Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
When you have 300 or 400 features in a Solid model created by Surfaces by individuals whom use different methods and procedures to get to their intended Model then I call it advanced. Maybe I should call it advanced management. A lot of the models may have up to 30% redundacy and PTC does a poor job dictating proper procedures. Their training usually focuses on the highlights of what the product can my do. "WOW factor". Needless to say, I spend half my time trying to figure out the models and sometimes just deleting features and re-doing them. If its so easy, please enlighten me
Why ask for a seperate forum? Sounds like you just need to
post an example and let people kick it around.
I am wondering about "I spend half my time trying to figure out
the models and sometimes just deleting features and re-doing them.".
Is the object of the game a one time modification? Maybe it'd be
easier to forget that there are 'features' and just start moving,
offsetting, trimming, adding surface geometry.
Or, do you want to model for maximum versatility, robust as
possible foundation for any conceivable future mod requirements?
That's a very different process than 'developing' geometry
definitions where 'best practices' may get thrown out the window
while grappling with the definitions.
> A lot of the models may have up to 30% redundacy and
> PTC does a poor job dictating proper procedures.
That is NOT the software's job. Pro/E does do a good job enforcing
fairly strict dependancy creation resulting in relatively robust and
fast models, it does give you ways to trace complex dependency chains
and it does warn about poor (geom chk)b-rep modeling practices.
> 300 or 400 features in a Solid model created by Surfaces by
> individuals whom use different methods and procedures to get
> to their intended Model then I call it advanced.
What about the same number of 'solid' features? That you'd focus
on surface vs solid features leads me to think that understanding
open shell, closed shell b-rep geometry definitions may be what's
in order. Or, maybe, 'best practices' which can be about as open
ended as deciding whether bottom up, so called 'horizontal' or top
down practices are 'best'. Or feature and history based vs. direct
modeling.
When i say easy I mean it can be intimidating to learn surfacing since there are many techniques that may be required to either capture form or prove form depending upon your perspective.Easy because i want to encourage people to get in for classes. Easy because once one learns basics and proper modeling techniques then intelligent people such as ourselves can step up the complexities required for ergonomics, industrial design capture, industrial designer proving form, surfacing for tooling, reverse engineering, ensuring reverse engineering models are robust and modifiable all thru modeling technique.
I did not mean to say it was easy ... I just don't want people to be intimidated (not that you are or arent) so they can feel comfortable in coming in for classes.
Walking is hard if youve never done it before.
I teach modeling technique i wish i would have learned in 1993 ... and wasted many years. Edited by: design-engine
Iterations of a golf club driver head is endless up to the point of release and may see 30 or 40 changes before it is released for production. Design reviews go through many channels before the OK is given. The originator of the design may not be the same person who finishes the design. This same model may be used on future designs.
Of Course we want models with maximum versatility, robust as possible foundation for any conceivable future mod requirements but not many designers are equipped to handle the complexity of these models. Moving, offsetting, trimming, adding surface geometry is the reason you end up with 300 to 400 features to create 1 solid model. I have taken advanced surfaces from PTC, and to me, Advance surface class should be called Basic Surfacing. I'm just saying there is a lot more to it than what you can find published by PTC. I'm looking for expertise in this area.
Why not whip up, and post, a representative test case model, describe
the driving criteria then put it through a series of 'design changes';
change driving face angle, move center of mass, aesthetic appearance
changes, make it cheaper to manufacture, ..., whatever goes into
defining and refining the head (I'm clueless) and represents typical
problems you encounter?
Only in that way will you get something that's more valuable than what
you've already gotten from button recognition classes or nonspecific
ramblings which you should have already seen a few time (I have and
they've never been interesting enough to save or bookmark, it's seeing
techniques demonstrated that I've more often found valuable).
Jeff:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
I agree. I cannot divulge Proprietary designs and mythologies of the companies I work for. I can put together a generic club head which may inspire a few responses.
A web site that has inspired me is Leo Greene's www.e-cognition.net
He has some excellent Pro/E tutorials
Why waste such beautiful greens on golf when those triple jumps were made for motocross! If I went golfing with you dorks you would get so mad at me for talking about the terrain on every green. It would be torture for me and you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
ffice