new table existing similar

[cacciatorino]

Huh? ? But why do you have a particularist who makes you the food?
And I think it's dangerous? I find it an added value, but I have to open the model to make changes!:smile:

I tell you the question from my point of view (I, however, being free professional, normally do both modeling and table).

In the companies I work for, there is normally a qualified designer who deals with modeling and real design, and then there's the guy who takes care of making the food for the workshop. The motivation is purely economic, in the sense that it is wrong to pay a qualified resource like an engineer to do low-capacity jobs.

so usually almost never the designer and the designer are the same person and, since the designer is inexperienced or not very capable as a designer, it is good that he does not have the ability to modify the models created by the designer: at the limit can make any errors and inconsistencies present to the latter, but no more than that. so sincerely I am puzzled in the face of this possibility that pro/e leaves the designer: if it bans it a priori, swx allows it only as a corporate setting (by sys admin).

 

[maxopus]

I tell you the question from my point of view (I, however, being free professional, normally do both modeling and table).

In the companies I work for, there is normally a qualified designer who deals with modeling and real design, and then there's the guy who takes care of making the food for the workshop. The motivation is purely economic, in the sense that it is wrong to pay a qualified resource like an engineer to do low-capacity jobs.

so usually almost never the designer and the designer are the same person and, since the designer is inexperienced or not very capable as a designer, it is good that he does not have the ability to modify the models created by the designer: at the limit can make any errors and inconsistencies present to the latter, but no more than that. so sincerely I am puzzled in the face of this possibility that pro/e leaves the designer: if it bans it a priori, swx allows it only as a corporate setting (by sys admin).

from the wings, now it's okay but, to make a good pass for a defect...
to the particularist are given precise instructions: "Just put on the table, if you notice something wrong, call me and see it together," you're dealing with a designer, not with a "folgore" spoiler.
without talking about the fact that in a large company the changes are recorded and can be managed at the level of skeleton and on the skeleton you manage the rights of access to the changes.

 

[cacciatorino]

from the wings, now it's okay but, to make a good pass for a defect...
to the particularist are given precise instructions: "Just put on the table, if you notice something wrong, call me and see it together," you're dealing with a designer, not with a "folgore" spoiler.
without talking about the fact that in a large company the changes are recorded and can be managed at the level of skeleton and on the skeleton you manage the rights of access to the changes.

I was just saying that if and swx (not) allow such a thing is a design choice, and I explained the reasons. that the pro/e programmers think otherwise is great, however what is right and what is wrong will think with their head readers, without needing to add to every post that pro/e does has the truth, and that the other tools are all bad toys (discussed but this morning they made me raise badly, not you...).

 

[Tequila]

In the companies I work for, there is normally a qualified designer who deals with modeling and real design, and then there's the guy who takes care of making the food for the workshop. The motivation is purely economic, in the sense that it is wrong to pay a qualified resource like an engineer to do low-capacity jobs.

so usually almost never the designer and the designer are the same person....

In my case, I do both design and table, and calculations as far as I get there
where I work the technical office is just me, the colleagues I've had in the past were not so long.

sent by tablet icon tab a500 or smartphonne with tapatalk

 

[Er Presidente]

In my case, I do both design and table, and calculations as far as I get there
where I work the technical office is just me, the colleagues I've had in the past were not so long.

sent by tablet icon tab a500 or smartphonne with tapatalk

If one's a canaccio, he deserves to work alone! :biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

In my case, I do both design and table, and calculations as far as I get there
where I work the technical office is just me, the colleagues I've had in the past were not so long.

sent by tablet icon tab a500 or smartphonne with tapatalk

in all the pmes with which I had working relationships instead it works as I say: engineer to design and young new graduate to make the a4! :biggrin:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I tell you the question from my point of view (I, however, being free professional, normally do both modeling and table).

In the companies I work for, there is normally a qualified designer who deals with modeling and real design, and then there's the guy who takes care of making the food for the workshop. The motivation is purely economic, in the sense that it is wrong to pay a qualified resource like an engineer to do low-capacity jobs.

so usually almost never the designer and the designer are the same person and, since the designer is inexperienced or not very capable as a designer, it is good that he does not have the ability to modify the models created by the designer: at the limit can make any errors and inconsistencies present to the latter, but no more than that. so sincerely I am puzzled in the face of this possibility that pro/e leaves the designer: if it bans it a priori, swx allows it only as a corporate setting (by sys admin).

in fact I have made it to you for this reason because I know that in some companies (poor fortunately) there is still this mentality retrogada designer-designer pulls lines alias unscathed, that could be good 10-15 years ago when still cad3d spoke little and few companies had the opportunity to invest on a 3d, we say that I accepted it as reasoning at least, but today
all 3d parametric are centric model, the table is an dependent object and is only derived from how you built the particular 3d.
If I have to requote everything in 2d every time... risk first of all errors and secondly I lose much more time to finish the project, when companies will open a little more eyes and invest on personal culture will also add 3d annotations and for so many things there will no longer need to put on the table.

 

[cacciatorino]

in fact I have made it to you for this reason because I know that in some companies (poor fortunately) there is still this mentality retrogada designer-designer pulls lines alias unscathed, that could be good 10-15 years ago when still cad3d spoke little and few companies had the opportunity to invest on a 3d, we say that I accepted it as reasoning at least, but today
all 3d parametric are centric model, the table is an dependent object and is only derived from how you built the particular 3d.
If I have to requote everything in 2d every time... risk first of all errors and secondly I lose much more time to finish the project, when companies will open a little more eyes and invest on personal culture will also add 3d annotations and for so many things there will no longer need to put on the table.

Wait, we're confusing two different things:

the "recover quotas" and the pmi (annotations from 3d to 2d) there are also on if and swx and in osd, that is to quote the table taking the size from the sketches and features, which though I do not use as the result I do not find it satisfactory: the odds that serve those who have to make the piece to the tool machine are never those used to model.
what is not in itself or can be or not in swx is the fact of being able to edit the quota on the drawing and consequently change the parent model.

Last thing: I don't agree that those who design should also put on the table. are jobs that require different levels of competence: When the experienced designer finished modeling 3d of a machine, it's cheaper for the company to dedicate to the next 3d modeling, otherwise the company should hire another expert designer while the first one is busy making the boards. Now we know that the cost of the expert designer will be at least twice that of the neo-diplomate designer, and so...
I have to do this because I have to provide the customer with the complete package, although rare times it happens that I only get bought the 3d design and then put them on the table if it takes the cient internally (or even makes it do it in exotic places like Romania et similar :biggrin: ).

 

[Er Presidente]

It's the table being prehistoric stuff.
:biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

It's the table being prehistoric stuff.
:biggrin:

e' il present of those who make machinery and plants. I don't doubt that in the future it's going to be residual, but for now in my singing paper.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

e' il present of those who make machinery and plants. I don't doubt that in the future it's going to be residual, but for now in my singing paper.

I don't doubt it is present and not only in the machinery, but the present is also that you work alone and do not have this "problem".

 

[cacciatorino]

I don't doubt it is present and not only in the machinery, but the present is also that you work alone and do not have this "problem".

I don't understand, I'm sorry, you mean I don't have a problem with cad-cam? It is true, but sometimes it is done, let us mean: if you have to make a cradle of support for a front panel of washing machine or the pedestal for an index machine that treats a "stiloso" object that you cannot scratch, then step to the miller what in jargon is called "mathematic", but are things that (me) happen again rarely.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I don't understand, I'm sorry, you mean I don't have a problem with cad-cam? It is true, but sometimes it is done, let us mean: if you have to make a cradle of support for a front panel of washing machine or the pedestal for an index machine that treats a "stiloso" object that you cannot scratch, then step to the miller what in jargon is called "mathematic", but are things that (me) happen again rarely.

no hunting, I meant that you don't have under someone who makes you the masses on the table and that you don't have to touch the model, you manage everything so for you the problem doesn't really exist, I never talked about cad-cam.

 

[cacciatorino]

no hunting, I meant that you don't have under someone who makes you the masses on the table and that you don't have to touch the model, you manage everything so for you the problem doesn't really exist, I never talked about cad-cam.

Sorry I understood we were talking about the obsolescence of making the tables, sorry.

I don't have the problem if not because of the fact that as I told you I don't usually use the quotas because when I put the quotas I put them in the perspective of production and/or testing, which are different from those used to model the piece, usually.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

Sorry I understood we were talking about the obsolescence of making the tables, sorry.

I don't have the problem if not because of the fact that as I told you I don't usually use the quotas because when I put the quotas I put them in the perspective of production and/or testing, which are different from those used to model the piece, usually.

de nada...
Clearly, the testing quotas could be different, but those of production could make them coincide exactly, if you know how to build the piece you do it without problems to respect the manufacturing process, here is the real difference between a designer and a simple designer. :wink:

 

[marcof]

video please... stick to the test, at my high end I just needed a save by name, so just say fregnacce.:smile:

This week, which for me ends in the morning :frown: (but I hope not) I only have a phone and a connection to charcoal.
If you and that other ricamamaronia puntocroce:smile: You can wait for me to make the video and some other ones proposed for the sweep.
Of course you can't ask me to do clik on Slave by name, I will click where I want and I will copy you to the flight side and table, adding the suffix "tiè" :tongue:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

This week, which for me ends in the morning :frown: (but I hope not) I only have a phone and a connection to charcoal.
If you and that other ricamamaronia puntocroce:smile: You can wait for me to make the video and some other ones proposed for the sweep.
Of course you can't ask me to do clik on Slave by name, I will click where I want and I will copy you to the flight side and table, adding the suffix "tiè" :tongue:

I'm not a hoof who needs to be paid in advance.
ps: I don't give a damn what you put on me, that's not the test.:biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

video please... stick to the test, at my high end I just needed a save by name, so just say fregnacce.:smile:

I was lost!

Can you make the same change in mass form? ie: you have to make a machine similar to an existing one, with 150 drawings to make the copy connected to the new solids.
Do you have to save by name one at a time? or do you have a tool, part of pro/e (i.e. no pdm), that allows you to do so? if and swx solve the problem with revision managers and solidworks explorer.

 

[marcof]

1) bidirectional change can be dangerous because it allows the particularist to change models

Huh? ? But why do you have a particularist who makes you the food?
And I think it's dangerous? I find it an added value, but I have to open the model to make changes!:smile:

in the case of the video you posted the 3d model is so simple that you can actually change it even at the table.
but if that model is inside a set then change it to the table... I don't need to add anything else.
also modify a component within the 2d view of the axieme that contains it is not free from errors that in the 2d can escape while in the 3d no.
changing a two-dimensional view is like working at the tecnigraph: in addition to having to reason as at the time of the three views 2d and a section, you are not sure that the thousand thousand members possibly connected can then digest that modification.
iho the changes in a cad3d are made in the main environment where the component is inserted, being able to check then the correctness of operation of cinematisms, verification interferences etc.

in the case of a plate with four holes as the only component of the whole project is also fine the cheese card :smile:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

in the case of the video you posted the 3d model is so simple that you can actually change it even at the table.
but if that model is inside a set then change it to the table... I don't need to add anything else.
also modify a component within the 2d view of the axieme that contains it is not free from errors that in the 2d can escape while in the 3d no.
changing a two-dimensional view is like working at the tecnigraph: in addition to having to reason as at the time of the three views 2d and a section, you are not sure that the thousand thousand members possibly connected can then digest that modification.
iho the changes in a cad3d are made in the main environment where the component is inserted, being able to check then the correctness of operation of cinematisms, verification interferences etc.

in the case of a plate with four holes as the only component of the whole project is also fine the cheese card :smile:

What are you talking about? Do you want me to show you a product configurator? and I will show you how they change: parts-subassiemi-assiemi from a simple table editing? How does the change arise on all parties involved?
from the marcofs really, let's forget... It's useless for me to spend time explaining it to you.