Polymar
Guest
If you "write", then you better not even post. no one takes it for nothing, no less I but at least I see that in the last post there is more concreteness and decision in showing how much had been said before. nothing binds me to dpt how true I have always heard extreme statements from people who have always and only used the extruded command and made some sketches. real experts and people who pushed beyond there was very little. certainly the first release that marked a certain stability and a point of arrival is 2009.3, while in the previous new commands did not allow to be really concrete to complete the most complex tasks. and however obvious that it takes time before the new ideas become mature and turn into something on which the competitors did not want to invest. managing imported geometries, generated and exported by other cads was perhaps always the challenge of the challenges. right, so many surfaces are trimmed and often not even continuous. it is necessary therefore always to clean the files but this is a procedure that already those who come from the solid designer is accustomed to doing. cutting and extending is something that those who work in the cnc field do continuously and in the end it is easy to do. the real problem is those who model the original file that often and willingly generates illegal operations, as trim with surfaces that generate intersections with fittings and many other cases. so in the end it is always "the adaptor" that makes its expenses. I also rated rhinoceros at the beginning, but then at the end with some dexterity also td does everything more than dignified so it is useless to involve another software that would only cause damage. we do not talk about rhino plugins to work on cnc, an incredible obscenity almost shameful. instead the integration of td with hypermill was a really winning move, much more detached than it is today with swx and inventor, which remain cad conceived to process native geometries, not imported. and I add that setting up a geometry with proes would be even more a blood bath, to say little improposable. Today, however, hypercad is nothing but bringing td features into a new interface integrated into hypermill and that in one way or another, it works. the fittings are a topic that needs to be evaluated specifically, useless to be generic when you do not have examples of reference. from a skillful user to make it switch between solid and surfaces, some fittings impossible even on other band cad a, I solved them with the plugged connection.
now I answer to the points that he has mentioned earlier
4- gsm is an enhanced feature at the time in think3 not to totally overwhelm geometries like some videos that work on ad hoc models, but to implement some deformations quickly when a customer asks you changes on the fly, a bit like when acting with the dynamic modeling of soliddesigner. with much more skill you could do more nice things but here we enter the within of advanced users who are not at all numerous
5- Regenerating surfaces and simplifying them with the appropriate commands, you can collect what was previously failed. I repeat, before saying that it fails and throws everything into the air, it is also necessary to analyze and verify the model. cads who decide what it is best to do yet do not exist and good or bad, it is still the hand and experience of the user who are decisive. the displacement of the features is almost always compromised by the fact that the user has acted with associative commands and not. many like the parametric, others for speed want to be history free, and eventually they pay the price at the time of the changes. It's inevitable.
6- no one doubts the vx strengths as well as I am user. but beyond the information that you can read on wikipedia about the origins of zw3d, the Chinese product today has been slightly improved at the kernel level (perhaps for a question of roiality or more, I am not well informed about this). rightly, the Chinese want to ensure some interoperability with other cads and therefore acis and parasolids must be called into question. the system must remain open and ensure compatibility, perhaps too much since their autocad2d version has been "bannata". I also recognize that at every release, zw3d always makes considerable progress especially in defining a "vertical" product
7- you've tangled... I've never said that rhino cares bad, indeed, it matters well and it's fast without eating too much memory and resources. the fact is that td owns the tools to adjust the imported geometries as well as rhino, so it is useless to involve another "cad" which is more explicitly a freeform. and once opened the geometry, through the interactive analysis and modeling tools you do everything possible, including simplifying the faces with closing the gaps. if instead the file in question has been exported from the original system with low precision, then it is obvious, better to give us to pile.
8- obvious that gsm does not exist only for t3, indeed as you have said alias and other material of the surfaces imitate the same concept. then by extension of what you said before, their "gsm" can act on those geometries on which td failed?!? I have never made such a comparison today, I would have no material time and it would be something foolish
certain things if they have to hurry others. It remains in fact that acting on complex surfaces implies the passage to the nurbs speech, is avoidable. Are others different? today as today the processing power is available in abundance, not to mention the support (still minimally exploited) of the cube through the scalar multiplication where the processors are still poor, even the most recent. so td starts from simple things, but if the user intends to push himself further, he can do it by taking on the nurbs. whether it is a casino or not, computational geometry is this, and will remain it for a long time
9- unigraphics had to play force to get covered from the commercial point of view, its product is perhaps the most evolved today, but really capable programmers/researchers want to be paid well. and at difficult times the financial cover avoids the escape of brains. but while we can compare technically the cads, from the commercial point of view everything would be composed and the differences would become abyssal. everything has a cost.
10- I said it from the beginning, think3 from the commercial point of view was a catastrophe never seen but you are confusing the litter with the lanterns. zbrush is one thing, an innovative, stable and reliable cad more. Does zbrush intend to collide sooner or later with adobe or few more?!? ! of course, congratulations to his author, pity that his limits have already been drawn. but I repeat, capable people want to be paid.
no one says that your opinion is right or wrong, simply it is subject to considerations that must first be well evaluated and not because "it is done to write".
Say hi.
now I answer to the points that he has mentioned earlier
4- gsm is an enhanced feature at the time in think3 not to totally overwhelm geometries like some videos that work on ad hoc models, but to implement some deformations quickly when a customer asks you changes on the fly, a bit like when acting with the dynamic modeling of soliddesigner. with much more skill you could do more nice things but here we enter the within of advanced users who are not at all numerous
5- Regenerating surfaces and simplifying them with the appropriate commands, you can collect what was previously failed. I repeat, before saying that it fails and throws everything into the air, it is also necessary to analyze and verify the model. cads who decide what it is best to do yet do not exist and good or bad, it is still the hand and experience of the user who are decisive. the displacement of the features is almost always compromised by the fact that the user has acted with associative commands and not. many like the parametric, others for speed want to be history free, and eventually they pay the price at the time of the changes. It's inevitable.
6- no one doubts the vx strengths as well as I am user. but beyond the information that you can read on wikipedia about the origins of zw3d, the Chinese product today has been slightly improved at the kernel level (perhaps for a question of roiality or more, I am not well informed about this). rightly, the Chinese want to ensure some interoperability with other cads and therefore acis and parasolids must be called into question. the system must remain open and ensure compatibility, perhaps too much since their autocad2d version has been "bannata". I also recognize that at every release, zw3d always makes considerable progress especially in defining a "vertical" product
7- you've tangled... I've never said that rhino cares bad, indeed, it matters well and it's fast without eating too much memory and resources. the fact is that td owns the tools to adjust the imported geometries as well as rhino, so it is useless to involve another "cad" which is more explicitly a freeform. and once opened the geometry, through the interactive analysis and modeling tools you do everything possible, including simplifying the faces with closing the gaps. if instead the file in question has been exported from the original system with low precision, then it is obvious, better to give us to pile.
8- obvious that gsm does not exist only for t3, indeed as you have said alias and other material of the surfaces imitate the same concept. then by extension of what you said before, their "gsm" can act on those geometries on which td failed?!? I have never made such a comparison today, I would have no material time and it would be something foolish
certain things if they have to hurry others. It remains in fact that acting on complex surfaces implies the passage to the nurbs speech, is avoidable. Are others different? today as today the processing power is available in abundance, not to mention the support (still minimally exploited) of the cube through the scalar multiplication where the processors are still poor, even the most recent. so td starts from simple things, but if the user intends to push himself further, he can do it by taking on the nurbs. whether it is a casino or not, computational geometry is this, and will remain it for a long time9- unigraphics had to play force to get covered from the commercial point of view, its product is perhaps the most evolved today, but really capable programmers/researchers want to be paid well. and at difficult times the financial cover avoids the escape of brains. but while we can compare technically the cads, from the commercial point of view everything would be composed and the differences would become abyssal. everything has a cost.
10- I said it from the beginning, think3 from the commercial point of view was a catastrophe never seen but you are confusing the litter with the lanterns. zbrush is one thing, an innovative, stable and reliable cad more. Does zbrush intend to collide sooner or later with adobe or few more?!? ! of course, congratulations to his author, pity that his limits have already been drawn. but I repeat, capable people want to be paid.
no one says that your opinion is right or wrong, simply it is subject to considerations that must first be well evaluated and not because "it is done to write".
Say hi.
