is this possible with inventor?

[raf]

I'm so ashamed that inventor isn't the right software for what I have to do, but I ask you anyway.
according to you can make a 3d similar to the one below with inventor?
I would need to do something like this, simplified to the maximum, all carpentry, to be covered then internally with brick/fiber refractory.
from my attempts made in the past the thing is unmanageable by inventor, especially in the light of the fact that to me carpentry affects only as support to my materials, therefore it must not even figure in any material count.
I say inventor because it's the only 3d software I know.. .

thanks to any tips on this!

 

[pagnotz]

certainly it is possible, the problem more than anything is having a computer quite powerful and with enough memory to "register" such a big set... Then if inventor is the most suitable cad for this, it is another speech, maybe there are more suitable, I don't know.
you can exclude what you want from the distinct materials, the important thing is to set those parts as "reference" in the distinct components and will not be counted.

 

[meccanicamg]

you can do everything with almost all 3d modelers. Solidworks and inventor have more or less the same characteristics to achieve what you need but with different concepts.

 

[PabloPicasso]

I don't see any problem, too. In fact, no complex shape is seen that would guide other 3d modelers. Then it depends on what you need the drawing.

 

[raf]

The problems I have encountered from the attempts I have done so far to carry out my work with inventor instead of autocad are as follows:

- extreme heaviness of the files, the refractory coatings are often composed of tens of thousands of bricks, largely equal, but also cut and/or shaped, plus all the carpentry.. .
- inability to manage the same item (the same name and description) cut in different sizes and shapes
- impossibility to manage "soft" parts, fiber mattresses that adapt to empty spaces

In short, I have concluded that inv is not the software suitable for my work, very happy to be denied concretely!

after a day of research on web I found several software for the realization of plants, to mention surely autocad plant 3d, of which I am trying the trial now, and revit structure, which however has a concept of operation different both from autocad and from inv, I should therefore look at it well.

 

[diegus]

Well, sure if you're gonna put every single brick, you're definitely right. But I think it's useless enough to do such a job. If you need to make a brick wall make a single extrusion and apply a brick texture to get a visualization. Also because I don't think you need a distinct set of how many bricks you need to make the wall. even with regard to fiber mattresses I think that it is not useful to design their faithful representation.
Also revit in this does not help you, the walls are not handled as individual elements but as unique extrusions of objects, the walls, of which you previously set the stratigraphy ( plaster, brick, insulating, brick, plaster).

 

[raf]

Unfortunately I do not care to see the bricks for a pure aesthetic sense, I am interested because there are critical areas where the bricks are cut and shaped in a particular way, and therefore you have to see everything well, because those who have to realize it must have a clear guide, the advantage of doing it in in inv should be that, the details and the views it makes them automatically and you do not have to go mad, obvious, this prevents a job done with the o_o.
It is also obvious that, given my work consists precisely in covering the brick walls, I care to have the exact amount of brick, it is not that I sell them to the customer to spanne!
different is the speech where the walls do not need details, I don't need you to see all the bricks, but the quantities I always need.

As for fiber mattresses, the speech is even more complex, I have to go to fill interstices of shapes and sizes more disparate and, even here, the material is paid therefore, I have to know the exact quantities!

in the light of all this, perhaps slowly I can make you understand why, in my opinion, inventor is, alas, very difficult to use for my purpose! :frown:

 

[PabloPicasso]

switching from 2d to 3d involves thinking also differently to approach to a design. definitely even in my opinion does not make sense to place all single bricks. with the 3d you can work with extrusions, cuts and holes significantly speeding the development times of the drawing.

 

[Christian76]

a "detailed" coating I would see it well at the all horizontal serialized limit to the closest measure to the filling, and then if possible a vertical series to fill, otherwise piece per piece.
If "recover" using subassienas should not be impossible.
But I speak without actually knowing the complexity.
:

 

[LuiVerde]

initially plan your project well, split it into many small assemblies (which you can detail as you want, sections, split views,ingrand. etc. ) and then in the general scheme use the representations with a simplified level of detail. You can do great. (It is clear that the hardware has its importance, moreover you have to know well all the strategies that inventor makes available to you for the big assemblies) . good work

 

[raf]

switching from 2d to 3d involves thinking also differently to approach to a design.. .

That's what I'm feeling. so difficult, not supported as I am from my ut...
I am alone, to try to do in 3d, a job that with a lot of difficulty I can do in 2d (I have been here for two years, and, trust me, not enough to learn everything).
Besides, my inventor's knowledge is now very rusty and based on 2008... I just have this forum and bang my head... :frown:

 

[marcof]

Unfortunately I do not care to see the bricks for a pure aesthetic sense, I am interested because there are critical areas where the bricks are cut and shaped in a particular way, and therefore you have to see everything well, because those who have to realize it must have a clear guide, the advantage of doing it in in inv should be that, the details and the views it makes them automatically and you do not have to go mad, obvious, this prevents a job done with the o_o.

going fancy with regard to the shape of each individual coating or an example coating (I have the crystal peel to the revision ) I think of this:
we assume that you know the brick filling per surface unit to be covered in account of the average thickness of mortar etc (if you have to quantify the numbers you will need to know it by force)
Let's assume you have to tu to establish how to proceed to the construction of the single coating (from dx to sin, from bottom to top etc) so that, for example, a tube that crosses the wall to the coordinates x;y from where you start to "put down the first stone" will intercept the brick tot cm from the edge that therefore must be shaped.
to make you this reference grid just a layout sketch with the brick step in x and y.

at this point I would first make only the single bricks that are shaped around the complex parts of carpentry, piping and other. I would then fill the gaps around with a single solid that will be known and multiple surface of that of a brick+malt and that will allow you to easily calculate the number of bricks it contains.
therefore for each "wall" you will have for example 200 shaped bricks and a single block representing 4590.
with 201 components represents 4790.. .
"with this I want dire? I don't know. But I have reason and I don't know." :smile:

If it is not clear tonight I try to put an example

 

[raf]

I apologize for the absence, but in these last two weeks I have dedicated myself to the realization of the carpentry 3d of the plant that I would like to dress with our products. we say that the carpentry, even if colossal, with inventor is not a problem, it takes only so much time and so much patience but, moreover, to do it with autocad is equal with in addition all the disadvantages of the 2d regarding the various sections and the views of the details.
I didn't finish 100% of the plant but I'm good, I have enough material to pass to my real work, the internal refractory coating! and here the problems begin, as I said in previous posts.
to simplify things a little bit I will face the plant area by area, change materials and therefore also problems.
start to expose you a floor area that will be covered with fiber panels cut to size by the standard panels, then covered with bricks, also these all equal to the ones to be shaped in the joints and edges.
here under two pictures, plant and typical section, to make you understand shape and size of the thing.
I still add that I do not need to represent everything in a realistic way, but I care to have the quantities under control, both of the bricks and of the panels, it would be convenient, on the one hand, to draw everything in a realistic way, but I think I would become crazy, in addition to weighing the file considerably...
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/2519/65932722.gifhttp://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2840/52754385.gif

 

[Iraz]

Get under my head.
certain that such a complicated thing needs "heavy" hardware

 

[raf]

It was so easy. . .
the use of subaxis could concern the organization of the model but not the method of realization of the same. I am in fact having to fill a x space with so many small pieces y, as long as we are in the form, I go with the series and I have no problems, but these arise but I go out module, that is in 99% of the cases.
to pull the sums, according to me, inventor is not suitable and/or has no function suitable to fill a given blank space. or I don't know her...

 

[raf]

I've been thinking about it a bit, let's say that a function of inventor that would greatly simplify everything would be to have the chance to eliminate everything that goes beyond a certain line. example, I have a rectangle 7500x3500 to fill with 200 bricks, of course I will have to cut some on the edges, I make a series and all those that come out of my rectangle are cut automatically, obviously after definition of the "cutting" profile.
Is it possible for you to say something so in inventor?

 

[marcof]

It was so easy. . .
the use of subaxis could concern the organization of the model but not the method of realization of the same. I am in fact having to fill a x space with so many small pieces y, as long as we are in the form, I go with the series and I have no problems, but these arise but I go out module, that is in 99% of the cases.
to pull the sums, according to me, inventor is not suitable and/or has no function suitable to fill a given blank space. or I don't know her...

I'm sorry if I insist, but does the solution I've given you seem so impractical? I think the profiles to fill with your bricks are very basic. put the few that are to be shaped according to the step of the grid given by the type of brick and the rest fills it with a single part that according to the surface returns the number of bricks it contains.
making series of components of those dimensions imho is a useless exercise aimed only to weigh down to the irreversible your set.
Then let's say that in the next post you also assumed to cut your "abundant" series with uan cut feature together and the apocalyptic picture completes itself.

Hi.

p.s. do not attach images from external links that then pages widen to unmistress and make it difficult to read the thread. Indeed, if the moderator wanted to correct those images and reinsert them would be a good thing.

 

[raf]

I realize that explaining well what my work is about is not easy! If you have a moment of time try to look at yourself in the drawing how many bricks would be to be shaped individually, i.e. they are not module, you will soon realize that we easily reach 3 zero digits...
Consider that we have 3 layers of bricks at 90° each other, there are joints and the external profile to be respected. Of course I save by filling the rest with a single big shape (how do I do it????), but anyway I have to do all the other hand bricks, one by one! would be crazy! ! !
I, unfortunately for me, do not see a way out. :frown:

 

[Plus ENGINEERING]

I realize that explaining well what my work is about is not easy! If you have a moment of time try to look at yourself in the drawing how many bricks would be to be shaped individually, i.e. they are not module, you will soon realize that we easily reach 3 zero digits...
Consider that we have 3 layers of bricks at 90° each other, there are joints and the external profile to be respected. Of course I save by filling the rest with a single big shape (how do I do it????), but anyway I have to do all the other hand bricks, one by one! would be crazy! ! !
I, unfortunately for me, do not see a way out. :frown:

I press that I have never dealt with such articles and issues. I would like to ask, however, that the discussion has "louded" me: Are shaped bricks shaped in work? If yes, the interesting data to know is the total number of bricks and the number of shaped bricks in operation (because they would have a delta cost derived from manual shooting). in this case, what is the need to draw the many shaped bricks?

 

[marcof]

I realize that explaining well what my work is about is not easy! If you have a moment of time try to look at yourself in the drawing how many bricks would be to be shaped individually, i.e. they are not module, you will soon realize that we easily reach 3 zero digits...
Consider that we have 3 layers of bricks at 90° each other, there are joints and the external profile to be respected. Of course I save by filling the rest with a single big shape (how do I do it????), but anyway I have to do all the other hand bricks, one by one! would be crazy! ! !
I, unfortunately for me, do not see a way out. :frown:

I saw the drawings, I realized the story of the three layers crossed.
I keep not seeing all these difficulties, it certainly takes some time, but you don't have to draw one to one shaped bricks. on the sloping side those cut are identical, do one and then a series to repeat them, identical for those along the wall from 12188. By the way, in the other thread I told you that when you plan the job you have to determine where to start with the bricks. I would have left right from the wall of 12188 with the whole bricks then I would be back towards the two walls from 3566; you would have almost half brick to be cut longitudinally than your design.
in the worst of the hypotheses you would have a type of brick cut for each wall, so in the example placed would be 14, but placing them intelligently so that the longer and straight walls receive the whole bricks would certainly decrease.
you would then have 10-12 types of brick for the side walls and the rest are filled bricks in a unique part. the number contained in that part calculates it from the filling surface itself. working on the properties of the part I am convinced that in the material directory you can automate the calculation of the number from the area.
the axieme would therefore consist of 12-13 unique components and some repetition; this for each of the three different layers nothing transcendental, but certainly a mortal boredom to do so. . .
of course you have to know how to use well inventor, to adapt his tools to your needs by echoing the appropriate stratagems (inventing the central area that represents the big brick and the surface calculates the number, for example... ).
I mean, planning the job, I don't see any difficulties.