i look for new "aspects" for networks and sup. galvanized ..

[SolidUser]

I want to make an asola.. .[/I]

in this folder there are examples of black and white stencils.
c:\program files\solidworks corp\solidworks\data\images\shaders\surfacefinish\
for manipulation you have to go to the mapping tab.
to add this asola texture from you created in black and white you have to go to the position as shown by the image I attach.
sappici say how this new adventure will end in the world of rendering.

 

[geppetto]

I would do the piece with the sunshades (the heavy file to intellect), I would save it as .step file and reopen it without recognizing the functions.
In this way you would have the correct geometry but with a file that does not weigh anything.
remains only the problem that at any change corresponds the repetition of the export-import process.

 

[SolidUser]

I would do the piece with the sunshades (the heavy file to intellect), I would save it as .step file and reopen it without recognizing the functions.
In this way you would have the correct geometry but with a file that does not weigh anything.
remains only the problem that at any change corresponds the repetition of the export-import process.

Well what to say, the world is beautiful because it is varied...

 

[geppetto]

Well what to say, the world is beautiful because it is varied...

I did not understand whether the variety is well seen or not...
I usually model in sw and maker in cinema 4. I have never deepened the mappings in sw for this reason. I don't believe much in sw rendering and so I prefer to draw the bodies as they really are so as to avoid folding with strange alchemy to the lacks of the model.
However, the basic problem is in my opinion that most modelers go in case when they face similar geometric repetitions. It would not be bad if instead of adding new stupidities to each release, they dedicated themselves to solving those that are the real problems of users.

 

[SolidUser]

I did not understand whether the variety is well seen or not...
I usually model in sw and maker in cinema 4. I have never deepened the mappings in sw for this reason. I don't believe much in sw rendering and so I prefer to draw the bodies as they really are so as to avoid folding with strange alchemy to the lacks of the model.
However, the basic problem is in my opinion that most modelers go in case when they face similar geometric repetitions. It would not be bad if instead of adding new stupidities to each release, they dedicated themselves to solving those that are the real problems of users.

the speech is articulated.
it ranges from the kernel, to the licensing costs, to the laziness of the individual people and the more it has, the more it puts.
Let's go for points:
1) all parametric modelers and here not even high-end models save, suffer high times on big repetition.
is part of their nature.
solidworks however has well implemented both the use of multi-core and multi-thread, as well as the use of face repetition and geometric repetition.
very prompt situations, such as representing pre-forated sheets, have given birth to stratagems to represent great repetitions through rendering solutions.
Let us also remember that it is necessary to understand what is the limit to which we pass from a real solution to the cosmetic one.
here is left to the individual user the choice, but still it is right to give the correct information of risks and advantages.

2) laziness, well... there's so much between cad users.
Even your speech that you've never been involved in sw rendering is an example.
Solidwork offers a discreet rendering engine within an office license, while other cads, the only rendering makes you pay as a utility.

3) I wanted to remind you that of what we are discussing, that is the standard and customized surface finish, like other features that were previously part of the office version, are part of the basic version of solidworks.
the results you get are more than satisfactory.
I attach an example of what I could do with paint a black asola.

A basic licensed designer therefore has tools that were previously linked to advanced rendering tools or external software.

4) every release puts stupidity instead of solving real problems....
It's so at everyone's house and not just in the world.

 

[geppetto]

Let's go for points:
1) all parametric modelers and here not even high-end models save, suffer high times on big repetition.
is part of their nature.

pro/e is 2 times faster though.

2) laziness, well... there's so much between cad users.
Even your speech that you've never been involved in sw rendering is an example.
Solidwork offers a discreet rendering engine within an office license, while other cads, the only rendering makes you pay as a utility.

I never "deep the mappings" on these kinds of works, but the rendering I know it pretty well and that's why I develop them with c4d. I have a professional sw 2010 and I would gladly save the money of the c4d license (which costs as much as a bicycle) if sw had been able to create scenes of equal level and/or in the same time.

I attach an example of what I could do with paint a black asola.

because it was created with a "barbatrucco", it is not possible to see the sunflowers inside the box and possibly what could be behind it.

 

[SolidUser]

pro/e is 2 times faster though.



I never "deep the mappings" on these kinds of works, but the rendering I know it pretty well and that's why I develop them with c4d. I have a professional sw 2010 and I would gladly save the money of the c4d license (which costs as much as a bicycle) if sw had been able to create scenes of equal level and/or in the same time.


focus of so
because it was created with a "barbatrucco", it is not possible to see the sunflowers inside the box and possibly what could be behind it.

1) that pro/e is the double fastest is all to prove.
In these years, I have never seen such a benchmark.
that then you are part because your brother or your colleague maxopus told you things like that is another speech.
Remember that there is no objective evidence of what you say.

2) the rendering engine of solidworks is the way and therefore has nothing to envy to cinema.
are however two objects that have different purposes and different costs.
what is missing in sw are all those setup options that could make it more powerful.
we say that it has a 'castrated' motor voluntarily because it is not the focus of solidworks make professional renderings.
I would still like to see a work done by you with cinema, if it is true that sw would not have been able to get such a result.

3) you didn't understand anything about my work.
If it was a beard, you wouldn't see the back.
I said I used paint to create a b/n asola as a plot, as well as I could create my name.
here is where the laziness of the users, the desire to grow and document.

 

[re_solidworks]

proe is much faster in the reconstruction of repetitions, especially of complex objects. I saw it with my eyes and I can confirm it.
the only thing is not faster simply by repeating the object or feature series, but you have to work using faces and not the features as a serial head origin.

 

[geppetto]

1) that pro/e is the double fastest is all to prove.
In these years, I have never seen such a benchmark.
that then you are part because your brother or your colleague maxopus told you things like that is another speech.
Remember that there is no objective evidence of what you say.

2) the rendering engine of solidworks is the way and therefore has nothing to envy to cinema.
are however two objects that have different purposes and different costs.
what is missing in sw are all those setup options that could make it more powerful.
we say that it has a 'castrated' motor voluntarily because it is not the focus of solidworks make professional renderings.
I would still like to see a work done by you with cinema, if it is true that sw would not have been able to get such a result.

3) you didn't understand anything about my work.
If it was a beard, you wouldn't see the back.
I said I used paint to create a b/n asola as a plot, as well as I could create my name.
here is where the laziness of the users, the desire to grow and document.

that pro/e is faster than trying it for free for a month, the dog of my neighbor knows it too. if you want to recognize it is not my problem, but (in fact) a problem of who wants to grow and document.

If you recognize that the sw rendering is castrated, I don't see what I should prove. a castrate not from children and therefore there is a real male. However if he could do this would be halfway through the work, but so much he can not for several reasons know who has grown and documented.

I repeat and reiterate "barbatruck, beard, beard" if instead of modeling drawings with paint means that it is a "barbatruck". if the sheet of sheet already pre_asolate does not exist because your requirements are different from the standards for measurement, pitch and disposition you would be forced to cut it to the laser. at that point at the workshop pass the .jpg instead of the dxf so they laugh until 2012. Fortunately the Mayans arrive to put some order in this world of lazy ignorant children.

However, in the confusion of the beating to "reggio" could escape what was my initial suggestion.
so I repeat: "I would do the piece with the sunshades (the heavy file to intellect), I would save it as .step file and reopen it without recognizing the functions.
In this way you would have the correct geometry but with a file that does not weigh anything.
only remains the problem that at any change corresponds the repetition of the export-import process."

 

[SolidUser]

that pro/e is faster than trying it for free for a month, the dog of my neighbor knows it too. if you want to recognize it is not my problem, but (in fact) a problem of who wants to grow and document.

If you recognize that the sw rendering is castrated, I don't see what I should prove. a castrate not from children and therefore there is a real male. However if he could do this would be halfway through the work, but so much he can not for several reasons know who has grown and documented.

I repeat and reiterate "barbatruck, beard, beard" if instead of modeling drawings with paint means that it is a "barbatruck". if the sheet of sheet already pre_asolate does not exist because your requirements are different from the standards for measurement, pitch and disposition you would be forced to cut it to the laser. at that point at the workshop pass the .jpg instead of the dxf so they laugh until 2012. Fortunately the Mayans arrive to put some order in this world of lazy ignorant children.

However, in the confusion of the beating to "reggio" could escape what was my initial suggestion.
so I repeat: "I would do the piece with the sunshades (the heavy file to intellect), I would save it as .step file and reopen it without recognizing the functions.
In this way you would have the correct geometry but with a file that does not weigh anything.
only remains the problem that at any change corresponds the repetition of the export-import process."

1) Look...maybe even faster, but not twice as fast.
I really want to take a test.

2) the rendering engine is powerful, lacks programming to make the settings advanced in the solidworks interface.
I attach examples of rendering and then tell me if it's worth spending money on cinema.

3) making a heavy file uselessly is only the first step of subsequent problems.
the sucessive steps are to use this file in combination of which it can be repeated n times and with relative puts on the table.
If you need the dxf of the asolate sheet, the solution I proposed, but not yours.

My solution is to make the idea of how the piece is, especially in the environment together, without having to weigh it in vain.

 

[geppetto]

1) Look...maybe even faster, but not twice as fast.
I really want to take a test.

2) the rendering engine is powerful, lacks programming to make the settings advanced in the solidworks interface.
I attach examples of rendering and then tell me if it's worth spending money on cinema.

3) making a heavy file uselessly is only the first step of subsequent problems.
the sucessive steps are to use this file in combination of which it can be repeated n times and with relative puts on the table.
If you need the dxf of the asolate sheet, the solution I proposed, but not yours.

My solution is to make the idea of how the piece is, especially in the environment together, without having to weigh it in vain.

so go for yours that I wait for the maya...

 

[re_solidworks]

1) Look...maybe even faster, but not twice as fast.
I really want to take a test.

I didn't believe it, too, and if you do a series of features and the replays don't change anything, the performance is swx.
if you go for surfaces with a copy-paste of the function faces, the performance increases a lot.
He showed me ozzy when he took my course and it's really impressive.
However I do not think this is a lack of swx, I think it is rather a value of proe than the other high-end competitors.

 

[geppetto]

I didn't believe it, too, and if you do a series of features and the replays don't change anything, the performance is swx.
if you go for surfaces with a copy-paste of the function faces, the performance increases a lot.
He showed me ozzy when he took my course and it's really impressive.
However I do not think this is a lack of swx, I think it is rather a value of proe than the other high-end competitors.

So you don't understand? :biggrin:
cannot exist opinion and alternative solution to my:biggrin:
you have to do it with sw sp.3 2011
the renderings are made so that they give it to you
repeats are slow all software!!!! ! ! ! ! !
or what kind of democracy do we live in?

 

[SolidUser]

I didn't believe it, too, and if you do a series of features and the replays don't change anything, the performance is swx.
if you go for surfaces with a copy-paste of the function faces, the performance increases a lot.
He showed me ozzy when he took my course and it's really impressive.
However I do not think this is a lack of swx, I think it is rather a value of proe than the other high-end competitors.

Thank you for your confirmation.
especially in the world cad turn metropolitan legends.
behind a cad there is the kernel and behind a kernel there are mathematical algorithms, which can certainly be more or less optimized or can exclude certain controls to speed up certain operations at the expense of geometric controls.

However, do you know that sw can repeat faces with the geometrical option that makes repetition much faster?

 

[re_solidworks]

Thank you for your confirmation.
especially in the world cad turn metropolitan legends.
behind a cad there is the kernel and behind a kernel there are mathematical algorithms, which can certainly be more or less optimized or can exclude certain controls to speed up certain operations at the expense of geometric controls.

However, do you know that sw can repeat faces with the geometrical option that makes repetition much faster?

hi soliduser,

I always use geometric repetition, except in cases where it is not usable for geometric issues. in proe is a bit more slender to do, there is not a simple tick, but the result is much faster.

 

[SolidUser]

hi soliduser,

I always use geometric repetition, except in cases where it is not usable for geometric issues. in proe is a bit more slender to do, there is not a simple tick, but the result is much faster.

I speak of repetition of faces instead of functions.
Have you ever tried to do a test, though it is small, between making a function repetition of a hole or cylindrical face of the hole?
same thing to add material?
are two separate operations and different performance.
the first repeats a closed volume and then performs more checks of congruence of the final volume, while the other repeats an open volume and performs only topological operations (boleane).