. the whole would be to be related to the 0 use that is made of cad: construction design/preliminary design/consulency/treatment geometry for fem/cfd/cam.

2) I would add other functions not strictly geometric: expandability to third-party products (e.g. fem solutors, cam software), quality and cost of maintenance/assistance, flexibility in transferring the license from one machine to another, availability and degree of satisfaction of the associated pdm. . .

so then in 2025 we draw the sums:tongue:

p.s.
I'm joking, matteo, it's a simple joke before someone takes it.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

so then in 2025 we draw the sums:tongue:

p.s.
I'm joking, matteo, it's a simple joke before someone takes it.

:biggrin: now I'm coming....

 

[Tequila]

Let's say that the hunter's proposal seems purely linked to the usability of the software itself, this rightly to have objective comparison terms between the various cad.

the idea doesn't look bad, you could later add as matteo says any non geometric functions, because from zero to 100 km/h I also get with my catorcio in 15 seconds confused, while with its it takes 3 seconds.
my coast 10000 €, its lambo aventador 326700 €

 

[cacciatorino]

1) What kind of answers can we provide? a qualitative comparison between the cads we have or a numerical value (e.g. voting or estimate of the time necessary)? in case I make this example: completely satisfied/partially satisfied/unsatisfied/functionality not used or not known. the whole would be to be related to the 0 use that is made of cad: construction design/preliminary design/consulency/treatment geometry for fem/cfd/cam.

I really did not place this problem , I just thought that who wants to upload the video of his cad and then the sums pulls the lookers, but efectiously if we wanted to reare a ranking would not be bad!

2) I would add other functions not strictly geometric: expandability to third-party products (e.g. fem solutors, cam software), quality and cost of maintenance/assistance, flexibility in transferring the license from one machine to another, availability and degree of satisfaction of the associated pdm. . .

This can be done, but maybe it's better to open a new discussion, otherwise if we mix unrelated arguments, we'll complicate our lives! :wink:

 

[cacciatorino]

seems to be a recurring question, so a small note:

how do you enter the preview to the video youtube in our message?

we admit that the link to the video is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be8gl8lyskato have the clickable preview, we will write this string in the message body:
[youtube$]be8gl8lyska[/youtube$](the dollar symbol you have to remove it, I only put it because otherwise the software was hiding my string and showing the preview.

 

[flaviobrio88]

seems to be a recurring question, so a small note:

how do you enter the preview to the video youtube in our message?

we admit that the link to the video is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iddal-1mxiato have the clickable preview, we will write this string in the message body:
[youtube$]iddal-1mxia[/youtube$](the dollar symbol you have to remove it, I only put it because otherwise the software was hiding my string and showing the preview.

I have a screencast subscription, is it the same if I use this?

 

[cacciatorino]

I have a screencast subscription, is it the same if I use this?

Of course, there's no strict regulation, everyone adjusts as best he thinks! :smile:

 

[maxopus]

Can we add this?
I'd like you to make me a couple of components using the edges, and then apply a round to the edges you used for mating.
we see which cads "have" the coupling.

 

[cacciatorino]

Can we add this?
I'd like you to make me a couple of components using the edges, and then apply a round to the edges you used for mating.
we see which cads "have" the coupling.

When I come home I think about it, but I remind you that the focus is on the simplicity of solving recurring problems, and if I have to be honest I never used that bond, and I never saw it used.

 

[maxopus]

When I come home I think about it, but I remind you that the focus is on the simplicity of solving recurring problems, and if I have to be honest I never used that bond, and I never saw it used.

OK, I saw that many in swx use it, because in previous versions there were some problems in the coupling between faces.
Anyway, it was just a proposal.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I instead propose 2 simple simple functions as the theme is on usability and are functions that all do.
a section sweep variable on a sketched trajectory of at least 3 sections, I would like to see the method of construction of each cad.
a variable section sweep always minimum three sections on straight trajectory, always for the same reason.
I do not claim that the sections are different, I am well aware that they are all rectangular for the example.

 

[cacciatorino]

I instead propose 2 simple simple functions as the theme is on usability and are functions that all do.
a section sweep variable on a sketched trajectory of at least 3 sections, I would like to see the method of construction of each cad.
a variable section sweep always minimum three sections on straight trajectory, always for the same reason.
I do not claim that the sections are different, I am well aware that they are all rectangular for the example.

Okay, open a new discussion with the videos when I get home I add the test number 9 to the index

 

[marcof]

I instead propose 2 simple simple functions as the theme is on usability and are functions that all do.
a section sweep variable on a sketched trajectory of at least 3 sections, I would like to see the method of construction of each cad.
a variable section sweep always minimum three sections on straight trajectory, always for the same reason.
I do not claim that the sections are different, I am well aware that they are all rectangular for the example.

the best thing would be that, as the hunter did, you created two short examples of what you think, with creo, is the optimal and more efficient way of proceeding for that particular modeling.
after others, by being able, they follow you by replicating the construction of that model in the "they" better than the ways.
having a common reference track for all you avoid divading too much from those that are the aspects that interest you to compare or verify.

 

[marcof]

Can we add this?
I'd like you to make me a couple of components using the edges, and then apply a round to the edges you used for mating.
we see which cads "have" the coupling.

swx sure loses mating and signals a mistake. But thinking about it is difficult to imagine why there is the need to bind two parts for a edge and then to collect the edge in a second time. I remembered that pro-e stores the position of the edge for the coupling, that therefore does not fail, but then the imho assist could become at least bizarre.
If you connect parts using their geometric entities (faces, edges, vertices) I don't see what is strange if then a coupling fails when those geometric entities are gone.
to me that to bind two edges together then radiate them seems a wrong way to proceed in the modeling.
Is there any case where this would serve?

 

[marcof]

OK, I saw that many in swx use it, because in previous versions there were some problems in the coupling between faces.

I don't think there's any problems using faces. I never had one. if faces (but also edges or vertices...) are not erased the constraints remain where they are.
Of course, if you make three parallelepipeds, you put together using edges and faces, then you work the individual parallelepipeds with touches of feature until you turn them into a piston, one, twin and a crankshaft is sure that the initial constraints of the axieme are "resented" lightly :wink:

 

[maxopus]

I don't think there's any problems using faces. I never had one. if faces (but also edges or vertices...) are not erased the constraints remain where they are.
Of course, if you make three parallelepipeds, you put together using edges and faces, then you work the individual parallelepipeds with touches of feature until you turn them into a piston, one, twin and a crankshaft is sure that the initial constraints of the axieme are "resented" lightly :wink:

I saw jumping the couplings on heavy assemblies under my hands.
we do not talk about the failed cad, in which just insert a hole on a face... et voilá the coupling fails.

It is the approach that is different, in I create every entity has a unique id that is not erased by subsequent changes.
if from a cube revenues a ball with roundings, the couplings remain stable.

 

[cacciatorino]

It is the approach that is different, in I create every entity has a unique id that is not erased by subsequent changes.
if from a cube revenues a ball with roundings, the couplings remain stable.

This may not be entirely correct in the mechanical field: You might be dealing with a video assembly that acts as expected, and then once you build problems.

 

[marcof]

This may not be entirely correct in the mechanical field: You might be dealing with a video assembly that acts as expected, and then once you build problems.

is not correct in any context. that the model fails has little to do with the fact that then fails the construction of the physical model in the workshop. If I change a part and a face disappears I would like to know who then in the workshop can use that face to check the assembly