On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:40:11 -0700, jon_banquer wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Sep 27, 6:16 pm, Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:
A fully 3D program is, IMHO, a must for any kind of design, anything
else is silly. A parametric modeler, however (like SWX and many
others) can be very cumbersome to use... and I've used a lot of them
over the years. Yes, if the design constraints are set up correctly
from the start, minor changes can be ridiculously easy... but if not,
or if you don't have a clear idea of where you're going from the
start, you can find yourself boxed into a corner and have to start
from scratch.
Personally, I prefer a pure geometry based modeler. Simple
dimensional changes affecting many components may take longer, but
it's far easier to make large sweeping changes if necessary, or switch
to an alternate design approach. Most of my work nowadays is large
machine design (though my degree is in aero engineering), for which I
use KeyCreator (formerly Cadkey). Same price range as SWX, though,
which I don't define as "cheap".
I read all the responses and looked around the 'Net, and it seems that
SolidWorks, if not what I'm looking for, is create by people who had
the mindset I was looking for.
But now I am confused. I thought parametric modeling was good.
I program computers from time to time, and being able to change the
structure of a component and have everything that depends upon it
change accordingly is simply invaluable, so I cannot see why this
would be bad. That's precisely the behavior I want.
For example, in my miniature aircraft I envision, there is only one
fuel tank, and it's cylindrical, but its radius and length are a
function of several other parameters.
I am guessing that, like in programming, there is an art to
structuring the interdependencies so as to minimize likelihood of
running into dead-end that you mention.
Finally, I was really surprised to learn that parametric modeling was
not fundamental in all CAD programs. I cannot imagine what it would
be like to try to optimize a design without it. What do people do
without parametric modeling? Tweak every single component manually
during optimization phase?
[I am going to give Alibre a look also.]
-Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Suggest you find your way ASAP to www.kubotekusa.com and view their
video on direct dimension editing to see what can be done without
parametrics.
Such as their dimensions being their displayed Parametrics?
Pretty good for aircraft & airfoil shapes, is it? Or driven features?
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/bl...mment-76366100
[
The real problem right now is that the major CAM systems need video done to
cover their massive gap in documentation. I'm speaking of MasterCAM and
Gibbscam.
If you would like to read my interview and what I had to say about this problem
you can read it here.
http://blog.novedge.com/2007/07/an-interview-wi.html
] - clueless
From that novedge.com link:
[
Franco Folini
UPDATE -- July 8, 2007 -- I had to close this blog post to further comments and
to remove the personal attacks between Jon and some other newsgroups readers.
Before the interview, I made an agreement with Jon about the style of the
interview and the way to handle it. Jon didn’t respect our agreement, posting
comments under fake names. Jon’s authentic and fake comments are all posted from
the same IP address, 72.199.251.224. I can now see that my trust in Jon was
misplaced.
]
From that worldcadaccess.typepad.com link:
[
QUOTEThe real problem right now is that the major CAM systems need video
done to cover their massive gap in documentation. I'm speaking of MasterCAM and
Gibbscam.
What version of Mastercam are you talking about ?
The current version has a HUGE help file with MANY MANY videos available via
links inside the help file.
Posted by: Mattapotamus | Jul 21, 2007 at 13:27
]
Snicker
Tell us again about your aerospace shops ..... P&W & etc. .... or if you've
ever actually even seen GibbsCAM or MasterCAM ....
Clearly you've never actually used either. Nor any other similar system.
--
Cliff