that 3d choose?

[maxopus]

I don't care. I thought you were messing around.
I'm getting more and more 'the mechanism anyway, even because my problem is not modeling (certainly with autocad is Moroccan to say little), but the tide of pieces that I have to manage which now literally make me sweat. . .
I imagine that for that plant, so much to begin, I needed 4 filters so but of different dimensions (i.e., a piece equal to between the 4 not even legs; ), 2 silos of storage, a tide of hoppers, a tide of piping (suction and transport), fans, spietrators, bilances, coclee, conveyor belts, support structure to 3 floors.. .
I mean, that filter is gonna be a minimum 20th of the whole job.

dxf export method for laser cutting nesting is very simple.

the simplest method is to make two sheets in drawing (those that in autocad are called paper space).
in the first sheet you have the normal table complete of cartiglio, quotas, annotations and symbols.
in the second sheet insert the view of the developed component (in case it is dieped) in scale 1:1, without cartiglio and tangenza lines of the edges.

there are more sophisticated methods that allow more push automatisms.

I usually recommend that you initially deal with these operations in manual mode to understand their operation.
After a short period of this burn (a few months) the most suitable automations must be implemented.

 

[Parametric_Ozzy]

I don't care. I thought you were messing around.
I'm getting more and more 'the mechanism anyway, even because my problem is not modeling (certainly with autocad is Moroccan to say little), but the tide of pieces that I have to manage which now literally make me sweat. . .
I imagine that for that plant, so much to begin, I needed 4 filters so but of different dimensions (i.e., a piece equal to between the 4 not even legs; ), 2 silos of storage, a tide of hoppers, a tide of piping (suction and transport), fans, spietrators, bilances, coclee, conveyor belts, support structure to 3 floors.. .
I mean, that filter is gonna be a minimum 20th of the whole job.

no we would miss the things that bother me are much more.. .
Look, I guess it's just a little bit, think if I can get you a pseudo-configurator. . That would be crazy cool.
now I am already forward forgive my is professional deformation.
ps: I have a demo of a stoccaccio silos who knows that on webex since you are in puglia you can not organize something.

Here... if one puts a pdm could make the dxf be generated at the time of release.
if there is no pdm, you might think of some "batch" tool (nx, for example, can generate dxfs automatically, if these are deposited in a directory)

That's right!
But you will agree with me that a pdm would be better.

 

[maxopus]

no we would miss the things that bother me are much more.. .
Look, I guess it's just a little bit, think if I can get you a pseudo-configurator. . That would be crazy cool.
now I am already forward forgive my is professional deformation.
ps: I have a demo of a stoccaccio silos who knows that on webex since you are in puglia you can not organize something.


That's right!
But you will agree with me that a pdm would be better.

But I think that the chief of enzo has slow digestion.
Perhaps (no matter what the cad they choose) would be the case to take one step at a time.

if you add cad + pdm maybe a figure that would not understand (put into the head of one who does not understand the need of the mechanical cad instead of autocad).

once enzo has demonstrated the validity of the cad in economic terms will make its theatrical release: "Do you like to see how much time you save with this system? ... well these are only the foundations, now you have to build the structure."

 

[The_Matrix]

But I think that the chief of enzo has slow digestion.
Perhaps (no matter what the cad they choose) would be the case to take one step at a time.

if you add cad + pdm maybe a figure that would not understand (put into the head of one who does not understand the need of the mechanical cad instead of autocad).

once enzo has demonstrated the validity of the cad in economic terms will make its theatrical release: "Do you like to see how much time you save with this system? ... well these are only the foundations, now you have to build the structure."

I write it in small, so you can't see and you don't argue. :biggrin:
but can you approach this type of design in "multibody" mode (from 3d to 2d to part list, etc) or need to model piece by piece?

 

[maxopus]

I write it in small, so you can't see and you don't argue. :biggrin:
but can you approach this type of design in "multibody" mode (from 3d to 2d to part list, etc) or need to model piece by piece?

rubber fences:smile:
I don't know beppe, I have the multibody not having it, I never used it.
I think that in the study phase of a complex project can give a good hand.
inside a file you make your solids and then with plans, references and surfaces perform cuts, divide bodies, "sludge" and "scorci".
However, I do not know how to assess the competitiveness of a "traditional" system or the direct modeling system.

because it is true that you save time in making the draft for the discussion with the customer but, after that you will take much more time for the table.

this because with the "traditional" method, using start-parts with connected table, I automatically generate the table with the creation of the part.
instead with the multibody system you have to export all the bodies to one by assigning the characteristics of a certain start part, and the tables you do after from scratch.
It would be interesting and nice to take a test, only that would take a long time.

 

[MBT]

the same reasoning I did.
on inv 2009 it is not possible, on 2011 and successive si... but I have to think about it before I make a decision about it

 

[Matteo]

rubber fences:smile:
I don't know beppe, I have the multibody not having it, I never used it.
I think that in the study phase of a complex project can give a good hand.
inside a file you make your solids and then with plans, references and surfaces perform cuts, divide bodies, "sludge" and "scorci".
However, I do not know how to assess the competitiveness of a "traditional" system or the direct modeling system.

because it is true that you save time in making the draft for the discussion with the customer but, after that you will take much more time for the table.

this because with the "traditional" method, using start-parts with connected table, I automatically generate the table with the creation of the part.
instead with the multibody system you have to export all the bodies to one by assigning the characteristics of a certain start part, and the tables you do after from scratch.
It would be interesting and nice to take a test, only that would take a long time.

I find myself at this time having to choose between these two approaches in converting a project from proe to swx.
the impression is that (especially for welded carpenters) the multibody is more convenient than the "multi part", but it will take at least one extra release because swx manages it perfectly.

 

[Enzolog]

no we would miss the things that bother me are much more.. .
Look, I guess it's just a little bit, think if I can get you a pseudo-configurator. . That would be crazy cool.
now I am already forward forgive my is professional deformation.
ps: I have a demo of a stoccaccio silos who knows that on webex since you are in puglia you can not organize something.


That's right!
But you will agree with me that a pdm would be better.

think the jaw of the one who will see this pseudo-configurator at work (maybe I already have something in mind), could break down three floors:

 

[Enzolog]

But I think that the chief of enzo has slow digestion.
Perhaps (no matter what the cad they choose) would be the case to take one step at a time.

if you add cad + pdm maybe a figure that would not understand (put into the head of one who does not understand the need of the mechanical cad instead of autocad).

once enzo has demonstrated the validity of the cad in economic terms will make its theatrical release: "Do you like to see how much time you save with this system? ... well these are only the foundations, now you have to build the structure."

All three paragraphs.
Is multipart a multipart part created?
is the multibody assembly created by more assembly?
I don't even dare to assume, now I go to study it on wiki as I always do.

 

[Matteo]

think the jaw of the one who will see this pseudo-configurator at work (maybe I already have something in mind), could break down three floors:

if ozzy speaks of "pseudo configurator" means that he has ready something that can amaze:finger:

 

[maxopus]

All three paragraphs.
Is multipart a multipart part created?
is the multibody assembly created by more assembly?
I don't even dare to assume, now I go to study it on wiki as I always do.

the multipart escapes me, the pdm finds it widely treated also on wikipedia.
pdm is acronym for product data management.
This is the management of all non geometric project data.
Someone will forgive me for prosaic terms.
is a program that allows you to group, classify, filter, encode all data of one or more projects.
being a data management system (it resembles a lot to a database) offers many advantages within a technical office.

multibody is nothing but a modeling mode that allows you in part environment (which is different from assembly environment) to divide solids into contiguous bodies and to export them later as single parts.
I believe that this is not the case for a precise choice of the ptc of which I ignore the reasons.
In practice in one part there cannot exist contiguous solid bodies, only in assembly environment.

in some cads, like nx, swx and the latest versions of inventor, this function is there.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages in this approach to modeling on which I do not express judgments.

 

[Enzolog]

multibody is nothing but a modeling mode that allows you in part environment (which is different from assembly environment) to divide solids into contiguous bodies and to export them later as single parts.
I believe that this is not the case for a precise choice of the ptc of which I ignore the reasons.
In practice in one part there cannot exist contiguous solid bodies, only in assembly environment.

in some cads, like nx, swx and the latest versions of inventor, this function is there.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages in this approach to modeling on which I do not express judgments.

Finally! ! !
I didn't think of the exact terms to explain myself better.
That's what I couldn't understand perfectly.
having tried a previous version of solidworks (2008 maybe) and inventor (years 2003 - 2005 if not erro), as well as catia, I noticed that I could draw piece by piece and then assemble.
In my case, however, unfortunately each piece comes as a result of the atro and it is very convenient to create more parts on a file that is not an assembly.
Maybe that's what made me think (excuse the naivety) that nx was superior, but I don't know why I couldn't explain this step

 

[Matteo]

I believe that this is not the case for a precise choice of the ptc of which I ignore the reasons.

there is also to say that the tools for copying geoemtric entities in proes (cree) are more powerful diq uelli in swx. to me it happened to have a "skeleton" consisting of only one part (very useful for fem analysis on the flight) used as a reference together to build the individual parts.

in both cases it is a question of "philosophical" choices more than limits.

 

[maxopus]

Finally! ! !
I didn't think of the exact terms to explain myself better.
That's what I couldn't understand perfectly.
having tried a previous version of solidworks (2008 maybe) and inventor (years 2003 - 2005 if not erro), as well as catia, I noticed that I could draw piece by piece and then assemble.
In my case, however, unfortunately each piece comes as a result of the atro and it is very convenient to create more parts on a file that is not an assembly.
Maybe that's what made me think (excuse the naivety) that nx was superior, but I don't know why I couldn't explain this step

doing so in assembly environment is +/- the same thing, in my case I prefer it.
insert the part (two clicks) and models related to the other part or references (axes, plans, points) or the skeleton in the advanced assembly.

from the point of view of the relationships between components, those of creo are among the most solid existing on the market.
you will never have problems of mating between faces, between edges, between points .. etc. etc.
in other cads (I don't name names) sometimes relationships jump, I assume because faces do not have towards and therefore the system sometimes gets wrapped up.
not that there are no solutions... but in the end you are forced to adopt strategies to make the model more stable.

It is only a choice, probably dictated by the ptc philosophy that is always directed towards the stability of the model and I think that certain features (multibody) make the models a little more "delicate".

 

[The_Matrix]

there is also to say that the tools for copying geoemtric entities in proes (cree) are more powerful diq uelli in swx. to me it happened to have a "skeleton" consisting of only one part (very useful for fem analysis on the flight) used as a reference together to build the individual parts.

in both cases it is a question of "philosophical" choices more than limits.

correct.
I always thought that the multibody was a fucked-up. .
Then, put to the test, I had to believe. :finger: (it is my value... I'm not stuck on my ideas. if you show me that yours is better, even if you're my subject, hug it)
I proceeded like this:
1) created skeleton driving parts
2) from the skeleton I derived the "assembly" in multibody mode
3) I put to the body all the characteristics of the models (materials, maximum dimensions of the plates, etc.)
... here came the first "bivio": what do I do for deliverables? Do I continue with multibody or step on loose parts?
answer: depends on the manufacturing strategy and therefore on the corporate erp.
In the end, I preferred to create components from the leotards, letting them inherit all the characteristics of the body themselves.
In this way I did agilely (always through start part, as it suggested max) the constructive tables of each single sheet... not to mention the part list, which at this point is managed by teamcenter and not entrusted to strangeness like pl on the drawing that then export in some way...
the teamcenter part list, enriched possibly by variants/options etc. is sent ootb to the erp (sap, oracle, as400, sigip, etc.)

the cae can be done both on the multibody model and on that components.

 

[The_Matrix]

doing so in assembly environment is +/- the same thing, in my case I prefer it.
insert the part (two clicks) and models related to the other part or references (axes, plans, points) or the skeleton in the advanced assembly.
from the point of view of the relationships between components, those of creo are among the most solid existing on the market.you will never have problems of mating between faces, between edges, between points .. etc. etc.
in other cads (I don't name names) sometimes relationships jump, I assume because faces do not have towards and therefore the system sometimes gets wrapped up.
not that there are no solutions... but in the end you are forced to adopt strategies to make the model more stable.

It is only a choice, probably dictated by the ptc philosophy that is always directed towards the stability of the model and I think that certain features (multibody) make the models a little more "delicate".

tzè... you don't know a Russian cad that handles them much better than pro/e...:tongue:

 

[maxopus]

tzè... you don't know a Russian cad that handles them much better than pro/e...:tongue:

Smile :smile:

 

[cacciatorino]

correct.
I always thought that the multibody was a fucked-up. .
Then, put to the test, I had to believe. :finger:

Me too, until I found myself designing carpenters with solidworks, I thought it was better to work with assembly to make welded frames.

Today I have radically changed my mind: to make welded carpenters and then worked, much better the multybody approach than the multipart approach of if, the modeling is enormously speeded.

 

[The_Matrix]

Me too, until I found myself designing carpenters with solidworks, I thought it was better to work with assembly to make welded frames.

Today I have radically changed my mind: to make welded carpenters and then worked, much better the multybody approach than the multipart approach of if, the modeling is enormously speeded.

Fortunately nx supports both approaches.
ps. the company that I have seen (make crane) thinks it has the u divided into 2 (usano swx):
- a part uses multibody
- a part uses assembly
... and each of the two parts thinks the other is a gang of caxxari... :angry: (I hope they don't read me!:tongue

 

[The_Matrix]

Stop it!

If you're kidding me... :smile: