my opinion on creo by user catia

[ceschi1959]

baskets, what described above seem to me boolean operations between solids. Is that what you mean by multi-body?

but not only, this was the specific answer to the question asked me by 321i s. in general it means multibody any cad that can have more solid in the same part without these solids being together, united or not.
in nx there is no distinction, such as there is in other cad, between extrusion of subtraction or union or cutting. decide after possibly. you can, as I have shown in other circumstances, 'work' one or both solids before joining them or subtracting them.

I hope I explained.

Hi.

 

[calacc]

other question. the two solids of the previous example are two separate files in windows? Can they ever become?

 

[ceschi1959]

other question. the two solids of the previous example are two separate files in windows? Can they ever become?

absolutely no are two solids in the same part, I can become parts to whether or not connected to the main 'panettone' in the same file that becomes file of assembly with separate parts. nx files, having the same prt extension, can become assemblies, drafting, return to be part, become sheet metal and so on.

 

[calacc]

Well curious as a method. unique file extension and user-defined configuration when modeling. I think nx is the only one who does this

 

[Gabriele SWX]

Hello, everyone.
also solidworks does so, the multibody part is a unique file.
However turning the multibody part into a set is not a walk.

 

[calacc]

hello gabriele, however in swx file extensions change once you step from multi-body to axieme. If I'm not mistaken, they're from *.sldprt to *.sldasm. from what writes skulls seems that in nx there is only one extension for all files (always if I understood correctly)

 

[cacciatorino]

absolutely no are two solids in the same part, I can become parts to whether or not connected to the main 'panettone' in the same file that becomes file of assembly with separate parts. nx files, having the same prt extension, can become assemblies, drafting, return to be part, become sheet metal and so on.

It's a very convenient method of working, especially because you don't have to create a new file every time you create a new part or a new set (admitted to tell how it works). the only potential risk is to have the same part saved outside on the company server and saved even inside a higher level prt, which could create conflicts or disalignments, unless you use a pdm that keeps everything at bay.

 

[Gabriele SWX]

Yes, it is. the file extension is different.
for nx it seems to me that within one file you can save the whole project (tables, parts and assemblies), I say it seems to me why I never used it.

 

[cacciatorino]

Yes, it is. the file extension is different.
for nx it seems to me that within one file you can save the whole project (tables, parts and assemblies), I say it seems to me why I never used it.

so many years ago I used thinkdesign: if I don't remember there too, parts and assemblies had the same extension, and you could create a part or group and keep it inside the axieme (like a block of autocad) or save it as an external file and leave only a pointer in the separate file, like a x-ref of autocad and as is the standard modalities of the most popular current cads.
actually was a very comfortable mode: one of the things that slow down the workflow in solid edge and solidworks is just to have to save in the file system every part we go to create, we spend more time giving commands to the cad than thinking about what to plan.

 

[ceschi1959]

If you look herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwukqfde2maa video that I did taaanto long ago, you see that I leave from a file that is called top down nx; is a prt file (extension of all nx files) in which I designed a set of sketches and reference plans.
I create inside the file two 'empty' parts (so my file becomes a set), base_000 and top_000, I activate the part that interests me and lego (association) sketch or other to create geometry within the part.
nothing would have prevented me from modeling completely inside the top down nx file the geometries of the two pieces and then either keeping them in the same file or making them autonomous files or not in conjunction that is to do what I did at first.

 

[Er Presidente]

... because historical pro/e users most likely do not know or aborte syncona/context modeling

that sadness... that bad... that bad world...

 

[calacc]

because historical pro/e users most likely do not know or aborte synchronous/contextual modeling

in fact usually proceeds by degrees. for some products such as motors in fact modeling begins only after the models of oxage have been frozen.

 

[pritio72]

... then I quickly reconnect to this interesting discussion.
I started using cad 3d in a studio where there was pro-e version 2001. Fortunately, we went to the wf(2/34/5) and then to create 1. ptc used to model various plastics and modeling (blade/documentation of ect cables).
we say that having started from scratch I learned to model, make assembly following the style of ptc. big together with thousands of pieces never managed... I learned to use the pdm only as an external consultant.
I did 2 courses per catia (base modeling + surfaces) and I must say that at first I was struggling to understand the logic of the program; then with a little use and maybe an elastic mentality understands how it works.
definitely on the catia surfaces (just as I saw) has many more parameters of s.w. and ptc... then everything depends on the work you do.
currently use solidwork with pdm (modelling of particular plastics ect) and the transition from creo to solidwork was not traumatic.

turning various offices as a consultant and even in my former study who has always used for many years ptc tended to say that it was the best software cad (bla-bla-bla)...maybe to the albores was so, I don't know.

as personal experience using more cad 3d helped me a lot

 

[cad77]

Good evening by hooking me up to the discussion. I press that I come from solid edge-unigraphics environment then by necessity I had to adapt to various drawing programs that I found in the offices that I found myself.
In addition to passion I have always tried the various design programs not dwelling me in pure use but trying to sew them according to my needs.
I have to say that I create was the least intuitive one if he also has his merits. I am not here to say that there is one or worse of the others because each program has on the merits and defies but to say that I create is the best I ask myself if anyone who says it ever used other programs.
and I would like to quote what is said pritio72, if you have the possibility it is good to experience multiple programs so that maybe bring the positive (and more intuitive) things of a program also in others.

 

[calacc]

experience on multiple programs is certainly useful, professionally speaking. by metalmechanical I greatly prefer the experience on the "field" linked to the achievement of the performance on the products in the mechanics (but this is another speech). regarding the theme of intuition (or user-friendly, since it is a very fashionable speech) are skeptical because it is a very subjective thing; often they are only found commercials or mirrors for allodoles. Efficiency in workflow improves with daily training and practice. the fact of saying that a program is more intuitive than another, so I think it is conceptually wrong because it is linked to the user experience. an extra march that can have a program compared to the other are the possibilities of customization and configuration offered (because they intervene directly in the user workflow by lowering the times and costs), then we talk about creating macro, configuration menu (rebbon, menu button dx, etc...), possibility to configure products with axiemi management, then also other things...
and here there is open battle

 

[ziotoy]

Hi, I'd like to say mine too. as already said by some there is no perfect cad for everything. However there are some software that fit better to one industry rather than another. I, for example, have been using sheet metal moulds for several years. It's an explicit, so not parametric. What I care about is freedom. I think a good software should leave you the opportunity to focus exclusively on design and not on the rigid and careful use of the same to avoid problems... of the kind... if "place" a feature that happens?? if I renounce a file or worse move it to another folder??? body,part,multibody,assembly,drawing,10000 files :4404:
gentlemen, let's dedicate more to design and not to software...which then to the customer is what interests!
Say hi.

 

[320i S]

experience on multiple programs is certainly useful, professionally speaking. by metalmechanical I greatly prefer the experience on the "field" linked to the achievement of the performance on the products in the mechanics (but this is another speech). regarding the theme of intuition (or user-friendly, since it is a very fashionable speech) are skeptical because it is a very subjective thing; often they are only found commercials or mirrors for allodoles. Efficiency in workflow improves with daily training and practice. the fact of saying that a program is more intuitive than another, so I think it is conceptually wrong because it is linked to the user experience. an extra march that can have a program compared to the other are the possibilities of customization and configuration offered (because they intervene directly in the user workflow by lowering the times and costs), then we talk about creating macro, configuration menu (rebbon, menu button dx, etc...), possibility to configure products with axiemi management, then also other things...
and here there is open battle

Today the "intuitive" speech is an aspect now exclusively linked to the personal sphere/experience.

 

[320i S]

Hi, I'd like to say mine too. as already said by some there is no perfect cad for everything. However there are some software that fit better to one industry rather than another. I, for example, have been using sheet metal moulds for several years. It's an explicit, so not parametric. What I care about is freedom. I think a good software should leave you the opportunity to focus exclusively on design and not on the rigid and careful use of the same to avoid problems... of the kind... if "place" a feature that happens?? if I renounce a file or worse move it to another folder??? body,part,multibody,assembly,drawing,10000 files :4404:
gentlemen, let's dedicate more to design and not to software...which then to the customer is what interests!
Say hi.

attention, it is a mistake to think that a parametric is rigid "because it is the program that is rigid", a parametric arises so, just because it is required by the design in being that it is.
if you manage the initial design, development, production, history and other side aspects of a product even of few components or worse yet, of a family of products, use a non-parametric cad can bring you some rare initial benefit, then you only have to lose us in data accuracy.

the customer does not care what you do to get to the result, it affects the product and what service he has when he has your product.

 

[cacciatorino]

regarding the theme of intuition (or user-friendly, since it is a very fashionable speech) are skeptical because it is a very subjective thing; often they are only found commercials or mirrors for allodoles. Efficiency in workflow improves with daily training and practice. the fact of saying that a program is more intuitive than another, so I think it is conceptually wrong because it is linked to the user experience.

having worked long and deep with both the parametric and the contextual I feel like saying that it is not true that it is just a matter of habit: The parametric is like a car that goes 200 km/h but is slow to do the 0-100, the context is very fast to do the 0-100 but then at the most reaches 110-120.... depending on what we have to plan we would do well to choose one way or another. if the parametric was the answer for everything I think that the contextual cads would already have been buried for a long time, instead they still exist (volutely parametric background with history-based and contextual with direct-modeling, but I think we are understanding).

 

[Utente cancellato 70856]

I like old cads,pro catia I love them with their complicated procedures compared to direct,it stretches here,they don't give me satisfaction,with the old seems to return to draw on paper building the step piece by step applying the theory of geometry