design with spaceclaim

[Andrea - Overcam]

Given the potential, why is most companies bound by constraints and parameters that are never used as such?

look, for the same reason that some motorists use suvs in the city instead of using a smart. some software are definitely more famous, and sellers to sell spread software to suit every use... instead a pre-sales consultant must explain well to what needs it aims to satisfy the software. if they were cars I would say that a single-volume serves to those who have a family to carry, must travel and need space; a smart is suitable as a second car, to those who go in pairs and in urban traffic with lack of seats; a suv to those traveling in an extra-urban environment. . .

I still want to know one thing, is there a possibility to save in dwg with relative autocad styles maybe defined by a client?

I was about to answer no, then I thought... you can save the user configuration and upload it. Among the various configurations are the styles of the table (colors, thicknesses, views,...). I would like to configure differently for one customer and for the other.

where do you find more use? they tell me for sheet metal development, but I find it very versatile. . .

average spread, certainly not high. having very well made bees has narrowed important agreements with colossi (ansys that acquired it and trumpf that inserted it in its full suite... investing a lot in integration) and cam partners who created data interchange plugins.
I recommend it for: contours (make changes from imported models) both for sheet development, but also preparation for machining for removal of truciole... Moreover it is suitable for those who have poor experience in cad 3d, but maybe it is accustomed to 2d, to those who must create prototypes of maximum (being very fast) and who is not a full time designer (because you learn quickly also using it).

I do not recommend it to those who: it produces only own assemblies, with complex surfaces to change over time, it is full time designer in a design department with different designers, it is accustomed to traditional feature based software and can create correct constraints and associations and in a short time.

 

[fabiovello]

I do not recommend it to those who: it produces only own assemblies, with complex surfaces to change over time, it is full time designer in a design department with different designers, it is accustomed to traditional feature based software and can create correct constraints and associations and in a short time.[/QUOTE]I find in part just what you say, but you send me off the road... look from the point of view of those who use a cam to draw because with the direct modeling you make 4 parallelepipeds you a sheet and turn to the customer as a project base in a very short time from the shape to your work... But then you have to count with having to type the desired snap for each command, with the countless mouse clicks for each command, with a non-existent table setting that creates more problematic than anything else since already the views between them are not aligned and do not follow you... torture.. .

said what do you think it's hard in the assemblies because it doesn't support much components? we typically, never inserting viteria we are on 1500pz max...

I like the direct way in designing with the possibility to carry out simple motion studies, mostly levers or pistons in moving. . .

Would you have another kind of cad?

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

But then you have to count with having to type the desired snap for each command, with the countless mouse clicks for each command, with a non-existent table setting that creates more problematic than anything else since already the views between them are not aligned and do not follow you... torture.. .

no look I don't think it's problematic, few clicks and precise measures! I think the table works well.
Maybe you're used to a direct modeling software with these problems, but I think you'll be amazed!

said what do you think it's hard in the assemblies because it doesn't support much components? we typically, never inserting viteria we are on 1500pz max...

no, sc is light, there was time ago a web page of comparison of rotation view of a complex assembly, sc was the most fluid.
There are no difficulties in the assemblies, the only limit is that it does not associate screws/bulbs/holes, however, there are sturdi to select all holes, all bolts, etc. and replace them or change them together. the bonds of together instead there are, and for this it is possible to create a kinematic of assembly.

I like the direct way in designing with the possibility to carry out simple motion studies, mostly levers or pistons in moving. . .

as mentioned above (you saw the link to http://www.ar-cad.com/sc-motion/index.html) the movements of levers and pistons make them simple, there can be no elastic movements (rings, chains, ...).

However, my advice to those who are experienced like you and already know so many software is to test it and test its criticalities. some companies also have both a traditional cad and a direct modeling cad to perform different functions... In the example of the car I can buy both the smart and one-volume and use one or the other depending on the journey I have to do.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

no look I don't think it's problematic, few clicks and precise measures! I think the table works well.
Maybe you're used to a direct modeling software with these problems, but I think you'll be amazed!

no, sc is light, there was time ago a web page of comparison of rotation view of a complex assembly, sc was the most fluid.
There are no difficulties in the assemblies, the only limit is that it does not associate screws/bulbs/holes, however, there are sturdi to select all holes, all bolts, etc. and replace them or change them together. the bonds of together instead there are, and for this it is possible to create a kinematic of assembly.

as mentioned above (you saw the link to http://www.ar-cad.com/sc-motion/index.html) the movements of levers and pistons make them simple, there can be no elastic movements (rings, chains, ...).

However, my advice to those who are experienced like you and already know so many software is to test it and test its criticalities. some companies also have both a traditional cad and a direct modeling cad to perform different functions... In the example of the car I can buy both the smart and one-volume and use one or the other depending on the journey I have to do.

Sorry to intrude, but to me the only thing I didn't like at the time was that I couldn't go back. or better, beyond a certain point, it was better to start all over again (sheet word). At least this is my memory... I probably didn't have enough experience, but with solidworks, for example, I can go back to the beginning of my model without compromising the final result. . .
good appetite, rotten.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Sorry to intrude, but to me the only thing I didn't like at the time was that I couldn't go back. or better, beyond a certain point, it was better to start all over again (sheet word). At least this is my memory... I probably didn't have enough experience, but with solidworks, for example, I can go back to the beginning of my model without compromising the final result. . .
good appetite, rotten.

going back with "annulla" or "undo" is possible, but if you want to change the initial sketch that is a concept that does not exist, but depends on what projects you change equally otherwise (but depends on case to case). does not follow everything
to every change, for this it is lighter and leaner.

 

[marcof]

Sorry to intrude, but to me the only thing I didn't like at the time was that I couldn't go back. or better, beyond a certain point, it was better to start all over again (sheet word).

It's hard to break the parametric if you know how to use it well:smile:
with the contextual is a moment to transform a transatlantic complete with the whole of the field into a gigantic full cube, make a rescue, and find yourself with the only cube:wink:

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

It's hard to break the parametric if you know how to use it well:smile:
with the contextual is a moment to transform a transatlantic complete with the whole of the field into a gigantic full cube, make a rescue, and find yourself with the only cube:wink:

you have its advantages, it is clear that if one already knows a system change mentality is always hostical!

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

you have its advantages, it is clear that if one already knows a system change mentality is always hostical!

I'd be afraid to draw a big together with sc, but I'm probably wrong! Andrea I'm ready to retract everything if you better explain to me how to handle a set, or if you recommend some videos. I like to learn and get to know things, don't talk to boast!! !

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

The assemblies are managed in 3 ways:
- Classic. create details, save each in a file, create a new file (assembly) and import all other files, place the details inside the assembly with "setting" or creating bonds of assemblies (if you agree). the saved file will be a file like the others (same extension) but very small (it contains only information and no geometry). Components can be modified inside and save all dependencies or replace the particular with a new model. the axieme can also be a subaxis of a larger assembly, and the saved files can be used in other projects, or if they can create independent versions.
- New world. an assembly is created using each geometry already designed to couple the new details designed and verify the correct size (e.g. I create a new hole on the particular one that coincides with that of the particular b already drawn). at the end of the assembly composition I have only one file that contains everything. if you need to add already designed components and I bring them inside (all in a file) or external (as in the traditional way). I can save some (or all) internal components (so in the only file) as external components (and then switch to traditional mode) or I can have a mix: the components to be reused are external, the own components of the project I bring them inside.

very versatile!

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

The assemblies are managed in 3 ways:
- Classic. create details, save each in a file, create a new file (assembly) and import all other files, place the details inside the assembly with "setting" or creating bonds of assemblies (if you agree). the saved file will be a file like the others (same extension) but very small (it contains only information and no geometry). Components can be modified inside and save all dependencies or replace the particular with a new model. the axieme can also be a subaxis of a larger assembly, and the saved files can be used in other projects, or if they can create independent versions.
- New world. an assembly is created using each geometry already designed to couple the new details designed and verify the correct size (e.g. I create a new hole on the particular one that coincides with that of the particular b already drawn). at the end of the assembly composition I have only one file that contains everything. if you need to add already designed components and I bring them inside (all in a file) or external (as in the traditional way). I can save some (or all) internal components (so in the only file) as external components (and then switch to traditional mode) or I can have a mix: the components to be reused are external, the own components of the project I bring them inside.

very versatile!

I try to document myself on youtube tonight, see if I find anything. Whatever it is, I am not an official designer, likes a lot of spaceclaim!

 

[fabiovello]

if you find something you share! !

 

[Cadcam3D]

I'd be afraid to draw a big together with sc, but I'm probably wrong! Andrea I'm ready to retract everything if you better explain to me how to handle a set, or if you recommend some videos. I like to learn and get to know things, don't talk to boast!! !

you can do it with spaceclaim, I created last year a project consisting of about 800 different components.
with about 800 2d drawing boards attached to the model. and everything went into production without problems.

the beautiful spaceclaim is flexibility, the negative side instead is that if you do not know it well and do not be careful you can make disasters.
for me cmq is ideal for 70% of companies, then solid edge and others have other qualities, for example sc for the table, once well calibrated it is good, but other cads are better in the table.
for very complex projects maybe spaceclaim begins to lose blows compared to other cad.

depends on what you have to do, for certain uses spaceclaim is number 1, for others instead other cads are better.
but according to me for a good 50% of spaceclaim companies is phenomenal.

the negative side is that it is strange as logic compared to the other cads, so you have to relearn it if you use other cad3d for certain aspects.

Obviously it is not perfect, but the potential of the programam you can only understand with a demo made by those who know how to use it well, calibrated on your use.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

....
the negative side is that it is strange as logic compared to other cad..... .

I agree in full with this phrase! It will be for what I thought there were more problems in doing an overall!

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

I agree in full with this phrase! It will be for what I thought there were more problems in doing an overall!

no no, I think in creating an overall is also easier because there are no different environments of modeling and assembly, you can do as you want!

Yes, logic is different, if we want simpler, but different. Excuse me if I tell you this parable:
yesterday I saw on TV a broadcast in which an African explained that in Africa you eat with your hands... the other commensali (occidental) tried but failed so well, they were accustomed to using the cutlery. It made me think that the African was very good at eating with his hands, and that in fact is the first way of eating that we know from children, but then "disimpariamo" in favor of fork and knife. here, spaceclaim is very intuitive, but if you reason in a "traditional cad" way you think you have to use specific functions that you don't find instead (because almost everything is done with drag!). for a neophyte it is easier to use hands to eat, but if to an adult remove the forks from the table does not know where to begin. . on the contrary it will begin to look for forks without thinking of having even the hands!

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

no no, I think in creating an overall is also easier because there are no different environments of modeling and assembly, you can do as you want!

Yes, logic is different, if we want simpler, but different. Excuse me if I tell you this parable:
yesterday I saw on TV a broadcast in which an African explained that in Africa you eat with your hands... the other commensali (occidental) tried but failed so well, they were accustomed to using the cutlery. It made me think that the African was very good at eating with his hands, and that in fact is the first way of eating that we know from children, but then "disimpariamo" in favor of fork and knife. here, spaceclaim is very intuitive, but if you reason in a "traditional cad" way you think you have to use specific functions that you don't find instead (because almost everything is done with drag!). for a neophyte it is easier to use hands to eat, but if to an adult remove the forks from the table does not know where to begin. . on the contrary it will begin to look for forks without thinking of having even the hands!

Then I ask you if you can please me with a video of a simple set with solid pieces and sheet where you show me how the software behaves. type functions top down that have other cads. I mean, something fast for you not to waste too much time. Thank you, Marco.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

Then I ask you if you can please me with a video of a simple set with solid pieces and sheet where you show me how the software behaves. type functions top down that have other cads. I mean, something fast for you not to waste too much time. Thank you, Marco.

I'll do it, but you have to tell me exactly what you want to see, be specific.
For example: create a cube with a hole, save it, make a cylinder, save it, do a set, recall both components and put them together.
or: create a set from a set of solids, replace a component with one already saved, ...
or: Let me see how the structure of assemblies works, sub-assiem. . .

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

I'll do it, but you have to tell me exactly what you want to see, be specific.
For example: create a cube with a hole, save it, make a cylinder, save it, do a set, recall both components and put them together.
or: create a set from a set of solids, replace a component with one already saved, ...
or: Let me see how the structure of assemblies works, sub-assiem. . .

Andrea. In fact, I would be interested in everything, especially the last part, the structure of the sub-assemblies. type, I build a particular sheet metal. I start from that and build on other details (staffes and anything else) clearly with holes and grooves that match. . Lastly I built a tubular structure partially covered by striped sheets, reinforced under 3mm folded brackets and profiles. I don't want to engage too much and waste time, see you. some video on the net is good too! Thank you, Marco.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

I'll do it, but you have to tell me exactly what you want to see, be specific.
For example: create a cube with a hole, save it, make a cylinder, save it, do a set, recall both components and put them together.
or: create a set from a set of solids, replace a component with one already saved, ...
or: Let me see how the structure of assemblies works, sub-assiem. . .

hi gorea, I was dealing with this video you had done for me and I wondered if with sc there is the possibility to have even more detailed tables, type with annotations, weight and various specifications.. .
Thank you.

 

[Andrea - Overcam]

hi gorea, I was dealing with this video you had done for me and I wondered if with sc there is the possibility to have even more detailed tables, type with annotations, weight and various specifications.. .
Thank you.

Hello, Marco.
Yes, you can customize the tables of the separate base by adding component properties as:
Index
Name component
file name/path
quantity
xyz measurements
mass mass
volume
material (and other material properties)
custom fields (digitized in table and stored on the component)

In short, you can create more or less detailed boms, and with different custom models to recall when necessary.

 

[MarcoAtk]

hi, I add questions to keep this thread alive on this program that I think is very valid.

I ask if it is possible in the field cartilages that are not the standard ones in the properties: I explain... for each sheet file, I must indicate the treatment in the cartilage under the material. I don't find the right property and if I do one, then it just stays in that file.

if I have to insert hexagonal thread inserts to pull, it takes a hexagonal hole for ognun insert: I made myself a hexagon-shaped component that they posiziono and then with comb, cut off the hexagon; inside the hexagon hole then, I put the insert. Is there any other way?

once made a custom table format, then when I make a table, can you no longer change? For example if the code field is too short because in the current case I have a longer code, how do I get it back into its space that I can't marry anymore?

Thank you very much in advance.
Hi.
Mar