Lamiera (sheetmetal)

[themole]

are a solidworks user in sheet metal environment.

I wanted to understand if I should try a demo of sc and then propose it to my company or is it better to continue with sw?

Thanks for the girl.

 

[Matteo]

are a solidworks user in sheet metal environment.

I wanted to understand if I should try a demo of sc and then propose it to my company or is it better to continue with sw?

Thanks for the girl.

For the demo, just contact me by means of signature references
What's the best? are different philosophies.. .

 

[Matteo]

yesterday I was very synthetic because I wrote from blackberry.
resuming the comparison between swx and spaceclaim (relatively to sheetmetal applications):

- the swx sheet module in my opinion is great, but also that of spaceclaim is of good level (at very lower price)
- swx is an associative parameter: very productive if you have the specifications of the piece already defined in the design phase
- spaceclaim is a direct modeler: very flexible in case heavy changes were necessary during development

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

I find that spaceclaim is very suitable for third parties (who receives projects in 2d or 3d). sw I find it is more suitable for those who make series production of standard parts (just designs with variable quantities).

how it manages spaceclaim dxf or dwg as well as the imported solids few software do it.

 

[Matteo]

I find that spaceclaim is very suitable for third parties (who receives projects in 2d or 3d). sw I find it is more suitable for those who make series production of standard parts (just designs with variable quantities).

how it manages spaceclaim dxf or dwg as well as the imported solids few software do it.

starting from a step/iges and making it sheet is much simpler in spaceclaim, not so much for the last phase of conversion "solid > sheet" (in which swx is certainly not lower) as for the previous modification and adaptation operations this phase.

 

[flaviobrio88]

starting from a step/iges and making it sheet is much simpler in spaceclaim, not so much for the last phase of conversion "solid > sheet" (in which swx is certainly not lower) as for the previous modification and adaptation operations this phase.

What do you mean to make it sheet?

 

[Matteo]

What do you mean to make it sheet?

Are you referring to what I call "the last step, namely solid clasp > sheet"?

I was referring to the passage in which a solid (although thin) comes at a certain point assimilate to sheet metal, so its geometry (and its transformations) are no longer treated as solid operations, but through the mathematical model of thin sheet (in fact it becomes a 2d math with "extensions").

to get to this point it is necessary that the software can automatically manage the "parification" of the surfaces overlooking the solid (the term is what is used in promechanics in shell management), piege, cuts, ...

ps: "lamiera" does not even mean "superfice", to make an example: the fold of a surface may also have zero radius, but a sheet does not.

pps: I asked to change the title of the discussion to make it more traceable

 

[flaviobrio88]

to get to this point it is necessary that the software can automatically manage the "parification" of the surfaces overlooking the solid (the term is what is used in promechanics in shell management), piege, cuts, ...

I don't know what promechanics is, but I know the concept of shells, if I understand well from a step or iges file, can you recognize the upper skin and inferior?

or do you mean as shell groups of surfaces that close and can be managed as a unique part?

if the surfaces in iges are not closed well but there are some areas open shells how do they behave?

 

[Matteo]

I don't know what promechanics is, but I know the concept of shells, if I understand well from a step or iges file, can you recognize the upper skin and inferior?

if the surfaces in iges are not closed well but there are some areas open shells how do they behave?

your question is very "recognized": in fact no software makes "magies". the automatic recognition of the subtle surface is not an obvious thing (it is a bit the same problem as the search for the average surface).
in simple cases just a switch (on/off sheet), to increase the complexity of the geometry it is necessary to "help" the software by removing the entities that can generate ambiguity (e.g. thin sheet with a thread insert: I must first remove or "separate" the insert).

These "manual" operations are the strong point of spaceclaim compared to a parametric (I mean importing a step/iges: clearly working on the native format with the parametric I can always suppress the feature).

if the solid is corrupt (unclosed for example) the preparation phase is even more important for recognition.

 

[flaviobrio88]

your question is very "recognized": in fact no software makes "magies". the automatic recognition of the subtle surface is not an obvious thing (it is a bit the same problem as the search for the average surface).
in simple cases just a switch (on/off sheet), to increase the complexity of the geometry it is necessary to "help" the software by removing the entities that can generate ambiguity (e.g. thin sheet with a thread insert: I must first remove or "separate" the insert).

These "manual" operations are the strong point of spaceclaim compared to a parametric (I mean importing a step/iges: clearly working on the native format with the parametric I can always suppress the feature).

if the solid is corrupt (unclosed for example) the preparation phase is even more important for recognition.

according to my opinion at the programming level could be easier than it might seem, for example if I amount in iges or step a file and I have a tool that controls me in real time the tangency between all surfaces the game is done, if there are micro holes or big holes this does not involve anything wrong signals me that the surfaces are detached but just a single edge of this detached surface is attached in tangency with other surfaces to be selected.
What do you think?

 

[cacciatorino]

according to my opinion at the programming level could be easier than it might seem, for example if I amount in iges or step a file and I have a tool that controls me in real time the tangency between all surfaces the game is done, if there are micro holes or big holes this does not involve anything wrong signals me that the surfaces are detached but just a single edge of this detached surface is attached in tangency with other surfaces to be selected.
What do you think?

the problem usually are the areas with non constant thickness.

 

[flaviobrio88]

the problem usually are the areas with non constant thickness.

I mean, what operation would be difficult on a non-continuous thickness?

shell selection?

 

[flaviobrio88]

I understand only now, are you talking about fem calculations of how the sheet is doing during bending or stretching?

I didn't know what the shells hit.

 

[maxopus]

the problem usually are the areas with non constant thickness.

ok however in that case means that the piece was not modeled in sheet metal environment.
If it happens however the problem is easy to solve.
of the imported file I keep only the external surface and give it the desired thickness.
in phase of sheet metal conversion, transitions and discharges are generated correctly.

 

[Matteo]

I understand only now, are you talking about fem calculations of how the sheet is doing during bending or stretching?

I didn't know what the shells hit.

It was my fault that I put on prom:tongue:

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

in the example of spaceclaim hunter to solve the problem on the fold (e.g. external radius 4, thickness 2, inner radius 1) you can fill it with the button fill and remake the fold, or drag one of the two roundings and correct the value. the simplest solution, however, is to copy the external skin with copy and paste by double-clicking on one of the two surfaces (e.g. the external one), erase the solid and drag into one of the two directions (e.g. towards the inside) to give a thickness to the surface.
with the smo+ plugin just double click on the external skin, press alt+g and drag (automatically the solid will be deleted, created the surface, selected and with the drag command activated).
here a short demonstration also on the vased holes.View attachment sheet_metal_rebuild.zip

 

[Matteo]

in the example of spaceclaim hunter to solve the problem on the fold (e.g. external radius 4, thickness 2, inner radius 1) you can fill it with the button fill and remake the fold, or drag one of the two roundings and correct the value. the simplest solution, however, is to copy the external skin with copy and paste by double-clicking on one of the two surfaces (e.g. the external one), erase the solid and drag into one of the two directions (e.g. towards the inside) to give a thickness to the surface.
with the smo+ plugin just double click on the external skin, press alt+g and drag (automatically the solid will be deleted, created the surface, selected and with the drag command activated).
here a short demonstration also on the vased holes.View attachment 18996

not much sheet metal experience, but I confirm that even with sc "liscio" (not smo+) the thing is done without problems.

very interesting smo+, can I contact you privately for more "commercial" information?

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

not much sheet metal experience, but I confirm that even with sc "liscio" (not smo+) the thing is done without problems.

very interesting smo+, can I contact you privately for more "commercial" information?

"hai il mio skype;"