The_Matrix
Guest
I actually remember your report...
re_solidworks
Guest
Well, eventually let us know. . .
rickcick
Guest
I think we will eventually choose sw...
ShareMind
Guest
I personally agree to move the discussion.
about post of marcof, I would have several observations to make.
but this is very old releases, I prefer to focus on topicality.
If someone tells me how to do it, I can still attach a comparison of the functions of sw, tf, proe of that period.
back to current events, not yet seen sw 2012: I just read the release notes. it seems to me however that sw is not improving much that in recent versions; developers seem to focus on their future projects of catified applications on a single kernel, something between web based and cloud computing.http://www.develop3d.com/features/the-death-of-solidworksat the moment, I can list what is known in comparison with the 2011 version:
- t-flex has many more options in modeling operations, as it implements a greater number of parasolid features. among these, there are sensitive differences in favor of t-flex especially in fittings and joints, sweep, loft, boolean, matrices, pattern
- the robustness of t-flex compared to changes made to the assemblies is greater, due to a much larger set of fastening options
- t-flex implements a higher parameterization level, in terms of the ability to create variable geometries and assemblies, including db
- compared to the potential of 2d parametric, t-flex is absolutely unique, compared to any other program
- t-flex offers a cospiquo set of integrated tools for creating custom interfaces (dialogue windows) for controlling the behaviour of parametric models
- t-flex 12 is very fast in graphic performance in the various modes (probably at the moment it is the fastest mcad program in absolute regarding graphics, and additional optimizations are coming). Moreover, t-flex gets these performance levels even with generic graphics cards and gaming cards, not only with professional cards.
between t-flex and sw there are many differences. the problem of comparison is that there are hundreds of differences between one cad and the other, and this list of differences changes continuously, to the release of new versions. For example, in sw 2012 a faithful copy of the variable t-flex editor was introduced, although the sw version does not support all t-flex functionality due to an intrinsically different parametric engine.http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=2978
about post of marcof, I would have several observations to make.
but this is very old releases, I prefer to focus on topicality.
If someone tells me how to do it, I can still attach a comparison of the functions of sw, tf, proe of that period.
back to current events, not yet seen sw 2012: I just read the release notes. it seems to me however that sw is not improving much that in recent versions; developers seem to focus on their future projects of catified applications on a single kernel, something between web based and cloud computing.http://www.develop3d.com/features/the-death-of-solidworksat the moment, I can list what is known in comparison with the 2011 version:
- t-flex has many more options in modeling operations, as it implements a greater number of parasolid features. among these, there are sensitive differences in favor of t-flex especially in fittings and joints, sweep, loft, boolean, matrices, pattern
- the robustness of t-flex compared to changes made to the assemblies is greater, due to a much larger set of fastening options
- t-flex implements a higher parameterization level, in terms of the ability to create variable geometries and assemblies, including db
- compared to the potential of 2d parametric, t-flex is absolutely unique, compared to any other program
- t-flex offers a cospiquo set of integrated tools for creating custom interfaces (dialogue windows) for controlling the behaviour of parametric models
- t-flex 12 is very fast in graphic performance in the various modes (probably at the moment it is the fastest mcad program in absolute regarding graphics, and additional optimizations are coming). Moreover, t-flex gets these performance levels even with generic graphics cards and gaming cards, not only with professional cards.
between t-flex and sw there are many differences. the problem of comparison is that there are hundreds of differences between one cad and the other, and this list of differences changes continuously, to the release of new versions. For example, in sw 2012 a faithful copy of the variable t-flex editor was introduced, although the sw version does not support all t-flex functionality due to an intrinsically different parametric engine.http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=2978
re_solidworks
Guest
I press that I don't know tflex and I don't have time to try it for a long time. but do you really know swx so well to make these statements? How many projects have you done to us? How did you format (in swx environment)?
not to criticize you, but they are all statements not supported by readable facts in this discussion, they look like real commercial talk.
Mine doesn't want to be an attack on how much you write, but if you read it with detachment, I assure you that you get an impression like the one I have.
ShareMind
Guest
Well, I don't know how you read with detachment. However, maybe before you throw rocks against the alleged superficiality of others, maybe you could read without detachment. as I specified, I did not try sw 2012. the considerations are then referred to the 2011 version. I formed a long time ago, I did this job exactly for 39 years. I know sw enough to support what I write, as well as being able to count on the support of the 120 naive top systems that, as you can well imagine, devote much more time than me to deepen knowledge about the products that gravitate in the t-flex band, and of course in particular on solidworks. in any case, even to not unleash the usual polemics of the forums, t-flex is available to do tests, for those who have time and desire. I believe that trying it, especially for those who know solidworks well, is the best way to get rid of any doubts.
maxopus
Guest
allow me pietro, the comparison charter you post is failed (at least for what concerns creo parametric - ex pro/e).
the continuity in g2 of the roundings is supported at least by the wf5 and you could do even before with a small shortening.
the list is partial, not updated and there are no points I create and t-flex no (so to make a "comparison" with pro and con ... not that you analyze only what seems to be convenient).
For example, I could ask you why, according to you, in creo, you can't make a difference on the different faces with different angles (face taper means sform ... I think).
I ask if the t-flex sforms can be made based on the mold closure surfaces
I ask if t-flex realizes not only variable rounds (races) but sketch rays or conical rays (by variable elliptical section) or if you can achieve rays between non-continuous surfaces or solids.
I ask you, what are the worksurfaces, possibility to apply the same commands for both surface and solid modeling and parts binding via mates and local coordinate systems, so you can give an opinion.
in I create part 2d is a consequence of the 3d and I have not worked in 2d for at least 10 years.
made the 3d model, in 2d I have to do nothing but put it on the table, I do not need to do analysis on the 2d ... I have the 3d.
I still trust answers, on advanced surfaces, piping, carpentry, reverse engineering, fluid and thermodynamics, electronic design and cabling, behavioral modeling... etc.
I have to tell you the truth. I'm skeptical.
that a 3000 euro program can give nails to high-level programs such as creo, nx or catia seems quite unlikely.
conquer a sea of customers in the automotive, aerospace, naval, energy sectors... do you think multinationals are throwing money into programs and maintenance with a program that even declares itself superior in so many respects?
What is the trade and service network in Italy?
how many are you training and customer support?
I don't want to... I'm tignosed until exhaustion:
marcof
Guest
I have returned my experience since: t-flex was slow and farragginous from the sketch.
the papyri published in his time to try to convince me that the use of the construction lines to build on geometry 2d (only possibility of having sketches bound and driven by quotas) were so unconvincing that I tried it.
without using the geometry of the underlying building all the entities of the sketch were neither more nor less than those of autocad, than if the shifts walk each on their own.
Maybe now things have changed... You can tell me if you want.
I remember a cochlea made with t-flex and practically did before making a rogito when seller and buyer do not agree :tongue:. . .
Who knows that I don't want to try again
marcof
Guest
I read...
this about swx
fully parametric assembly models: [FONT="]not recommend[/FONT]It is simply ri-di-co-lo.I don't know who compiled that comparison table, but it's certain that swx never used it.
ShareMind
Guest
I'll answer everything. I have other things to do.
the comparison chart published a different time ago. for this the list is not updated. but this was also written in the previous post. Moreover, it is not updated even with respect to the functionality of t-flex, which are now different than those of the list, as are different those of the other programs mentioned. the approximate period from which this comparison dates, judging by the functions referred to t-flex, which are those of the release 10 is at least three-four years ago. therefore it is not reported to creo (as can be read), but to pro-e.
about the rest:
-Yes, we can make mold closure line sforms;
- the fittings (I think you refer to this), can be variable radius, elliptical with variable radius, on the edges (by bag), three faces (palms of propellers and turbines), face-face (spherical, discordial, isoparametric) with-without surface/constraint, conical/smussi/continuity of curvature. different modes have various options.
- using the loft operation, which actually blends typical features of the traditional loft, sweep, srf network with additional options, you can connect via sketch and fittings between unjoined surfaces / solids. also the face-face connection operation allows this functionality.
- worksurfaces are work surfaces. These are particular construction elements (work plates), which instead of being "planes" can be cylindrical or spherical. These tools allow the construction of some particularly complex models (e.g. screws, pitch screws and variable thread angle, turbines, propellers etc.) in an extremely simple way.
- possibility to apply the same command... means you can apply the same command to solids and surfaces. But I don't know what context you mean. in t-flex this is generally possible.
-parts binding via mates and local.... implies the possibility to manage mates through constraints and local construction systems.
the possibility of designing also from 2d to 3d and not only the contrary opens a series of design methodologies that obviously escape those who do not have such a possibility. just to make a very trivial example (it would be to say "and not to shoot on the red cross", because I'm a little skeptical too: , the propeller in the image (old, goes back to version 7.0 of t-flex) is obtained from the design below, than it maintains a totally parametric relationship. the propeller in turn is completely parameterized compared to the number of blades, holes, central hole etc.
Clearly the same model can be done in other ways. maybe creating 8 floors of construction and drawing us a different sketch cadauno... which, however, besides being much more complex, is also of complex reading and interpretation, as well as much more difficult to maintain than what you consider a "banale" model 2d. Believe me, the possibility of approach from 2d to 3d (which is obviously exploited if and when convenient) opens completely new frontiers to modeling.
At the moment I stop here, I have guests at dinner and I have to cook. I'll take it from this point tomorrow.
Good evening, everyone.
the comparison chart published a different time ago. for this the list is not updated. but this was also written in the previous post. Moreover, it is not updated even with respect to the functionality of t-flex, which are now different than those of the list, as are different those of the other programs mentioned. the approximate period from which this comparison dates, judging by the functions referred to t-flex, which are those of the release 10 is at least three-four years ago. therefore it is not reported to creo (as can be read), but to pro-e.
about the rest:
-Yes, we can make mold closure line sforms;
- the fittings (I think you refer to this), can be variable radius, elliptical with variable radius, on the edges (by bag), three faces (palms of propellers and turbines), face-face (spherical, discordial, isoparametric) with-without surface/constraint, conical/smussi/continuity of curvature. different modes have various options.
- using the loft operation, which actually blends typical features of the traditional loft, sweep, srf network with additional options, you can connect via sketch and fittings between unjoined surfaces / solids. also the face-face connection operation allows this functionality.
- worksurfaces are work surfaces. These are particular construction elements (work plates), which instead of being "planes" can be cylindrical or spherical. These tools allow the construction of some particularly complex models (e.g. screws, pitch screws and variable thread angle, turbines, propellers etc.) in an extremely simple way.
- possibility to apply the same command... means you can apply the same command to solids and surfaces. But I don't know what context you mean. in t-flex this is generally possible.
-parts binding via mates and local.... implies the possibility to manage mates through constraints and local construction systems.
I understand that in the absence of an instrument it does not. which does not mean that this instrument does not serve. the nuts can be crushed even with a hammer, although the thing has drawbacks.
the possibility of designing also from 2d to 3d and not only the contrary opens a series of design methodologies that obviously escape those who do not have such a possibility. just to make a very trivial example (it would be to say "and not to shoot on the red cross", because I'm a little skeptical too: , the propeller in the image (old, goes back to version 7.0 of t-flex) is obtained from the design below, than it maintains a totally parametric relationship. the propeller in turn is completely parameterized compared to the number of blades, holes, central hole etc.
Clearly the same model can be done in other ways. maybe creating 8 floors of construction and drawing us a different sketch cadauno... which, however, besides being much more complex, is also of complex reading and interpretation, as well as much more difficult to maintain than what you consider a "banale" model 2d. Believe me, the possibility of approach from 2d to 3d (which is obviously exploited if and when convenient) opens completely new frontiers to modeling.
At the moment I stop here, I have guests at dinner and I have to cook. I'll take it from this point tomorrow.
Good evening, everyone.
Attachments
flaviobrio88
Guest
eellllaaamiseriaa you could have put at least a less t-flex!
re_solidworks
Guest
I'll make you a proposal. Since you know swx well and even better t-flex, placed two identical models with the relative performance analysis tables.
I would also like the native part of swx to see if it was modeled optimally or not.
I would opt for something quite simple, without too many frills.
In a few months, when I get rid of the excessive workload of this period, I propose to try it and I will let you know.
but here there is some doubt: will I be able to use it at best? How long? otherwise the comparison would be false to the detriment of tflex.
ShareMind
Guest
the test is interesting, but not very sensational.
both because of course I know better t-flex of solidworks. both because I could choose a "favorable t-flex" model (I wouldn't do it, but this is another speech). both because, objectively, there can be models in which one of the two succeeds better, and the other succeeds worse.
One more balanced thing can be this.
each other proposes a model that with its own software and its knowledge manages to perform easily (without necessarily reaching the extreme). the other tries to face the same model with its own software and its own knowledge.
the test is done on both models.
and you organize this funny "mezzogiorno of fire".:smile:
videos are posted on youtube.
both because of course I know better t-flex of solidworks. both because I could choose a "favorable t-flex" model (I wouldn't do it, but this is another speech). both because, objectively, there can be models in which one of the two succeeds better, and the other succeeds worse.
One more balanced thing can be this.
each other proposes a model that with its own software and its knowledge manages to perform easily (without necessarily reaching the extreme). the other tries to face the same model with its own software and its own knowledge.
the test is done on both models.
and you organize this funny "mezzogiorno of fire".:smile:
videos are posted on youtube.
maxopus
Guest
I also have to do, it is not that he is all day combing the wild boars.
Everything goes by, it will pass this.
Everything goes by, it will pass this.
cacciatorino
Guest
As already mentioned to other members, these challenges between software demonstrators on the one hand and users with other occupations on the other leave some time they find. while for example your job is to make the seller, and then spend time preparing demos and documentation on your product, the vast majority of other users have different occupations. I, for example, connect to the site in time-cuts, and the free time I don't give it to show that solid edge is the best cad (the rest would be nothing).
So you know that with these differences of starting situation, the outcome of these "sphides" would be quite obvious....
Videos would be better to upload them as attachments, because in the past it happened that many discussions were "less" when a user decided to delete videos from his channel.
marcof
Guest
Why don't you explain yourself better? I remember well that on this point who before you wrote here on the forum of t-flex insisted without entering into detail and to make concretely understand this advantage in what it was but was limited to paraphrases of an advertising brochure
what was understood was the presence of a 2d parametric environment with the limits (Imho huge) of the working philosophy for construction geometry of which I do not know what to do with it.
apart from that I don't understand why you show a sample of version 7 if it's now 11, but as an example I think it's pretty weak, eh...
In the meantime, you should explain from what the extradox and intradox profiles of each section are driven, because from that 2d you can see two quotas on the cross and (but I might be wrong because the resolution of the image is insufficient) the edge of attack is to live edge which has no relevance with the reality of a secular wing.
and the perimeter line that connects the various profiles of the shovel, and that in reality is not on a plane, how is it used by model 3d?
that then that series of sections, placed on as many spaced plans, are complex, of difficult management, understanding and maintenance is your idea. to make those 8 floors it takes two minutes while I would be curious to see how much it takes with t-flex to create that 2d with all the bound geometry by leaning on lines of construction (it admits that t-flex still calls the use of that technique to have the sketch flyable by different quotas and relationships) to follow a naca profile
And there's nothing left to do with it! We are talking about a parametric cad and this the parametric cads do it, always, without difficulty and without need to specify it as it were something futuristic
why not place some concrete example in which a traditional representation like the 2d of that shovel (which conceptually would have made identical to the tecnigraph 80 years ago...) allows to open new frontiers to model 3d?
re_solidworks
Guest
This answer is, in my opinion, more balanced than the previous ones. I insist that before saying that it is faster you should extract a report of the recalculating time of the same part made with the two cads exploiting for both the best functions.
with release of 2009 made it solidworks with imported, but everything was proved with facts, not with words.
I add one more thing. swx is not firm at all. Although the main novelties published are a dozen in reality by overcoming what's new they find about 200 to each version.
when for customer needs I have to use 2009 I seem to go back much more than 2 years.
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
I watched the chart, and I laughed. . .
I know, if you're trying to advertise, you're doing great.
However I am also willing to "lost time" to take any model (possibly complicated) and to make a level comparison.
greetings
I know, if you're trying to advertise, you're doing great.
However I am also willing to "lost time" to take any model (possibly complicated) and to make a level comparison.
greetings
Tequila
Guest
How beautiful! seems to return to the times of "my is bigger than yours" :biggrin: