• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

project lightning

  • Thread starter Thread starter TechnoStudio
  • Start date Start date
practically says that after buying cocreate they understood that they did not understand a saw, now they throw everything at sea and the licenses of procose will be withdrawn for free in exchange for a license of cocreate.
the whole system will be based on a contextual management and will be abolished all "features".
anyone looking for words, history, features, parameter will be redirected directly to the suvcs site and will be blocked the axioms with code "myicihieicihioifiai" and it will be necessary to call assistance to unlock everything after proper brainwash with public autocritics.

p.s.: There are rumors of crazy sellers that give in return two suvcs licenses to put their hands on the "light".
:biggrin:
 
I know that in wf6 there will be explicit modeling commands both in 3d and in 2d.
more so.
 
tecnico_plast said:
I understand, but maybe not...
Click to expand...
explicit modeling is for me one of those caxxates who invented cad manufacturers to please utons.

all started from the fact that those of the siemens (at the time ugs) looking at cocreate they said, why do not we do a cad that works both in parametric and in explicit ?
some boss said... brilliant, and they started their adventure.
I think they're licking their wounds.
I would like to know how much this implementation cost them, how much more it will cost to put it in place, and how much they got in terms of turnover from this operation.

In order to give a semblance of flexibility and to want to follow the fashions of the market, it goes behind this kind of demands.
The only thing I think it's useful for, I said it here a couple of years ago, is to fix some files for molds, for the rest it's just fuffe.
two years ago it seemed that the world of design had to suffer an epochal revolution, with high-sounding names and with trumpets it was announced the birth of the products of the future.
We're still here, and I don't think it's changed a lot in two years.

a project is made of geometries and data, and those or them fit into the system or nisba.

the project lightning I don't know if it consists of this, I think there is something more than two commands shorten and stretch, already present in the wf5 with the dynamic edit.
 
maxopus said:
the project lightning I don't know if it consists of this, I think there is something more than two commands shorten and stretch, already present in the wf5 with the dynamic edit.
Click to expand...
Actually, the siemens st is not just a stretch and an extension. There's constraints and parameters, but there's no more model history.

I make an example: you can tell the cad to hold two parallel faces at a distance of 22 mm each other, but the thing does not depend on the fact that you have an extrusion 80 mm long and the other 58 long, but semplicmente insert a quota "22 mm" between the two faces. So it happens that by ironing one face, the other goes after him while keeping the bond imposed. this applies to many other types of bond obviously. the idea in itself is great according to me, and allows you to take a real step ahead of the modeling based on features and sketches. basically the constraints are more "philosophically" oriented to the project function, instead of having to ingegnate to build a series of processes that then will allow us to achieve the purpose of the project.

This is valid in theory, because then hearing around and reading in the various forums, it seems that the siemens implementation of this methodology is still quite immature: above all it is very difficult to have a clear idea of the active constraints on the model, so it happens very often that complex models end up having conflicts and result in the end no more 'changeable. It also seems that if the user wants to bind and parameterize the whole model, instead of leaving the free faces to be dragged as in cocreate, the model itself reaches levels of computational weight much greater than a similar based on the traditional workflow.

Then I remain perplexed in the face of work modalities that admit that the operator can work without due precision, even having seen what the "caddists" are capable of doing working with cocreate (not that the instrument is imprecise in itself, it is that for how it is conceived it leaves the operator the possibility of being imprecise and sometimes it happens that there are those who take advantage....).
 
cacciatorino said:
Actually, the siemens st is not just a stretch and an extension. There's constraints and parameters, but there's no more model history.

I make an example: you can tell the cad to hold two parallel faces at a distance of 22 mm each other, but the thing does not depend on the fact that you have an extrusion 80 mm long and the other 58 long, but semplicmente insert a quota "22 mm" between the two faces. So it happens that by ironing one face, the other goes after him while keeping the bond imposed. this applies to many other types of bond obviously. the idea in itself is great according to me, and allows you to take a real step ahead of the modeling based on features and sketches. basically the constraints are more "philosophically" oriented to the project function, instead of having to ingegnate to build a series of processes that then will allow us to achieve the purpose of the project.

This is valid in theory, because then hearing around and reading in the various forums, it seems that the siemens implementation of this methodology is still quite immature: above all it is very difficult to have a clear idea of the active constraints on the model, so it happens very often that complex models end up having conflicts and result in the end no more 'changeable. It also seems that if the user wants to bind and parameterize the whole model, instead of leaving the free faces to be dragged as in cocreate, the model itself reaches levels of computational weight much greater than a similar based on the traditional workflow.

Then I remain perplexed in the face of work modalities that admit that the operator can work without due precision, even having seen what the "caddists" are capable of doing working with cocreate (not that the instrument is imprecise in itself, it is that for how it is conceived it leaves the operator the possibility of being imprecise and sometimes it happens that there are those who take advantage....).
Click to expand...
hi hunting, the problem is right there ... the constraints you still have to determine if you want to give a little decency to the project.
and if you have to build geometries and define constraints I do not see what time is saved with this approach.

not to have the model tree, and therefore not to have so many relations father/son, it does not seem like a genial, it means to entrust to the good fortune the control of a lot of relationships ... would return to the same method that you had with the 2d ... and I do not regret those times.

the day when they will show me, on a mediumly complex project, chronometer to the hand, that this system is more efficient than the other, then I will take note of it and I will make so much hat.
 
not to have the model tree, and therefore not to have so many relations father/son, it does not seem like a genial, it means to entrust to the good fortune the control of a lot of relationships ... would return to the same method that you had with the 2d ... and I do not regret those times.
Click to expand...
relationships are there, but they are between the faces and not between the processing, and therefore they are not chronologically related.
the day when they will show me, on a mediumly complex project, chronometer to the hand, that this system is more efficient than the other, then I will take note of it and I will make so much hat.
Click to expand...
In fact, the fact that it's faster, even if I think it's just a marketing find, except in the reconstruction of complex models where the difference is actually remarkable.

The fact of eliminating history may have its intelligence, it's just that it has to be well studied. the thing is influential for simple models, but for the classic model " 12-cylinder engine clamping" with 2500 ficiurs, perhaps this methodology without history is the right approach, given what happens if you go to change one of the functions at the root of the model with outcomes sometimes unpredictable on the reconstruction of the same, especially if who is changing the model is not the same operator that created it... I have often decided to remake models of myself, rather than lose an hour trying to figure out how he reasoned who sent it to me.
 
maxopus said:
a project is made of geometries and data, and those or them fit into the system or nisba.
Click to expand...
Right.

if we talk about design maybe quotas and parameters count little, and fast modeling controls can also be an advantage.
 
tecnico_plast said:
Right.

if we talk about design maybe quotas and parameters count little, and fast modeling controls can also be an advantage.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if I insist, but there's a bottom misunderstanding:

the st of siemens (and I also bet p.l. of ptc) is not a faster modeling method, but simply a different way of binding the geometry of the model. a nose light should be a more logical and functional method than what we are used to, although perhaps still immature.

This method of work is carried as a result a greater speed of reconstruction of the model in case of change (and other various problems), but it does not seem to me the main point for 95% of users.
 
Then maybe I didn't understand 100% of what it is.

However, by reason of logic, I do not think they can totally overwhelm the method of work, and in any case they could only make improvements, so hopefully, we just have to wait for some official notes to understand more.
 
the explicit changes in wf6 will keep cmq the parameters of the model.
It is a warp-like deformation feature that allows you to rotate and translate selected geometries.
 
project lighting is not to be understood as the st of nx.
fundamentally it is based on intent references, so it will never completely escape from the parametric, it will exploit the geometric topology rather, so it will give more freedom and more paths to the user, if you choose to change it via parameters or via "explicit" but I repeat always maintaining the parametric bond, not so as st.

already in the wf5 is present, only when activated that fateful command, you can no longer save. . like manikin to mean us.

It is not that ptc has bought co-create only for the user park, but for a clear commercial strategy, it is not just marketing.

you will see when the time will be the extreme advantages that this fusion will give...:wink:
 
Parametric_Ozzy said:
but I repeat always maintaining the parametric bond, not so as st.
Click to expand...
only for precision: the st of siemens is parametric, in the sense that I can impose mathematical relationships between the variables of the model. It is not "feature based" as we are used to think of the parametric cads, the parameterization is obtained by other routes (the pmi quotas and the "live rules", that is the geometric bonds between edges and shapes of the model). (I hope I didn't say a solemn stupid thing, right now I can't verify. . . )

We will see in the future what approach will have been better.
 
hopefully cmq that for project lighting does not mean only this new feature of explicit modeling but there is much more. of improvements to do, to make the job easier, there would be a vague.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 0 (members: 0, guests: 0)
Back
Top