Continue to Site

Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Techniques for Voting

Just my feeling to add two more points to modeling:


Model size and degree of parametricity


and one point to be added in creativity:


use of engineering knowhow


But this is my feeling and one way or another thse points are already covered at least implicitly in your points.


Israr
 
so would the public use this voting system? or is it just for the finalists?


the reason I ask is that if say 30 competitiors enter (conservative estimate) and if there are 15 fielsds to fill in for each model.. well that's 450fields in total that everybody needs to fill in..


or can somebody just fill in one? then you will have a variation in grading across the board?


I think that the public should vote fot the top 20.. and put them forward to the commitee to use the above scheme..


just my $0.02..


BTW I aggree with ISRAR.. about degree of parametricity and use of engineering knowhow..


but abuot model size and number of features.. is smaller/less features better? this can workagainst the degree of parametricity and robustness of the model - it's usually a trade off in my experience.. aggree? I usually employ a TDD/master modelapproach to my models and have as a result many surface copies, I will also never use rounds in sketches and will often construct curves/surfaces from many featureseven when I knwo they can be done in onebecause (depending on the situation) it easier to modify, it's more robust and has a better degree of parametricity..
 
View attachment 1913





Red dots mean only committee will vote for those features and only
after evaluating model. Features under red dots will normally invisible
for ordinary users. Will that will be two separate pools, or one
 
Who will convert the model if it is in educational version?


what if somebody creates it in Wildfire 3.0 preproduction?


I think these things must be clearly defined.


Has the web viewer been decided?


Israr
 
i really like Spelings idea of voting scale to be 1-10. Gives greater flexability in marking.

amount of features.
As for the amount of features being a concern, i really think this is a sticky subject. i still have engineering friends who try to squeeze all the features they can into a sketch and simply can not view the flexability in making the model more moduluar. i think going either way to much isnt to bad. As long as the model is robust and easy to modify.




registering grades
how do we submit the results from each model?
what would be nice is to have a sql database with a nice php interface and everyone who is judging have their own loggin to such a system.


voting duration.and model judging
really depends on the amount of contestants.
i think in the interest of saving time, it might be best if say we split up the models into a small panel of judges
ie instead of everyone juding every model. say 5 peopel vote on each model. hmm just a idea.


on a seperate note. Sorry about my absence till now. few deadlines comming up. mixed with a dodgy cable modem @ home makes it hard to catch up on the forum. but all should clear up soon.
 
Last night I was on Proecentrals chat whit Speling and we concluded a lot of things there.
Here is a summary:


Maximum types for voting are:
Idea, concept, design, functionality, maneuverability, modeling, presentation (sorry if I forgot something).


Now important thing is that we would judge only 3 of them in competition, and that maximum number of voting types per competition should be 3. This way we ease our job, and participates must cover only 3 of them (this way they can arrange their time for participate in competition).


Judging would be based only on 3D models that participates updates here.


Here is one example how should this look like:
Theme for modeling is bicycle
We would judge: Concept, design, functionality
Time for competition and uploading models: one week
Time for uploading presentation, text document about model: one week after uploading models.


Let me elaborate a bit more what would we achieve with this. Now participates can concentrate their resources (time and ProE availability) to create model within one week (I think that this is enough time for modeling), and we can assure that when they upload models they are finish within deadline and nobody can cheat.
As I said, we would judge base on 3D models.
After that participate have another week to prepare and submit documentation of model (text description how and whythey model it, render images). This would not be judged, this would be only for learning purpose (later when models could be downloaded with this description about their creation).
Rendered images would be only for some soft of web gallery.


This is only one example of competition, later we can start with other combination, like 24h competition, theme is vase, judging would be on design, maneuverability and presentation.
We can make other combinations as well.


Speling suggested that we could invite experts from companies that would participate in judging. This companies could be our sponsor and sponsored competition.
Again in example of bicycle, we invite company that produce bicycles, and their expert teem judge models (they judge model in designin scale from 1 to 10, and add text commentabout model)with our judge's that judge models in concept, design and functionality.


Another one option is that themecould be something common (like electrical device in home; telephone, iron, speaker, etc) rather to be strictly defined. This way we could attract more sponsors (for different device type).


What others thinks about that?
Edited by: Isair
 
Just a few loose thoughts.


Voting in a way that not everyone has to judge each and every entrylooks likea practical idea. On the other hand we must be aware of our individual differences that will reflect the in the judging. Personally I'm primarely focused on technical consumer goods and light industrial. That excludes pure freeform modelling at one end of the scale and complex machinery at the other end of the spectrum. As a designer I also tend to focus on robustness of modelling and re-usability. With this in mind I'm less the person to judge for instance - to name one - the work of Cpiotrowski (hope I got this one right), although I admire the extent to which he runs inside ProE. So I guess that when splitting up the judging we should also bare in mind that each group of judges is a representative cross section of the user base.


The other thing is inviting companies into this judging. There's always a chance of designs and ideas getting "borrowed". How do we protect the intellectual property of participants ?


Alex
 
Hi Alex - we covered intelectual property in one of the other marathon posts here or maybe it was on a chat - the conclusion that I think we came to that if you have an idea worth patenting the last thing you want to do is go posting it on the web - save the best ideas - upload the good ones
smiley36.gif



I see you mentioned cpiotrowski, can I ask what you all think of his models?


honest opinion -and I'm talking about his models asopposed to his renders (which in fairness are quite good!)


I'm of the opinion that the models are not actually that good.. but the renders are excelent!


_______________________


I also completly agree that model robustness and is key!
 
Differences in opinion are something, which is needed. Because of exsactly that I try to chose people from different areas. Voting will definitively give different kind of results
 
james.lynch said:
I see you mentioned cpiotrowski, can I ask what you all think of his models?


honest opinion -and I'm talking about his models asopposed to his renders (which in fairness are quite good!)


I haven't opened (or downloaded for that matter) any of the models, so I can't talk about the internals. Other thing is that it is surfacing, which is visible in the renders when you know where to look :there is no thickness at the edges. I'm pretty sure that if you want to take this to an industrial level there will be a need to solidify. This may work with his models, or not at all, can't tell from here. I approach this kind of work with caution. It holds the risk of having to restart from scratch when any major change is introduced, a risk that I like to take down to an absolute minimum in my own work (although I have some models that are pretty rigid in terms of allowable "tuning").


So concluding I'd say that I appreciate what he makes ProE do, also because I have close to no experience in that particular field (with any CAD). But I'm educated enough not to be blinded by nice pictures alone.


Alex
 

Sponsor

Articles From 3DCAD World

Back
Top