project lightning

[Matteo]

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 tree, half synchronous and half parametric.

ahi... just today I was working on a demo of spaceclaim used as a "parametric" (the reverse path that made pro to confirm that the two logics should possibly be chosen in relation to the situation) and the problem was precisely this: the "box" risks becoming bulky!

 

[tecnico_plast]

It will be all to try.

right, we don't have to be afraid to change:

 

[maxopus]

the innovations of pro/e do not frighten me.
I knew wf3, then I used for a customer wf2, so wf4 and wf5.
I never lost time from one version to another.
once known the first, the interfaces are very intuitive and change little from one version to another.
create new features but the parametric modeling will remain the same as the user interface.

 

[Matteo]

the innovations of pro/e do not frighten me.
I knew wf3, then I used for a customer wf2, so wf4 and wf5.
I never lost time from one version to another.
once known the first, the interfaces are very intuitive and change little from one version to another.
create new features but the parametric modeling will remain the same as the user interface.

confirmation :finger:
I went from proe 2000i to wildfire 2... and then (to follow a customer) to swx (I consider a spinoff of proe 2000): Once you understand the basic concepts there are no problems (the important thing is to know which commands to search).

 

[tecnico_plast]

I went from ideas 2d (I don't even remember the exact name), to pro/e 2000i2, then 2001, then wf3 and wf5, inventor for university and sw.

every time after a short period of "displacement", I found myself well.

 

[simra]

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

non conoscevo deelip... grazie cacciatorino!

io non ho ancora capito se è una rivoluzione rispetto ad altri cad tipo nx o st3 e devo dire che lavoro con pro-e e mi piace come "ragiona" però devo ammettere che a livello di marketing (aldilà quindi delle implementazioni del cad) sono veramente insuperabili...

qualche utente evidentemente rimane colpito dalle presentazioni degne degli shows di las vegas e forse anche un pò invidioso, ad esempio questo utente che risponde a deelip...

"...i look at these announcements since i might be a customer of creo/whaterver name it might develope in the future. i want to know if the user interaction is better than solidworks. i want to know if the geometry of complex surfacing is controllable, accurate, stable, and exportable. i want to know what it costs. i want to know that the company will fix bugs. i do not want to pay for the big marketing party"

 

[The_Matrix]

non conoscevo deelip... grazie cacciatorino!

io non ho ancora capito se è una rivoluzione rispetto ad altri cad tipo nx o st3 e devo dire che lavoro con pro-e e mi piace come "ragiona" però devo ammettere che a livello di marketing (aldilà quindi delle implementazioni del cad) sono veramente insuperabili...

qualche utente evidentemente rimane colpito dalle presentazioni degne degli shows di las vegas e forse anche un pò invidioso, ad esempio questo utente che risponde a deelip...

"...i look at these announcements since i might be a customer of creo/whaterver name it might develope in the future. i want to know if the user interaction is better than solidworks. i want to know if the geometry of complex surfacing is controllable, accurate, stable, and exportable. i want to know what it costs. i want to know that the company will fix bugs. i do not want to pay for the big marketing party"

Thanks simra...
I find these comments (of the user who answered deelip) really childish. . .

ps: but they do it on purpose! No black edges!!

 

[maxopus]

It is without black edges that the trump grows bellicose and aggressive

 

[The_Matrix]

It is without black edges that the trump grows bellicose and aggressive

apart from these "faces", I agree with those who say it is not a "revolution for the next 20 years".
or, at least, it is for ptc, but not for the market.. .
a little as if psa arrived on the market to say "Here, this is the car for the next 20 years... 1500 petrol... electric motor... batteries charging with braking... aerodynamics dedicated to consuming little... 4.3 m long.. ."
... just go to the toyota dealers and honda to see prius or insight, don't you?

 

[cacciatorino]

Thanks simra...
I find these comments (of the user who answered deelip) really childish. . .

In fact, among the various comments, there is a very interesting one, which says pressapoco:

"give me a cad in which the inflection under load of a beam is a design parameter and not the result of an analysis!", that is a cad that is able to automatically dimensional the sections, note the expected efforts and deformations.
But is there something that does this job already?

 

[The_Matrix]

In fact, among the various comments, there is a very interesting one, which says pressapoco:

"give me a cad in which the inflection under load of a beam is a design parameter and not the result of an analysis!", that is a cad that is able to automatically dimensional the sections, note the expected efforts and deformations.
But is there something that does this job already?

Yeah.
we (effectively 2 of my own, but I always take the merits too:tongue we developed a topological optimizer (so, almost by game...) where:
- The input is:
a) a model with a certain shape
b) constraints and loads
- the output is:
a "voxelized" model of the optimal shape of the model.

... there are products dedicated to this... Just gugolare a little...
... but making it more fun. . .honor a marco e maurizio.

 

[simra]

"give me a cad in which the inflection under load of a beam is a design parameter and not the result of an analysis!", that is a cad that is able to automatically dimensional the sections, note the expected efforts and deformations.
But is there something that does this job already?

Yes!
If someone knows the behavioral modeling of pro-e knows what I mean.
you can perform a sensitivity/fatiability analysis and based on the input (for example, the result of a fem calculation) can resize the set variables. ...

 

[The_Matrix]

Yes!
If someone knows the behavioral modeling of pro-e knows what I mean.
you can perform a sensitivity/fatiability analysis and based on the input (for example, the result of a fem calculation) can resize the set variables. ...

be careful that the bm has a limit... like all "classic" optimizers... nx included... acts on the parameters of the model.. .
therefore, you must have already imposed the parameters of the model correctly.
Topologic optimizers instead have the freedom to give you the best possible form.
references:
Tuscany
♪

 

[simra]

be careful that the bm has a limit... like all "classic" optimizers... nx included... acts on the parameters of the model.. .
therefore, you must have already imposed the parameters of the model correctly.
Topologic optimizers instead have the freedom to give you the best possible form.
references:
Tuscany
♪

I didn't know them. .

 

[The_Matrix]

I didn't know them. .

It is a matter that fascinates me so much.
I would like a solution like the one we developed, 100% integrated in the cad...
think of a process like this:
1) start to shape a shape
2) look for a similar shape in your db with a geolus stuff (know? )
Do you find her? Okay.
Don't you find her?
3) apply to your form constraints/loads
4) fixes
5) all in the belly to the optimizer
6) the optimal shape is returned to you
...
models your shape.. .

I think that's what a real designer should do.

I know... I know.

 

[stef_design]

I'm sorry, the question, but why don't we put a nice tan robot in front of the computer?
by now the figure of the designer with experience, knowledge and love of his work to what it serves? only to start the cad and crush some key.
if to design we use these "topic optimizers" no longer makes sense to squeeze the mind to find solutions and ideas aimed at improving/resolving a problem.
"to her, a robot is just a robot. but she didn't work with them. She doesn't know them. They're cleaning agents, the best we have. "io, robot (il film) :biggrin:

 

[The_Matrix]

I'm sorry, the question, but why don't we put a nice tan robot in front of the computer?
by now the figure of the designer with experience, knowledge and love of his work to what it serves? only to start the cad and crush some key.
if to design we use these "topic optimizers" no longer makes sense to squeeze the mind to find solutions and ideas aimed at improving/resolving a problem.
"to her, a robot is just a robot. but she didn't work with them. She doesn't know them. They're cleaning agents, the best we have. "io, robot (il film) :biggrin:

try to understand what I say, stef.
I'm not saying "I'd like the magic red button," but I would like a designer to use the best technologies that the plm can give him.
- Shit.
- optimizers
- hybrid modelers
- tools dedicated to studies
... a little like 20 years ago at a congress for auto repairers said "I would like that, in a future not too far, when a customer arrives in the shop I could connect his car to a pc, see the installed configurations, replace the component with another without having to go crazy to repair it since I do not have the skills, I would like to be able to order the spare part in my workshop and be delivered quickly, I would like the spare part to be dedicated to the customer car, I would like the car to tell the driver when he has to come from me...".

that's all

 

[cacciatorino]

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

recovery from the usual deelip.com:
http://www.deelip.com/?p=5068cocreate will be called 'from now on create elements/direct, instead pro/e will become ' creo elements/pro.

 

[SweptBlend]

I'm sorry to introduce myself.
but for what I remember, in 1988 3d modelers were all explicit.
this means that if you made a hole on a surface, and you had to change it in diameter or position, it was necessary to "fill" it, and then make a new drilling.
I don't tell you if you had to reduce a sform, or a chamfer...
the topology of the model was calculated in real time,
That was and that was left.
then in 1988 appeared "the light", a modeler who added "the parameters"! and allowed to change
later models according to need (start for "pro/eng")
and then the various me30s, i/ems, unigraphics, cadds 4/5, catia, i/deas, have had to invent pseudomodules
parametric/variational, based more, than less on features, trees models, parameters and relationships.

now after 10/20 years the situation has overturned, after years in which it prevailed the concept of features/parameter/shaft model/constrains and what else is "discovered" that exists (va) also another way of working.

I think that the cad is only a slightly smarter and faster screwdriver, for which it is necessary to have the appropriate tool for the work to be carried out.
If I do wheelchairs, I don't need paraemtric/variational modelers, and if I do feasibility studies, a 2d is more than reset,
If I have to work on imported geometries (iges /step/vda), I do not want to see even the shadow....

(import data doctor docet)

 

[The_Matrix]

I'm sorry to introduce myself.
but for what I remember, in 1988 3d modelers were all explicit.
this means that if you made a hole on a surface, and you had to change it in diameter or position, it was necessary to "fill" it, and then make a new drilling.
I don't tell you if you had to reduce a sform, or a chamfer...
the topology of the model was calculated in real time,
That was and that was left.
then in 1988 appeared "the light", a modeler who added "the parameters"! and allowed to change
later models according to need (start for "pro/eng")
and then the various me30s, i/ems, unigraphics, cadds 4/5, catia, i/deas, have had to invent pseudomodules
parametric/variational, based more, than less on features, trees models, parameters and relationships.

now after 10/20 years the situation has overturned, after years in which it prevailed the concept of features/parameter/shaft model/constrains and what else is "discovered" that exists (va) also another way of working.

I think that the cad is only a slightly smarter and faster screwdriver, for which it is necessary to have the appropriate tool for the work to be carried out.
If I do wheelchairs, I don't need paraemtric/variational modelers, and if I do feasibility studies, a 2d is more than reset,
If I have to work on imported geometries (iges /step/vda), I do not want to see even the shadow....

(import data doctor docet)

Hello swepblend.
in 1988 there was a solid modeler who had the "history"... regenerated the solid models as well as what we are now accustomed to seeing.
was euclid of the matra dating.
the problem was that the representation of solids was not "exact" (nurbs) as the current one (introduced by pro/e, along with parameters) but was "faces" (a cylinder was represented by a polygon.
in the table an algorithm "interpreted" the polygons and transformed them into circles/archies/spline... So everything went.
and it was so since 1980.

on the rest and your reasoning:I think that the cad is only a slightly smarter and faster screwdriver, for which it is necessary to have the appropriate tool for the work to be carried out.
If I do wheelchairs, I don't need paraemtric/variational modelers, and if I do feasibility studies, a 2d is more than reset,
If I have to work on imported geometries (iges /step/vda), I do not want to see even the shadow....I agree with you at 90%. :tongue:
I do feasibility studies of shells (carrozzerie) in parametric...
good reasoning and good conclusions