version 17.0

[cacciatorino]

it will be possible to change the models with the quotas, big way as on the st of solid edge, always avoiding to preserve the history of construction.
Luckily the interface is the classic one, there's someone in this world who doesn't make himself ribbon.
[youtube]f-6wqpfsjli[/youtube]

 

[cacciatorino]

By the way, watching the video well, it seems to me that the odds continue to exist even after the change has been completed. This means that the models are implicitly parameterized.

 

[Andy-manager]

By the way, watching the video well, it seems to me that the odds continue to exist even after the change has been completed. This means that the models are implicitly parameterized.

quotas after change do not exist. remain only if you create with 3ddocumentation. parastrubboli continue not to exist.

 

[cacciatorino]

quotas after change do not exist. remain only if you create with 3ddocumentation. parastrubboli continue not to exist.

Sure? I thought I saw another video (the pattern of steps) where they remained and were used for a subsequent change.

I think that a cad can be parametric in my opinion can't be good, then that it's "history based" you can actually discuss whether it's an advantage or not.

 

[Matteo]

quotas after change do not exist. remain only if you create with 3ddocumentation. parastrubboli continue not to exist.

confirm, other explicit are even more explicit and "found" the change of this quota with a "move" operation.

 

[Matteo]

Sure? I thought I saw another video (the pattern of steps) where they remained and were used for a subsequent change.

I think that a cad can be parametric in my opinion can't be good, then that it's "history based" you can actually discuss whether it's an advantage or not.

patterns (such as mirrors) often hold associated elements (managed with parameters) in the explicit. According to me, more than between "parametric" and "non-parametric" one must distinguish between "feature based modeling" (modeling through functions) and "direct modeling" (modeling through manipulation).

 

[Andy-manager]

patterns (such as mirrors) often hold associated elements (managed with parameters) in the explicit. According to me, more than between "parametric" and "non-parametric" one must distinguish between "feature based modeling" (modeling through functions) and "direct modeling" (modeling through manipulation).

quoto.
what parastrubbol's cad users keep calling in modeling features, actually they are not features. They're just groups of faces. the parameters do not exist and even if they seem to exist instead do not exist!
the program derives the parameters of the eventual "feature" when editing it or working it does not extract it from the parameters that define the feature as in a parametric.

es: circular pattern of holes, I can change its diameter. the center of this pattern is not defined in the pattern. when I have to "publish" the program simply goes to see which are the machining centers that compose it and consequently finds the center of the pattern to make the change. therefore the parameter is consequence of geometry and not how I created it.

I think there is a conceptual abyss between explicit and parametric, even if you dare to say that modeling has the features....

 

[cacciatorino]

I think there is a conceptual abyss between explicit and parametric, even if you dare to say that modeling has the features....

an explicit can be quietly parametric without having the features (in fact osd is parametric). Also solidedge st is totally parametric without having the features.

features are one thing, which the explicit does not have and instead the feature-based you.
parameters are anything else that can be there or not. any cad worthy of this name must have them, instead the features there is who has them and who on the other side thinks they are a useless burden.

 

[Er Presidente]

quotas after change do not exist. remain only if you create with 3ddocumentation. parastrubboli continue not to exist.

I don't understand.
I think he's using the parametric module and the odds exist, why should they disappear?

 

[Matteo]

I don't understand.
I think he's using the parametric module and the odds exist, why should they disappear?

The difference is:

feature based: the odds are parametri through which Functions build geoemtria

direct modeler: the odds are measures showing the result of operations "move" type, "rotate" (ecc.) performed on geomtric entities (for commercial reasons some explicit tend to present them as parameters... but they are not: in other explicit cads, sc for example, the difference is quite evident).

rereading me, I guess I didn't explain very well. but it is not easy, being the subtle difference.

x hunter: when you say that the st uses parameters while being "no story" you mean that in st it is modeled with the classic features that however are not "regenerable" then with different parameters (a little as if after each performed function exported in step and reimported? it would be interesting to see a video (when you have time... and magati in another thread if you think it may be ot) :smile:

 

[Er Presidente]

The difference is:

feature based: the odds are parametri through which Functions build geoemtria

direct modeler: the odds are measures showing the result of operations "move" type, "rotate" (ecc.) performed on geomtric entities (for commercial reasons some explicit tend to present them as parameters... but they are not: in other explicit cads, sc for example, the difference is quite evident).

rereading me, I guess I didn't explain very well. but it is not easy, being the subtle difference.

x hunter: when you say that the st uses parameters while being "no story" you mean that in st it is modeled with the classic features that however are not "regenerable" then with different parameters (a little as if after each performed function exported in step and reimported? it would be interesting to see a video (when you have time... and magati in another thread if you think it may be ot) :smile:

I continue not to understand, with the parametric module in osd the "measures" are able to change the model according to values or functions, always.

 

[cacciatorino]

x hunter: when you say that the st uses parameters while being "no story" you mean that in st it is modeled with the classic features that however are not "regenerable" then with different parameters (a little as if after each performed function exported in step and reimported? it would be interesting to see a video (when you have time... and magati in another thread if you think it may be ot) :smile:

Not exactly.
I try to explain: we picture a d30 cylinder with above, coaxial, another d20 cylinder

with normal feature based, I make a first extrusion d30 l=80, and then another extrusion d20 l=60: on the features tree I will see the icons of two extrusions.
Okay, easy here.
At this point, I will see on the tree that the two extreme faces of the solid are 80+60=140mm. If I now change the first solid and make it become l=90, the total length will become 150, because the second cylinder d20 is regenerated from a origin that is no longer the one before, so the end also moves.

what do I do with se-st, osd, spaceclaim:
I generate the first cylinder, and then I generate the second cylinder, so far as it seems equal.
As soon as I generated the second cylinder, the cad forgets that the original solid was made by two processes, he only sees a set of surfaces. now what I do with st and cocreate (and I also think with sc even if I do not know it): I can impose that the distance between the base and the "top" of my solid is 140mm, no matter if 80+60 or 90+50. meanwhile, if with a "stira 3d" I move the transition zone d30-20 along a longitudinal direction, the two basic faces and tops will not move, because I have bound them to stay always at 140 mm, happens what happens (note well that I speak of constraints, concept still different from the parameter)
These in se-st are called "live rules", in cocreate I don't know. The serious problem of cocreate is that the parametric module is not included in the basic package for which almost no one buys it, when it is a powerful design tool.

Then the fundamental difference is:
with features-based constraints are generated to 90% implicitly during modeling (e.g. extrusion length), in the explicit instead the constraints put the operator on the basis of his considerations, being able to choose what to bind and what to leave free, because the cad of his does not bind anything without user input.

I hope I understand what I said. :biggrin:

p.s. what is a parameter: At my house a parameter is a mathematical function that says: This size is the function of this other, example: a mathematical relationship that binds the number of fixing holes of a flange to the diameter of the flange itself, such that if I change the diameter of the flange, the cad automatically update the number of holes according to the parameter that I planner have imposed.

 

[Matteo]

I keep not understanding, with the parametric module in osd the "measures" are able to change the model according to values or functions, always.

I didn't know about it! But it is very interesting: Isn't that you have a link to some video? if that is what I think is a further confirmation that osd is the best of the explicit (intensive as a tool for design).

 

[Andy-manager]

I continue not to understand, with the parametric module in osd the "measures" are able to change the model according to values or functions, always.

the 17 introduces the quotas of the 3d documentation as a tool for being able to make changes 3d. Surely you know that by moving 3d you can use the quota option to redefine the position of a face. This concept in 17 has been developed heavily so that you can use any 3d doc share to make any 3d change extremely fast . the parametric module still exists and works as before.

 

[Andy-manager]

. Also solidedge st is totally parametric without having the features.
.

that solid eddge in synchronous environment does not have the features... it's all to see... if you do two extrusions in the path finder you find the two instrumentations and if you click on it you light up the body that defines them. If you make a pattern of holes you find it as a puncture feature and if you delete it or move it all holes.

live rules in modeling are selections. only that in modeling select the faces or groups of faces to move and move them, in if instead you have to select the faces and then hope that the lives rules will work or go to attempts until you cheat the combinations of geometric constraints to respect

 

[Superguido]

(in fact, osd is parametric)

But you know what?! !
translated means "hei boy, but what are you saying? "
this statement reveals your poor knowledge of modeling that is absolutely not parametric, even in the way of thinking unlike the st that in fact is a parametric that carries out explicit commands.

 

[Matteo]

But you know what?! !
translated means "hei boy, but what are you saying? "
this statement reveals your poor knowledge of modeling that is absolutely not parametric, even in the way of thinking unlike the st that in fact is a parametric that carries out explicit commands.

hi superguido, I also ask you a courtesy (as made to some cocreate user, but in this case for the st): Could you post a video where you see the software work as a parametric while being explicit? I'm curious to understand if you mean what I have in mind too.

 

[Superguido]

Hello, matteo,
modeling works in parametric only with a specific module.
the parameterization of the parts is almost useless in my opinion in the bucket you have to put parameters to then perform changes that you can make dynamically better or equivalent, so I think it is a waste of time.
the module instead becomes indispensable to simulate complex cinematisms as in this case:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycuoapbe3nayou have to create all the constraints from 0 on an existing piece and move objects both through measures that dynamically inn, for example move the head of the robot and the rest follows it by solving the bonds of coaxiality.
in any case it is always a purely explicit cad as a space claim that is forced into parametric mode, not vice versa as for example in the dynamic functions of sw or st

 

[cacciatorino]

But you know what?! !
translated means "hei boy, but what are you saying? "
this statement reveals your poor knowledge of modeling that is absolutely not parametric, even in the way of thinking unlike the st that in fact is a parametric that carries out explicit commands.

maybe you didn't understand the difference between "parametric" and "history-feature-based". are two different concepts, osd is parametric but not guided by odds and not based on feature.

the parametric module I saw it in action in a demo from a dealer, I assure you that I saw with my eyes the flange that changed the number of holes to change the diameter automatically. Maybe what doesn't know him well is you, but it's quite normal that the parametric operation of osd is semi-known: to have it is necessary to buy a module apart, even quite expensive, so 99% of the installations around are devoid of it, so a superficial observer could seem that the cad does not possess this functionality.

 

[Superguido]

Hi hunting, I forgot to wish you a good year... .
You said well, the parts' parametric needs to be seen in demos. even those who like me know the program very well, do not usually use it, the patterns instead with the latest versions are becoming parametric-style.
I did the video, because I don't know the paramerian module well..... .