project lightning

[tecnico_plast]

excuse the question perhaps too trivial, but what do you mean by explicit modeling?

from here you can see the replay of the event:http://events.cramerwebcast.com/ptc/20101028/video/default.htm

 

[cacciatorino]

you see three very interesting things around 50 and 60 and 70 minutes:

The first is direct-modeling: the user can change the piece by twisting etcetc, but everything is captured as features in the history tree, invisibly to the user. the tree will normally be hidden, but the user can open the model in parametric mode and work in a classic way, finding all the features tree as if the model was built in a traditional way.

The second is the mode of editing of imported files: made the example of a 3d iron (together) which seemed to be taken from cocreate weight and put into creo, but without clarifying if then these changes are saved as features in the model.

The third is a new system to implement a product configurator, very visual, nice!

 

[Matteo]

excuse the question perhaps too trivial, but what do you mean by explicit modeling?

explicit modeling (or direct or synchronized):
model (initial geometry) > geometric transformation (tira, spin, move, wheel) > model (final geometry)
implied modeling (or feature-based, function-based):
model (initial geometry(features) > change of the parameters of the functions > model (final geometry (features) the difference lies in the words "geographical transformation" compared to "modification of parameters of functions".

In reality there are cases where the two things can coincide, but normally they are two distinct worlds.

from here you can see the replay of the event:http://events.cramerwebcast.com/ptc/20101028/video/default.htm

I was impressed by the image of the condemned... ptc/proe that was the hard and pure parametric (with advantages and disadvantages).... In short, the prisoners in orange are the ptc users up to wildfire 5??? I feel like a questionable marketing maneuver.

I hope this is a real enrichment and not a "edulcorate" version of proes.

 

[cacciatorino]

To me he made the image of the condemned... ptc/proe that was the hard and pure parametric (with advantages and disadvantages).... In short, the prisoners in orange are the ptc users up to wildfire 5??? I feel like a questionable marketing maneuver.

on this I have silent for charity of homeland, they will have been advised by the same advertising agency that has taken care of the passage of the apple from cpu ibm to those intel...

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

creo is the answer to all problems of design and data sharing, absolute freedom between parametric and explicit world, no data loss, all interoperable, even in the 2d world!
Finally the explicit-parametric fusion was born, with all the pros of the first and the second.
the user can only choose and will no longer be bound by the system he uses, he will not have to take a path because obliged by the program.
new era....:tongue:

 

[cacciatorino]

creo is the answer to all problems of design and data sharing, absolute freedom between parametric and explicit world, no data loss, all interoperable, even in the 2d world!
Finally the explicit-parametric fusion was born, with all the pros of the first and the second.

What do you mean?

Does it matter metadata from other cad? Is he able to preserve the model/table association? Do you keep the bonds together?

If you don't do these things, interoperability is still far away, and you don't get by inserting a new method of surface manipulation, which is just a first step in this direction.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

What do you mean?

Does it matter metadata from other cad? Is he able to preserve the model/table association? Do you keep the bonds together?

If you don't do these things, interoperability is still far away, and you don't get by inserting a new method of surface manipulation, which is just a first step in this direction.

putroppo I cannot answer these questions for reasons clearly related to marketing ptc.
But if you look well at the presentation footage, some answers you can have on your own.

 

[Matteo]

putroppo I cannot answer these questions for reasons clearly related to marketing ptc.
But if you look well at the presentation footage, some answers you can have on your own.

Hey, Ozzy, don't be a mystery, I'm curious!

a question: can it be that I create is "parametric" but not "feature based"?

 

[tecnico_plast]

Now I'm beginning to understand, but honestly until I have a way to get rid of it, I'm not sure I understand what I think I understand:

on the scene of the prisoners, I think it's just a "actual" finding, which everyone can interpret in a way.

 

[tecnico_plast]

looking at the presentation, from min 47 to 54, I understood many things:smile:

 

[Er Presidente]

I was of your opinion when the st came out, but then I changed my mind when I realized that it is possible to bind the surfaces even by explicitly shaping.

with the parameter based on the history of operations, the final solid is, as we all know, the result of successive additions or subtracts of volume, which are related to each other by constraints and "parameters" precisely.

in the st of siemens instead, the constraints are between the geometrical entities (faces) of the model (parallelism, concentricity, offset, etc.), and not between the sequences of operations chronolgicamente odinate. precisely because of this absence of the sorting aspect we talk about "sincronous". Surely this new ptc methodology will also allow this possibility, which if you think about it is a much more natural and intuitive way of imposing geometric constraints on the model. I think it'll be hard to get used to, but then they'll appreciate the benefits.

What can I say?
you have centered the problem and the solution!
:smile:

 

[Er Presidente]

I can leave happy, the light is with you!
:biggrin:

 

[cacciatorino]

which:
http://www.deelip.com/?p=4468some considerations of the usual deelip menezes, not particularly impressed but respectfully waiting to understand more.

 

[Er Presidente]

Unfortunately cocreate and osd die.
It's sad, but that's it.

 

[cacciatorino]

Unfortunately cocreate and osd die.
It's sad, but that's it.

But you say they're gonna have to obey all the companies that use cocreate to eat soup or skip the window? I think the products will coexist for a long time, if the designer removes me10 or annotation that strikes!

 

[Er Presidente]

But you say they're gonna have to obey all the companies that use cocreate to eat soup or skip the window? I think the products will coexist for a long time, if the designer removes me10 or annotation that strikes!

resistere, resistere, resistere...

 

[maxopus]

resistere, resistere, resistere...

do not take it wrong ... think that co created will live in pro/e and vice versa.
you will have the best kernel on the market and you can choose whether to play in parametric or explicit.

but did I see well or did I not understand a mass?
Explicit models and find the functions in the tree if you switch to the parametric mode?

 

[cacciatorino]

but did I see well or did I not understand a mass?
Explicit models and find the functions in the tree if you switch to the parametric mode?

By reading deelip, it should be like this:

create proof to translate explicit processing into features. If he can't do it because he can't find logic or because it's too complicated, he puts it in a special box dedicated to everything that won't be parametric. It will be like the solidedge-st3, half synchronous and half parametric shaft.

 

[maxopus]

I was impressed by the image of the condemned... ptc/proe that was the hard and pure parametric (with advantages and disadvantages).... In short, the prisoners in orange are the ptc users up to wildfire 5??? I feel like a questionable marketing maneuver.

I hope this is a real enrichment and not a "edulcorate" version of proes.

that was not the metaphor ... the staging wanted to represent the liberation of the unexpressed potential.
We're in agreement with an American, but don't do them like that.

 

[maxopus]

By reading deelip, it should be like this:

create proof to translate explicit processing into features. If he can't do it because he can't find logic or because it's too complicated, he puts it in a special box dedicated to everything that won't be parametric. It will be like the solidedge-st3, half synchronous and half parametric shaft.

Then it could be interesting ... the coexistence of the two systems convinces me more than the existence of 2 things that do not speak.

It will be all to try.