from catia v5 to rhinoceros 7

[baar8n]

Bye to all,

for my study we chose rhinoceros 7, which I use for all phases of design of products from complex surfaces. I've been using it for about 2 months and having alias experience I'm fine.
for my job I find that the value/price ratio is currently unbeatable, I used a lot of software and I say it with great certainty.

the problem is this: arrival from 7 years of modeling with catia v5, which I used both for product design (gsd and freestyle) and to sketch some mold and I absolutely find complicated in rhino what concerns - forgive the term - the enegnerization of the object (positioning screws, inserts, clips, frames etc etc.).

who uses rhino for design I ask... do you have methods or plugins for this purpose?

Thank you.

 

[tomy_it]

Hi.
I made the choice of rhinoceros many years ago, and I never repented.
I worked as an engineer for so many studies and then I used with creo, catia, solidworks, inventor, alias.
after more than 20 years, I realized that there is no "more of all"
anyone after 10000 hours of work use (after a specific course) makes sparks with any software.
about modeling features and bookcases, some of the software I mentioned, are "fitted" for specific tasks, but customization of software, in-depth courses with professionals
are useful to be productive after the first month.
to the question "methods and plugins" if you refer to top-down design mode, bottom-up
publish geometries to use them on other components together, ect. be all stuff rhinoceros also has them, because they are non-reception/script working methods of a specific software.

Last comment and I close, in our glorious Brunelleschi past I designed masterpieces with bricks like the contemporary ones. Michael used a knife and a chisel identical to those who had others.
Good day

 

[baar8n]

@tomy_it Thank you.
I quote your last sentence. I am aware of this and it is a concept that I always consider, especially when I use a new tool, whether it is a software or a sgorbia.

about rhinoceros there is such a vast community that is somewhat disoriented.

I’m also doing a full immersion in fathopper and I’m in doubt if giving absolute priority to gh also for the engineering part of product.
What way did you choose?

 

[Vittorio]

Hi.
I'll tell you my opinion.
I used it years ago with version 4 and I share that it is a great sotfware.
rhino for design where constraints are not necessary is fine.
but if you have to do engineering and then you need parameter constraints and especially drawings that update with the change of 3d.. bho do not know if version 7 has so evolved.
Does fathopper look like a script editor or anything?
Anyway I abandoned it because I had to use more sofware to complete my work with consequent loss of synchronism and time to manage them.
I understand that the difference in licensing costs is huge, but ultimately what matters is the final cost of your work. you save on licensing costs but then you spend so much time managing the changes in progress.

 

[baar8n]

@vittoriThanks for the answer.
rhino with the integration of fathopper has taken a good step forward regarding the parametric and also the subd tools make it be too appetizing, even compared to a good blasoned alias.
to have a caia with good tools for surface design I should really spend a lot, so rhino is now an almost inevitable choice.
with boldhopper you can build a nice workflow, but are not yet able to do it and are looking for as many information as possible on it. elefront should be a good plugin for this purpose (I just learned of its existence).

I am not involved in drawings because my work is more than design than engineering design, although I am also able to treat pure design aspects sometimes.

 

[tomy_it]

@baar8nrhinoceros and a tool that to make complex surfaces quickly and formidable, which then uses it for the first proposed phase or for the whole development of the pieces, is up to you.
boldhopper and a very powerful tool to parameterize some phases of modeling (eg. grids)
@vittoriare of the same idea that the cost of the software is relative, if you are productive, if you have customers who pay for a job, everything is there. I also use a parametric surfaces/solids, I create but to remain flexible, I make surfaces in rhino, the amount in creo, solidifico, ray, table and mold pdf. change one or more surfaces? re- amounts, replace, regenerate. and a process certainly more laborious, but it forces me to think of the choices I make in advance.

 

[baar8n]

@tomy_it absolutely. gh I used it just for grilling and similar, although they are just the first weapons. for the components I mentioned seems to be a good option. We'll see.

interesting the question of thinking in advance.
For example, with catia, I realized that I was overly brought to define the mathematical model, with the idea that "then I can update everything without problems", risking, however, to anticipate phases of modeling unnecessarily.

Catia remains a great software (with what costs we would miss), let's see what I can do with rhino.

 

[Vittorio]

are of the same idea that the cost of the software is relative, if you are productive, if you have customers who pay for a job, everything is there. I also use a parametric surfaces/solids, I create but to remain flexible, I make surfaces in rhino, the amount in creo, solidifico, ray, table and mold pdf. change one or more surfaces? re- amounts, replace, regenerate. and a process certainly more laborious, but it forces me to think of the choices I make in advance.

I understand and share your strategy.
You can't judge a cad in a superficial and approximate way and eventually what makes the difference is our head in using it.
the cad is nothing but a compass and a tecnigraph of once.
In my case, for example, I have several modifications in progress and if I had no parametric cad I would have a great difficulty in managing them.
not least but perhaps the most important is the compatibility of data exchange with the customer for which you work. If you are obliged to the cad you have no choice.
If you're lucky enough to pass on your work in step, iges, dxf or pdf you can afford to use the least expensive cad on the market.
there are valid and also free , type nanocad for 2d or freecad for 3d.
and then there is the historian of your works.
When you make a choice you have to think it out very well. you can't switch from one cad to another with ease without counting with the bloodbath to convert all your previously performed works