solidworks 2009 save in previous versions of solid

[Tantocattivo]

Look, even if she was born before doesn't mean she's the best. of 2d programs there are several. as told by colleagues here we talk about 3d mathematicians and not trivial geometries 2d untied among them. if it were as you say then inventor who is a 3d cad and always autodesk product should allow the rescue of 3d models in the previous versions. Does that prove to you?
Hi.

Come on, I was joking, cmq apart from the right jokes the 2d of autocad are already parameterizing, honestly I did not deepen but there is some parametric. instead for the 3d, autocad draws everything that can draw the other cads, certain in some things missing and in others not, but I think a little ' all the cads are so. I don't have the most pale idea for inventor, but as you ask, I don't think he can .

ciauz

 

[maxopus]

I don't think he can draw what others can draw, especially in the field of mechanical design.

 

[MBT]

instead for the 3d, autocad draws everything that can draw the other cads,

No kidding. It's okay, but then we try to be serious!

Sure in some things missing and in others not, but I think a little all the cads are like that.

I'll correct you. .
in some things missing and in others it does not.
If you believe that the 3d potential of autocad is good, try any 3d cad. even of medium level as inventor, to stay in the autodesk house.
but maybe even sketchup does better than autocad.. .

I don't have the most pale idea for inventor, but as you ask, I don't think he can .

impossible to judge without having tried
Also for me cocreate is the best 3d. sin I have never seen him turn!

 

[Tequila]

Come on, I was joking, cmq apart from the right jokes the 2d of autocad are already parameterizing, honestly I did not deepen but there is some parametric. instead for the 3d, autocad draws everything that can draw the other cads, certain in some things missing and in others not, but I think a little ' all the cads are so. I don't have the most pale idea for inventor, but as you ask, I don't think he can .

ciauz

Look, I didn't just take it. if we want to put the dots on the "i" all of course in a jokey tone: say that the autodesk was born at the end of 1982, the unigraphics instead already between 75-80 and already talked about 3d http://www.plmworld.org/museum/ and not simple 2d.
always in jokey tone:biggrin: more than 40 years ago they sent the man on the moon and only now in 2010-2011 they set to parameterize the 2d of autocad??? ? ?

too much jokes. hello and good day

 

[The_Matrix]

autocad is the real cad 3d and is a Mr. Cad 3d.
Autodesk was born at the end of 1982
the dassault systèmes in 1993 (11 years later)
the parametric technology corporation in 1985 (3 years later)

Okay, after starting flame escape:tongue:

ciauz

ds in 1993? ? ?
Please, if you don't know, don't talk. . .

 

[flaviobrio88]

ds in 1993? ? ?
Please, if you don't know, don't talk. . .

I was thinking the same thing

 

[maxopus]

It was enough to read this discussion:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=22980year of birth 1977, when those of autodesk were still hanging from the trees

 

[cacciatorino]

It was enough to read this discussion:http://www.cad3d.it/forum1/showthread.php?t=22980year of birth 1977, when those of autodesk were still hanging from the trees

probably who wrote of 1993 confused dassault with solidworks.

 

[Tantocattivo]

ds in 1993? ? ?
Please, if you don't know, don't talk. . .

I had searched the site at this address http://www.solidworks.it/sw/183_ita_html.htm . I cmq say one thing, the speech was placed in a tone of joke and touched as it is for those who tifa for a team rather than for another, all maybe laughing in company. I read comments next to lynching! !
going seriously precise some things,
- from autocad I'm trying to move to solidworks because I think it's a better tool for what I have to do.
- with regard to the 3d potential of autocad I limited myself to the pure design of solids and not studies of cinematisms, parametric changes etc.
If I was a fan boy of the autodesk, I would have gone to inventor and not to solidworks.
- if I talked about autocad is because until the year 2009 I knew autocad very well and I found myself drawing everything and more, of course I know them well other parts less because much less used.

ciauz again

 

[marcof]

I had searched the site at this address http://www.solidworks.it/sw/183_ita_html.htm . I cmq say one thing, the speech was placed in a tone of joke and touched as it is for those who tifa for a team rather than for another, all maybe laughing in company. I read comments next to lynching! !

How do you make it tragic?
Oh, you're the one who wrote:

instead for the 3d, autocad draws everything that can draw the other cad

premixing a "part-play" which is like throwing gasoline on the fire:smile:
You went hunting in a juniper alone and you can't hope you don't scratch yourself, especially if you insist on going through it; better a ready march back:smile:

 

[re_solidworks]

I had searched the site at this address http://www.solidworks.it/sw/183_ita_html.htm . I cmq say one thing, the speech was placed in a tone of joke and touched as it is for those who tifa for a team rather than for another, all maybe laughing in company. I read comments next to lynching! !

But no, come on, they're a little rough, but they're not bad. .

going seriously precise some things,
- from autocad I'm trying to move to solidworks because I think it's a better tool for what I have to do.

And so far you've done well.

with regard to the 3d potential of autocad I limited myself to the pure design of solids and not studies of cinematisms, parametric changes etc.

depends on what you have to do with those solids. if you need it for a rendering ok, but if you have to extract some series boards, they are a little useless (unless they've been far behind).

If I had been a fan boy of the autodesk I would have gone to inventor and not to solidworks.

Did you at least evaluate inventor? costs less assistance (even if you can't stop it) and it's not a little bit. if you just save something every year...

if I talked about autocad is because until the year 2009 I knew autocad very well and I found myself drawing everything and more, obviously I know them well other parts less because much less used.

I designed for a few years with autocad in 2d and it was a bloodbath. We did everything we needed, but the times were colossal: Basically what we did in a year in 3 now does one only in 3 months... I'd say it's not bad. this is a strong advantage because our machines are geometrically complex and in production are very demanding.

I still break a spear in your favor. in 2007 I put myself in my own and I swore not to give 1 cent to the autodesk, after 1 year of tests on various 2d I took an acad lt, then I added qs top, then another lt after 2 years (always with top) and now I returned to take 2 autocad mechanical.
between the 2d I know (I have never used gbg or me10) it seems to me the best, + fast, stable and complete of every intellicad, dwg editor, draftsight, etc....
I have to work (although little) and I think it is one of the few professional 2d tools on the market.
If ptc or dessault do not make a true 2d able to contrast autocad wrong because, in my opinion, it would still be an excellent economic resource to finance the development of the majors of the same house.
Draftsight started well, but if I have to deliver today 2d complexes (like a plant) becomes slow and slender. also lacks libraries and symbols necessary for mechanics.
If they made it pay 1000,00 euros in mechanical version they would all take it.

 

[Tantocattivo]

I know little solidworks and I didn't do any class. after this very important premise I say that with solidworks modeling is fun for me, I must say that it is very relaxing. In the sense that I do a sketch, I extrude it, if you don't convince me of the modification and I don't have to remake the extrusion, then maybe I change the starting point and end of the extrusion without remaking the piece in 3d, in short it is nice the parametric. for putting up the table the speech is different, there I had more problems, if in some view of detail the piece is no longer he puts you all the piece out of scale and covers you all the design, if then they are more pieces in more seen happens a slaughter. then the fact that he moves you the odds puts me a bit scared, often I found quotas that moved a lot, they put on to other etc etc. etc. certainly these problems are due to the poor mastery of the software and the incorrect methodology, but cmq I conclude by saying that the passage in the table was not painless. just to see that even with autocad you can do certain things and noon with everything I'm working that maybe you think can be streamlined in other software, look at this gallery http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=86490 there are things made in poser and things rendered in lightwave, but everything (memory vade) shaped in autocad.

ciauz