flaviobrio88
Guest
I do visual basic programs for our "basic data" (internal programs nothing but)also flaviobrio88
but what I do most and teach, when you have to upgrade from one version to another is not stressful while if you have to teach from zero line you look for spline etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In the end I enjoy demo.
the program is omnicad
GD1907
Guest
thanks to all for the various contributions.
one thing I noticed then is that the technician who introduced us inventor was very good, went very fast and, not knowing the program, we could not follow and understand all his steps, made by him everything seemed simple, doing some functions alone we went in trouble and we noticed how inventor is less intuitive and more complicated in the way to operate.
at the end of my conclusion is that swx is even better and at the most for certain aspects they are equal, now you have to see how the leaders will take it (which maybe they had already decided) I will keep you updated.
one thing I noticed then is that the technician who introduced us inventor was very good, went very fast and, not knowing the program, we could not follow and understand all his steps, made by him everything seemed simple, doing some functions alone we went in trouble and we noticed how inventor is less intuitive and more complicated in the way to operate.
at the end of my conclusion is that swx is even better and at the most for certain aspects they are equal, now you have to see how the leaders will take it (which maybe they had already decided) I will keep you updated.
flaviobrio88
Guest
I just can't understand these things.
and then ask for your opinion if you do not consider your decisions.
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
have already decided.. .
simply show users what they will expect...:wink:
GD1907
Guest
Hypothet: because they are interested in the costs of the program, which for inventor are lower having also many autocad licenses, nothing else, (the company is not them) then will be a problem of us users succeed to work, and deliver the projects in the predetermined times!
the presentation therefore is a facade thing because if not we would have all the reasons to complain to us.
Now let's see: the opinions of several designers are negative (all who know how to use really solidworks), others unfortunately are not, because those for one reason, who for another, have an interest in changing (leans and servants exist everywhere), you must see the leaders who will want to listen (of course the licens are favoured in this, even if they show less technical competence), then they will have to take on the weight of the choice and the possible problems that will entail a lot subsequently, I will have fun. :biggrin::biggrin::
flaviobrio88
Guest
I get it!
Like my mother did when I was a kid.
Do you like soup?
No.
And now you eat it otherwise I'll swallow it hot
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
the synthesis is this...
The_Matrix
Guest
Too bad you work with my friend eight...
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
You did well not have me as a pupil...:tongue:
The_Matrix
Guest
Magari! :finger:
GD1907
Guest
I put another question, now I have tasted, since the answers help me a lot.
in inventor there is a "fusion" function for editing files imported from other software, but I seem to have understood that you still lose the parameterity of the file.
instead in swx there is the futureworks function, where the functions are really recognized and therefore you can recreate the parameters.
Am I wrong or what?
Thank you.
in inventor there is a "fusion" function for editing files imported from other software, but I seem to have understood that you still lose the parameterity of the file.
instead in swx there is the futureworks function, where the functions are really recognized and therefore you can recreate the parameters.
Am I wrong or what?
Thank you.
The_Matrix
Guest
.... The forum ring...
cacciatorino
Guest
It's two different things.
fusion allows to move solid geometries "transcinandole" with the mouse (called in very rough words, of course the thing is much more sophisiticata), and this also works on imported solids and therefore without the working tree.
featureworks takes the imported file (step or parasolid or iges or etc), if you study it and try to rebuild a plausible feature tree, so that you can edit it. But it's just an attempt that makes the software, it might have nothing to do with the starting solid.
typically these feature reconstruction softs are a more 'old' technology, developed when not much of direct manipulation of the model, either the synctech of siemens or fusion of autodesk, which are making it out obsolete.
The_Matrix
Guest
correct hunting.. .
between you and me that we understand...
I have just finished a big analysis on some parametric exchange software between cad systems1. exchange features
2. assembly exchange (mating condition)
3. 2d exchange (intensive membership 2d/3d)
for case 1. I have come to the conclusion that the thing will work (add all the "niche" you want) only if the model is simple... on which the st is so great.. .
when the model becomes geometrically complex and the st shows the rope, the parametric translation does not work.. .
Points 2. and 3. (especially 3.) are very embryonic and the comment I can do is that the efffort do not know if the candle is worth.. .
Perhaps with the arrival of chrysler and daimler in our family, with the need to migrate tons of models from v5 to nx, something will move. . .
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
and do you really think it will work a little more than the knee? already inside dassault couldn't translating from v4 to v5 you want it to work in nx? You dream too much!correct hunting.. .
between you and me that we understand...
1. exchange features
2. assembly exchange (mating condition)
3. 2d exchange (intensive membership 2d/3d)
for case 1. I have come to the conclusion that the thing will work (add all the "niche" you want) only if the model is simple... on which the st is so great.. .
when the model becomes geometrically complex and the st shows the rope, the parametric translation does not work.. .
Points 2. and 3. (especially 3.) are very embryonic and the comment I can do is that the efffort do not know if the candle is worth.. .
Perhaps with the arrival of chrysler and daimler in our family, with the need to migrate tons of models from v5 to nx, something will move. . .
apart from jokes, I share what is said but there are still big limits especially dictated by different types of kernels, they are more than other commercial functions, but sincerely they have their big limits in all cad.
cacciatorino
Guest
According to me for this would suffice a small revision of the specific step, as well as to transfer the "metadati" associated with solids, possible that you can not add to the file step of the lines with written:
"property_1@solid1 = brunitura"
"property_2@assembly4 = circular saw group"
"property_3@face123= recommended replacement"
and then when you reimport the solid you do all the associations you want as you do now reappearing fonts and lines with dwg? mystery!
I don't agree with you, if this isn't developed, it's because no software company has an interest in facilitating data transfer between different applications, so that it's easy to sell the program to the whole induced, once sold to the "big factory".
If these two things worked (wins of assemblies but above all metadata) I think it would be enough for me to have a cad to please all customers, instead of having to buy a different one for each one, or give up taking them knowing that I will never spoil them....
I think it's technically difficult. . . .
cacciatorino
Guest
But he's got synctech, he's got ficiurs, he's doing it quietly. :biggrin:
Parametric_Ozzy
Guest
But here you were talking about recognition functions within the tree. :smile: