parametric modeling

[marcof]

and in these cases I have to redefine those that, for various reasons, fail even if not directly involved in the change. but they had taken, perhaps of their own spontaneous initiative, references in the modified features and so... hours to solve the failures.... idem in the assemblies, when the constraints fail because you have eliminated a ray or revised some features of the "coinvolt" components.

speaking of assemblies, frankly I can't understand why first you ask a system to relate two or more components on the basis of their geometric characteristics, then you complain if, erasing those geometries, the system signals that you can no longer solve the task that tu you had assigned
I don't see where the problem is, if you change the geometry, you must eventually redefine the assembly relationships that the geometry was driving.
in a contextual I don't think that, even with all the beautiful handles for the wheel-mode and the functions for the editing of the faces, make a change and turn the end of a round-to-square tree, then the bearing that before was mounted on nice quiet you row accordingly solving the problem of a "light" conflict of geometry.
Perhaps it is only a question of learning to manage a complex project so that in the early stages it is easily editable radically. If then the customer first asks for a typographic printing machine and then, since there are rollers, he claims to turn it half project into a cold rolling train I think more than the cad of the future serves mary poppins.
Is it not that by chance you claim the full bang and the drunk wife? I wouldn't risk having the cask filled with tavrnello for the moment, I would be satisfied with the only drunk wife as a rule of art... :smile:

Hi.

p.s. the rule of art would then be the knowledge of the products that you design and the software that you use...

 

[MBT]

speaking of assemblies, frankly I can't understand why first you ask a system to relate two or more components on the basis of their geometric characteristics, then you complain if, erasing those geometries, the system signals that you can no longer solve the task that tu you had assigned
I don't see where the problem is, if you change the geometry, you must eventually redefine the assembly relationships that the geometry was driving.
in a contextual I don't think that, even with all the beautiful handles for the wheel-mode and the functions for the editing of the faces, make a change and turn the end of a round-to-square tree, then the bearing that before was mounted on nice quiet you row accordingly solving the problem of a "light" conflict of geometry.
Perhaps it is only a question of learning to manage a complex project so that in the early stages it is easily editable radically. If then the customer first asks for a typographic printing machine and then, since there are rollers, he claims to turn it half project into a cold rolling train I think more than the cad of the future serves mary poppins.
Is it not that by chance you claim the full bang and the drunk wife? I wouldn't risk having the cask filled with tavrnello for the moment, I would be satisfied with the only drunk wife as a rule of art... :smile:

Hi.

p.s. the rule of art would then be the knowledge of the products that you design and the software that you use...

but no, clearly I did not mean that the bearing must adapt and turn from round to square.
Moreover, if I gate a cylindrical extrusion, the piece that was mounted on it has the right to get into and protest.
I'm shocked when I create a radius where there was no need to have a warning before because there is no spigolo anymore. . .
I'm pissed because if I change a "fascinated" to "allined" bond, it's possible that I should have warnings for the constraints that no longer know how to update?
If I have to make a folded sheet, do I have to design the sheet before I do it? ?
because the construction I decide to do inevitably precludes certain directions of change. . .

 

[marcof]

but no, clearly I did not mean that the bearing must adapt and turn from round to square.

Of the truth, but would you like it?? :smile:

I'm shocked when I create a radius where there was no need to have a warning before because there is no spigolo anymore. . .

I don't understand why it shouldn't be reported since that corner obviously needed because tu You told him to support us or send something else to a certain distance.
Maybe if you do a practical example, I can figure out where the problem is, because I say what it seems to me that the assembly module of a context should work the same way.

I'm pissed because if I change a "fascinated" to "allined" bond, it's possible that I should have warnings for the constraints that no longer know how to update?

What kind of program do you use? :biggrin: joke aside, in the example that we quoted and aligned in what differ? because there are problems of cascading constraints that can no longer be updated, you just need to mess up the axieme of bad eh...

If I have to make a folded sheet, do I have to design the sheet before I do it? ?

I press that I don't use the sheets if not every death of pope, but with swx you can do a part as solid and then convert it after in sheet, or maybe I don't understand well what you mean?

because the construction I decide to do inevitably precludes certain directions of change. . .

If you refer to bottm-up axioms, I just don't understand what the problem or the difference with a context: in both you tell a pin to be concentric to a hole and if you make changes to the bonds together the reactions will be similar in the two systems.
If you refer to a top-down set the problem doesn't exist because with a contextual that approach you don't have so you put them in the grip and change a vague of components to avoid interference and what else.
qunato instead concerns the modeling of parts in a contextual, or better than a system without history of machining, I'm afraid of the idea that with a click you can transform the fusion of the monoblock of a motor in a sphere, save by mistake, and find yourself with a sphere to enter the hood of the car:smile:

Hi.

 

[maxopus]

take it as an opinion for comparison.
It's also a question of how a cad is built.
in pro/e the rays are influential, in the sense that if you add a radius the relationships are preserved.
Afterwards I will post an example film.
When I used think I had the same problem as you, add a ray and skip assembly reports.

 

[maxopus]

That's what you meant?
www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/raggi01/raggi01.html

 

[sampom]

That's what you meant?
www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/raggi01/raggi01.html

I don't know if I may have misunderstood biggrin. .
but in that way, modeling together the second parallelepipedo deriving it from the offset of the chain of edges of the first, also solidworks behaves like this and gives no problem with the subsequent addition of fittings (equal to your video in short).

the problem arises when those two parts have "separated and distinct" and you want to assemble them in bottom-up. if to relate them with the couplings used as reference the edges and then in the parts those edges turn them into fittings, the axieme signals the error because precisely it does not find the (the) edge of reference.
but in top-down (as I seem to have understood from your video) this does not happen, the system "remember" the initial sketch geometry and all row smooth.

if I misinterpreted correct me. .

greetings
Marco:smile:

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

what the president meant is simply that the models are more "intelligent".

from a finite parametric file with its beautiful history, repair it according to a certain topological philosophy then based on final geometry, but maintaining the association created initially as it is made by parameters.
it would be nice to say to the parametric:
look that the geometry generated by the sketch nr.1 of a model tree consisting of 400 features, with 10 driving quotas, must become geometry nr. 300 and must be guided. . .
idem for a contextual but on the contrary, if you will arrive at this then maybe we parametric and you contextual will be more "vicini" and we will speak the same language.
but I think it's still too premature and very difficult.
Of course it would be the best and I hope it will come.

Greetings:

 

[maxopus]

I don't know if I may have misunderstood biggrin. .
but in that way, modeling together the second parallelepipedo deriving it from the offset of the chain of edges of the first, also solidworks behaves like this and gives no problem with the subsequent addition of fittings (equal to your video in short).

the problem arises when those two parts have "separated and distinct" and you want to assemble them in bottom-up. if to relate them with the couplings used as reference the edges and then in the parts those edges turn them into fittings, the axieme signals the error because precisely it does not find the (the) edge of reference.
but in top-down (as I seem to have understood from your video) this does not happen, the system "remember" the initial sketch geometry and all row smooth.

if I misinterpreted correct me. .

greetings
Marco:smile:

hi sampom also in the way you indicated the positioning in pro/e remains consistent and without errors.
between a little place the connection to the sample footage.

Here he is.www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/raggi02/raggi02.html

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I don't know if I may have misunderstood biggrin. .
but in that way, modeling together the second parallelepipedo deriving it from the offset of the chain of edges of the first, also solidworks behaves like this and gives no problem with the subsequent addition of fittings (equal to your video in short).

the problem arises when those two parts have "separated and distinct" and you want to assemble them in bottom-up. if to relate them with the couplings used as reference the edges and then in the parts those edges turn them into fittings, the axieme signals the error because precisely it does not find the (the) edge of reference.
but in top-down (as I seem to have understood from your video) this does not happen, the system "remember" the initial sketch geometry and all row smooth.

if I misinterpreted correct me. .

greetings
Marco:smile:

Yes, but the video is not exactly top-down...

 

[marcof]

hi sampom also in the way you indicated the positioning in pro/e remains consistent and without errors.
between a little place the connection to the sample footage.

Here he is.www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/raggi02/raggi02.html

in swx is reported error because after the connection the reference geometry that had been used is missing. to me it would seem a sensible behavior and I would like to understand why pro/e si ne "stracatafotte" of the removal of the edge.
is it a peculiarity linked only to the fitting feature or does it work so even if that edge eliminates it with a cut feature?
if those two plates merge them by matching the faces, then on one of the two sides extend add material on one of the reference faces absorbing completely the original face that was bound in the axieme, in that case it still works or signals you error?

Hi.

 

[maxopus]

in swx is reported error because after the connection the reference geometry that had been used is missing. to me it would seem a sensible behavior and I would like to understand why pro/e si ne "stracatafotte" of the removal of the edge.
is it a peculiarity linked only to the fitting feature or does it work so even if that edge eliminates it with a cut feature?
if those two plates merge them by matching the faces, then on one of the two sides extend add material on one of the reference faces absorbing completely the original face that was bound in the axieme, in that case it still works or signals you error?

Hi.

marco is a feature identification issue (or feature id).
in pro/e the edges and surfaces deriving from any feature have their own id.
when the ids are simply hidden and preserved.
this also applies to cutting features.

 

[marcof]

marco is a feature identification issue (or feature id).
in pro/e the edges and surfaces deriving from any feature have their own id.
when the ids are simply hidden and preserved.
this also applies to cutting features.

but then we do that by hypothesis departs from one side to that it is a cube and that in the axieme it represents the maximum encumbrance of a certain component and to this cube constraints on faces and edges other components. if you start modeling your cube by eliminating features (extrusions and fittings) all the faces and the starting edges your set remains bound to the geometry that is at the beginning of the model history?

Hi.

 

[maxopus]

but then we do that by hypothesis departs from one side to that it is a cube and that in the axieme it represents the maximum encumbrance of a certain component and to this cube constraints on faces and edges other components. if you start modeling your cube by eliminating features (extrusions and fittings) all the faces and the starting edges your set remains bound to the geometry that is at the beginning of the model history?

Hi.

I do evidence and place

 

[Matteo]

but then we do that by hypothesis departs from one side to that it is a cube and that in the axieme it represents the maximum encumbrance of a certain component and to this cube constraints on faces and edges other components. if you start modeling your cube by eliminating features (extrusions and fittings) all the faces and the starting edges your set remains bound to the geometry that is at the beginning of the model history?

Hi.

In fact, it is not always possible to maintain the association in cases such as what you mentioned (proe/swx/spaceclaim but also, I think, of any other cad)... it is also true that they are situations to which you can remedy (for example using plans and axes built in the right "moment" before adding other features you eat geometry).

 

[maxopus]

Here is an example:
two more cubes are placed on the brown cube.
one is placed by means of edges, the other by means of surfaces.
the brown cube is finally applied a cut that should eliminate the edges and contact surfaces.
placements do not fail.
www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/cut_spigoli/cut_spigoli.html

 

[sampom]

Here is an example:
two more cubes are placed on the brown cube.
one is placed by means of edges, the other by means of surfaces.
the brown cube is finally applied a cut that should eliminate the edges and contact surfaces.
placements do not fail.
www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/cut_spigoli/cut_spigoli.html

I got it.

before starting with the 3d (and then "buttarmi" on swx) I had seen the work proe and I had loved it very much; for what little I understood (.. and I understand :biggrin I found it (strangely?) very intuitive, "easy" to follow. even then seeing here on the forum and trying a demonstration version my first impressions were always confirmed, so that I continue not to explain "the aversion" of the many detractors. bho? to me always looks like a great software cad.

However:
ok, you have completely twisted the geometry of the support part and constraints and relationships have not been affected; You put that after a long time you get that coup file back and you don't remember that you left a simple cube. you want to go over the matings you used and the reference entities; when you search/reopen the feature (I explain?) what shows you the program? Can you trace back to the reference faces/pigols that are now gone? So maybe change those matings?

If I say chestnuts stop me now:redface::biggrin:

greetings
Mar

 

[marcof]

Here is an example:
two more cubes are placed on the brown cube.
one is placed by means of edges, the other by means of surfaces.
the brown cube is finally applied a cut that should eliminate the edges and contact surfaces.
placements do not fail.
www.aureaservizi.com/archive/filmed/cut_spigoli/cut_spigoli.html

all clear, thank you
I have to think about it to understand the benefits. for the moment it seems at least "dangerous" to be able to eliminate faces that in the axieme serve to bind other components even if it is true that the constraints can always be redefined by choosing other geometric references.

Hi.

 

[Giorgio Mandelli]

take it as an opinion for comparison.
It's also a question of how a cad is built.
in pro/e the rays are influential, in the sense that if you add a radius the relationships are preserved.
Afterwards I will post an example film.
When I used think I had the same problem as you, add a ray and skip assembly reports.

Good evening to all,
what maxopus writes about thinkdesign is right if we talk about thinkdesign v. 9.0 of 2003. I am pleased to refute what is indicated with a video that shows that relationships are kept compared to the features inserted
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=j3rub90xwhat writes instead marcof is interesting; a "warning" to video that reports one or more changes is not quite useful

 

[maxopus]

Good evening to all,
what maxopus writes about thinkdesign is right if we talk about thinkdesign v. 9.0 of 2003. I am pleased to refute what is indicated with a video that shows that relationships are kept compared to the features inserted
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=j3rub90xwhat writes instead marcof is interesting; a "warning" to video that reports one or more changes is not quite useful

hi giorgio, I used think until 2006 (it seems to me it was 2006.2) and the problems were still there.
I kindly ask you, if possible, to upload the video to a different site (youtube for example).
I don't like attempts to install players or executables I don't need.
However if think design has solved the problem pleases me, your users will be happy with that.

 

[cacciatorino]

I kindly ask you, if possible, to upload the video to a different site (youtube for example).
I don't like attempts to install players or executables I don't need.
.

In fact it is not necessary to install anything, it is enough to rewrite the downloading of the ex and then reclick again on the start of the video.