still on pipes

[robertobacci]

I wanted to know which of the 3 methods according to you
(the inventor's problem and there are too many ways to do the same but the right one in many cases not) is the fastest in the first place, more 'correct', more standardizable to make a pipe of medium complexity. I saw last week a company that builds racks for the supply of technological gases which uses inventor and compels the racks with the parts of the catalogue plus the material found on traceparts and the one that is missing if it draws n 3d, an immanent job but with excellent results.

I have tried these methods but sincerely none of the 3 satisfy me.

1 method (if there are others I ask for my ignorance on the product)

3d sketch of the isometric, quoted, then take the standard parts and via constraints to place curved tubes and flange reductions and anything.



2 method

3d sketch or various 2d sketches that flatten various parts of the pipe
amounts the sketch in a set and with the frame generator apply the tube
If you're lucky to have it in the catalog . (do the custom catalogs too difficult x me and too much time loss not only by piping but having it occasionally, but when I have to draw it is a bitch refusing to return to the 2d by principle.
also in t connections leaves an integral tube.


3 gunshot method in the head use the inventor tubes and pipes progamate
I'm talking to me not saying that the software is to throw:biggrin:

problems,

Half welded pipe half flange as you do?

diameter reductions on the same path, as you do without creating more paths that then mess up everything to reconnect them.

difficult to create a standard because in the library I cannot fish all the components of the same family .

difficult to place the pipe in the main axieme or to work directly on the axieme that makes the machine slow.


In short, I don't understand a tube anymore and purtoppo the clock runs .

greetings
roberto

 

[vinnypalumbo]

salve roberto, purtroppo non posso aiutarti perchè neanche io capisco un tubo del piping, anzi vorrei impararlo ma non riesco a trovare una guida e neppure qualcuno che mi faccia leazione, se una buon'anima ci può illuminare ne sarei davvero felice...

 

[Christian76]

*hum*
premetto che non ho il modulo avanzato per le tubazioni, ma penso dai vari post finora letti di avere un idea del come sia impostato.
"credo" che tale modulo si appoggi al concetto di classi di linea,
che e' sicuramente un ottimo approcio, ma come ogni cosa, dipende poi cosa si vuole/deve fare.
ad esempio nel mio caso per alcune commesse sarebbe buono, ma per la maggiorparte sarebbe un intralcio.
io non utilizzo nessuno dei 3 sistemi da te citati, diciamo che mi avvicino al 1°.
noi partiamo da delle idee su carta e iniziamo ad elaborare dei sottoassiemi inserendo i vari componenti che ci siamo creati durante gli anni.
e creiamo in questo modo i nostri skid.
presumo invece che dovendo realizzare un impianto complesso dove si devono distribuire piu fluidi con pressioni differenti ecco che diventa comodo avere delle classi di linea che definiscono il tipo di tubo (spessore, materiale...) il tipo do giunzione (filettato, bw, sw...) e penso che sia ricco di altre opzioni.

 

[chapeau]

hello to all
If I can afford. error, or lack, is not in us software users, or in the software itself, but in whom I sell it and advertise it. sellers, destroying companies must always explain for good what are the positive sides and what are the negative sides of the program (which everyone has, in a few words everyone is good at doing certain things, but it is not in others). instead often to make the "percentages" of sale tell the customer things not really true. of course we users coming from autocad that we know very little of inventor, we believe to everything they tell us. If the delaier was serious, you should tell the customer that if you want to use inventor to make complex piping plants, it is better not to use it. there are definitely software specific to these problems and for these plants. inventor is not suitable, enough, and people so buy something that can come back useful, instead of going crazy, and getting fucked up by the boss because he can't use it. excuse the polemical note, but it is the truth. do you mind that when they make their examples in the software presentation meetings they always do the same exercises? Have you ever wondered why? ?
Greetings to everyone.

 

[mikrobo]

I wanted to know which of the 3 methods according to you
(the inventor's problem and there are too many ways to do the same but the right one in many cases not) is the fastest in the first place, more 'correct', more standardizable to make a pipe of medium complexity. I saw last week a company that builds racks for the supply of technological gases which uses inventor and compels the racks with the parts of the catalogue plus the material found on traceparts and the one that is missing if it draws n 3d, an immanent job but with excellent results.

I have tried these methods but sincerely none of the 3 satisfy me.

1 method (if there are others I ask for my ignorance on the product)

3d sketch of the isometric, quoted, then take the standard parts and via constraints to place curved tubes and flange reductions and anything.



2 method

3d sketch or various 2d sketches that flatten various parts of the pipe
amounts the sketch in a set and with the frame generator apply the tube
If you're lucky to have it in the catalog . (do the custom catalogs too difficult x me and too much time loss not only by piping but having it occasionally, but when I have to draw it is a bitch refusing to return to the 2d by principle.
also in t connections leaves an integral tube.


3 gunshot method in the head use the inventor tubes and pipes progamate
I'm talking to me not saying that the software is to throw:biggrin:

problems,

Half welded pipe half flange as you do?

diameter reductions on the same path, as you do without creating more paths that then mess up everything to reconnect them.

difficult to create a standard because in the library I cannot fish all the components of the same family .

difficult to place the pipe in the main axieme or to work directly on the axieme that makes the machine slow.


In short, I don't understand a tube anymore and purtoppo the clock runs .

greetings
roberto

Hi.
I am beginning to hang myself with the application on piping, and I find some difficulty, like the constraints between the paths that I cannot give, or on curves other than the standard, that you have to draw and then go to put in the path (which he considers unique).
If there's someone on the piping, I'd be grateful.
mikrobo

 

[MarcoBi]

I interfere by specifying that I do not use inventor.
However, I should say that being a "general purpose" modeler, while having a piping module, I don't think it's the software suitable for making plants. I think that as for analog or even more blasoned products, the piping module nasca to facilitate the completion (magari in assembly mode) of those details such as the "piping on board machine".
who makes a skid with size and number of contained lines can certainly utlize sw of this type perhaps by implementing an ad hoc library but without claiming to optimize the work as with the use of programs and tools specific to the enterprise.:bekle: