Lettore espatriato
Guest
Since this note is not exactly about the original post, I thought I would create a new one to avoid problems.
I take advantage of this victorious post in another discussion
www.cad3d.it
in particular this video
to make some considerations on modeling 3d with catia v5/v6 (and with cad in general, because some considerations are also valid for others ).
Now, let's say that for 80-90% of users (and 98% of their managers ) maybe the thing is not interesting, because the majority looks after the result that is seen and because it seems that most Italian catia users are engaged to set standards of lines 2d, colors of views , sizes of arrows , shapes of tables , etc...
I would like to point out that mine doesn't want to be the usual "boom lament" on those who did the video . I respect those who have time and want to create similar videos . and, unfortunately, sometimes, I also use certain processes for "speed", "comodity" , etc.
But we say that (for example) in terms of "flexibility", "stability" and "simplicity", I don't think the optimal.
For example:
1) You can work without sketches. for a line, a circle, etc., do you really need to go through that instrument or could you use the usual 3d commands, limiting the "support 3d"?
2) also wanting to use sketches and in that way, why not use the "output" selection inside the sketch?
3) why use the "separa" or "explodes" command that creates a "dead" geometry?
4) if the symmetry is used, why do it of the individual surfaces instead of doing it only to "semi-forma" completed?
5) using the brep is a "fast" method at the beginning, but then when it comes to launching "update" of the solid or the surface, we have to go to re-check each vertex, edge .... a blood bath if you have objects a minimum complex . You have to get used to selecting the entities from the logical tree and not directly on the geometry . if it is not possible, there is probably a method to create another classic geometry that allows it .
6) just as far as point 5 . the solids are comfortable for so many applications, but if we start talking about (for example) parts of car body or similar, the controls for solids should be used only at the end, to "close the solid" or to thicken in the case of sheet . to the limit to make, for example, holes. because if you begin to apply fillet on the edges ( instead of between surfaces) as you do with solids, at each update, it touches "play to sharpen the view".
In a lateral note, please : septate catia (and cad ) in English. At least if you have to search for a command or solution for a problem, the resources you rely on are 10 or 100 times greater.
I take advantage of this victorious post in another discussion
Operazione multisezione (LOFT)
Salve a tutti sto riscontrando problemi con l'estrusione multisezione, nonostante l'analisi mi dica che tutte le curve sono chiuse ho il seguente errore: "impossibile omogeneizzare le sezioni prima del calcolo di loft" come posso continuare? Grazie mille a chi mi aiuterà.
Now, let's say that for 80-90% of users (and 98% of their managers ) maybe the thing is not interesting, because the majority looks after the result that is seen and because it seems that most Italian catia users are engaged to set standards of lines 2d, colors of views , sizes of arrows , shapes of tables , etc...
I would like to point out that mine doesn't want to be the usual "boom lament" on those who did the video . I respect those who have time and want to create similar videos . and, unfortunately, sometimes, I also use certain processes for "speed", "comodity" , etc.
But we say that (for example) in terms of "flexibility", "stability" and "simplicity", I don't think the optimal.
For example:
1) You can work without sketches. for a line, a circle, etc., do you really need to go through that instrument or could you use the usual 3d commands, limiting the "support 3d"?
2) also wanting to use sketches and in that way, why not use the "output" selection inside the sketch?
3) why use the "separa" or "explodes" command that creates a "dead" geometry?
4) if the symmetry is used, why do it of the individual surfaces instead of doing it only to "semi-forma" completed?
5) using the brep is a "fast" method at the beginning, but then when it comes to launching "update" of the solid or the surface, we have to go to re-check each vertex, edge .... a blood bath if you have objects a minimum complex . You have to get used to selecting the entities from the logical tree and not directly on the geometry . if it is not possible, there is probably a method to create another classic geometry that allows it .
6) just as far as point 5 . the solids are comfortable for so many applications, but if we start talking about (for example) parts of car body or similar, the controls for solids should be used only at the end, to "close the solid" or to thicken in the case of sheet . to the limit to make, for example, holes. because if you begin to apply fillet on the edges ( instead of between surfaces) as you do with solids, at each update, it touches "play to sharpen the view".
In a lateral note, please : septate catia (and cad ) in English. At least if you have to search for a command or solution for a problem, the resources you rely on are 10 or 100 times greater.
Last edited: