mmccall

If you are running an analysis on an assembly.. and you are making changes.. be sure NOT to change the order of the assembly or you will have the wrong material properties for your components when you go back to Algor... Apparently Algor is simply holding the material properties by location in the tree.. meaning, material properties are linked to location.. direct listing order.. 1,2,3,4....not to the model or geometry itself... I had a steel structure with concrete poured legs... after running the analysis.. I made some changes.. and began re-ordeing the model tree to account for the added number of components... I went back to Algor.. re-meshed... defined the materials for the nw components.. then ran the analysis.. and things were looking too good to believe... I checked my materials.. and everything was shifted... my steel structure was actually concrete... Pay attention to the order... don't change the order... if all the components are the same material.. then it doesn't matter.. if not.. be sure to check all the materials..

Yes.. works really well... Be careful when working with steps or other DFM models... if the shapes are complex and you are stacking alot of features on it.. be ready to save often and expect to see that "failed to save" error... BAM... your model is JACKED !!.. hope you can cut and paste into a new session... Just save "A, B, C..." versions along the way...

AHHH,...YES... alot of people don't like a "smart numbering" system.. But in this case.. the company has the advantage of needing a system.. they can make this new system whatever they want.. Correct.. whatever it is.. if it works for them, good... I have worked with Gov numbering systems ( or smart numbering systems) for over 12 years.. across gov. and commercial companies... and with companies that just use series numbers.. Once the system or pattern is understood, Gov. smart numbering systems can give you a general "category" of what the part is by literally looking at the part number... if this is of any use then maybe it would work, but some effort has to be spent picking a "smart" or "coded" system that makes sense to the people in the company that will be working with the system... It can be easily argued either way... outside my company, skies the limit, whatever system the customer uses, I use and learn. Within my company, we use smart numbering system for all parts we create and vendor numbers for parts we purchase... on gov contracts, we are commonly required to re-number to their gov system and put a note with the "suggested" vendor name and vendor number on the drawing... But ... I have never had a problem with "smart or coded" numbering systems.. and they don't have to be long.. but it does take time to set the system up from the start... but hey.. I have some examples.. so the amount of effort can be evaluated from the start... maybe it will work .. maybe it wont.. either way, we learn something..

Gov. systems... thats the ticket!!!

More on this... my previous problem "On occasion (rare) ... I have had both step formats reverse and mirror a component when I finally imported the part into Wildfire... I have no clear reason why this would happen... just try a different format or switch kernel... from my experience... Catia exports work well in Wildfire... especially with complex shapes...but in any case.. try anything.." Seems like the nature of this problem goes back to : 1) whether or not the component you are exporting is part of an assembly in IC 2) how the part will be imported into Pro.. meaning as a part or assem. If you have a component that is part of an assem in IC.. before exporting, the best option may be to copy and paste the component into another file so it will be totally removed from the assembly.. (you can still have the component linked if needed).. If you don't want to go the trouble then make sure that both the assem anchor and the part anchor are in the same place on the component you are exporting so you are covered no matter how the Wildfire user imports them.. that way all the datums will be located at the anchor... Take note that the IC x,y,z orientation (anchor) is easy to change with the triball so if you are as careless as I am with rotating and moving things around, you may be asked to rotate component or assembly... believe me.. it is much harder to do in Pro... basically impossible... nobody wants to do it.. Pro users typically just set up new view orientations... a pain if the company already has a standard setup... whatever the case.. just make it easy for those guys.. Pro users have enough stress and problems already without having to deal with assem and component orientation...

HA!!.. Leave it to Tom to open CAN-O-WORMS !! I think I will start a catalog of Tropical Fish... that way I can contribute something totally useless to everyone but about 2% of the users HA... like most of the catalogs I have already made for myself... HA Is it just me, or does everyone out there try to model everything in the movie "ROBOTS"... or the suff Batman carries on his utility belt...

When exporting step files to be used in Wildfire... be sure to re-locate the component with a logical anchor point to the 0,0,0 coordinate.. so that it will be centered in the Wildfire Datum plane CYCS. Take note that if the component you are exporting is currently part of an assembly in IC.. you may need to "disassemble" that component so that the "assembly" anchor doesn't override the "component" anchor in the step file... meaning.. everything will be offset in Wildfire and the datum planes will be located at the assembly anchor... making your component hang off in space some distance away from all the planes... On occasion (rare) ... I have had both step formats reverse and mirror a component when I finally imported the part into Wildfire... I have no clear reason why this would happen... just try a different format or switch kernel... from my experience... Catia exports work well in Wildfire... especially with complex shapes...but in any case.. try anything.. For my particular problem.. ACIS was the only export that worked..

A simple one that everyone may have figured out already... kind of found it by accident.. then had to study it for a while May not be the best way to do things... You can make a "false" assembly of an individual component then do a linked mirror of that "false" assembly in order to create "mirrored" movements or placements of the component... HA.. take a deep breath... Or just take a look at the attatched file.. and follow the notes to see what I mean... or maybe.... be sure to pay close attention to the structure in the "scene" browser since that is the key to how it works. and be sure that you are at the "part editing" level (blue outlines on my computer)when you begin to move the components.. FALSE_ASSEMBLY_MIRROR_MOVEMENT.ics

OOOHHH Well... Maybe some of you out there knew about this.. but OCC built a chopper for Solid Works... HA http://www.orangecountychoppers.com/occweb..._themecust1.php

Whats In A Name I was in a meeting with several very respectable engineers and scientists to look over a design I have been working on, a relatively complicated system I developed in order to meet a very simple requirement. This particular design had several motors, slide rails, bearings, and a structure to support the weight, all put together in a clever system to give all the degrees of freedom the scientist needed, all conceptualized on sound engineering principles. Everyone felt that the system would definitely work. There was one very seasoned 7-time patent winner, multi-degreed Cal tech graduate, who is regarded and respected as a local super hero (I also respect him as such) in this meeting. Despite his total agreement to the probable success of my design, he sneered at one thing at the beginning of the meeting IRON-CAD?!? Whats that??? It was said at a volume that was intended to get a response. The room, however, was at a perfect mix like most engineering/physicist meetings with groups spread out in A/B conversations talking over different aspects of the design. Again he said, IRONCADhuh, along with more mumbling and a short burst of laughter with a colleague to his left. I look out of the corner of my eye with a subdued look of a cold hearted rattle snake. I heard him. No worries, I like the guy, but he just made it to my S#!T list. I just need to wait for the perfect moment to strike (shove his foot down his throat, something we rattle snakes really know how to do). Many of the people who mattered in the room have become accustomed to and have come to accept me using both Pro and IC. They like my designs, so they are just fine with IC and they have seen what it is capable of, and for that matter, they really dont care as long as I can duplicate the design in their system. The moment of truth finally came. Changes were needed. Just like in past meetings, the physicist will request a change; but what is different is that I dont need a note pad. I make notes and a majority of the changes on the screen while engaged in the conversation. In seconds, the change has been conceptualized and notes taken on the screen for everyone to see design changes and new components created, right there on the fly in as real time as you can get, just like taking an order in a restaurant. The entire two-hour meeting was like this. HA! Dead silence from the end of the table; just a few nods here and there. But, all doubt seemed to be displaced. After the meeting, I pondered on the entire situation. I think I may have finally reached one origin of the repeated sneers and chuckles I get when logging in to IC. Eureka, it has to be the name!!! Thinking back, I recalled different examples of where this would possibly apply: In the movie Terminator, what would be the crowd reaction if the robots name was Dexter? Although the name Arnold doesnt seem to carry any weight behind it, as some guy that could take my lunch money at will, for some reason hearing the entire name Swarchenegger at the end just makes me think of some 9 ft. tall German giant and that I need to run for cover. HA! Seeing him in his prime, the name Zeus Master of the Universe, still seems most fitting. What if the larger-than-life vampire killer Blade had a different name, like Martin or Bobby? Nope; none of these alternative names gives any justice to the character. But thats what we are getting to. Whats in a name? Character could be one ingredient of a name IC has character. Character is defined as the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another; a description of a persons attributes, traits, or ABILITIES. I feel that over the years, IC has really matured, to say the least. It has outgrown this old skin of being just another CAD program and has more than proven its worth to be considered a valid option among the great engineering softwares. I would be the first to say that Pro-Es Wild-Fire should in truth be called Crash-N-Burn. But over the years, Pro-Engineer as a company has really established itself as an engineering tool provider, a good move for marketing to splash engineer in the name and base name of their flagship product and company, with Wild-Fire being a reference to all the new changes to the program, the facelift that makes this particular version of Pro-E faster or better than previous releases. Thats it. IronCad is the flagship product of the company IronCad, but I wonder if the time has come to move from the generic V-dot-X numerical changes and give IronCads flagship a whole new name, something else to finally give it the reverence it deserves. Such a suggestion may really hurt the feelings of the founders of the company the mere audacity it takes to suggest that they change the name to something else!!! But even better, we are only referring to one particular product name, not your first born child. With a name like Gaylord Focker, this may not be a bad option. I could see it being feasible for IronCad, LLC maintaining all of its other products with their current names, IronPro, Innovation, TeamVault, etc. I am electing that only their flagship product, IronCad has evolved enough to warrant a name change. Some suggestions? Well, two off the top of my head with total disregard to all previously directed interpretations would be KAC (Kick-Ass-Cad) and MTMF (Man-This-Muthas-Fast). Though adequate and descriptive, these are still likely to be a users knee-jerk reaction or surprise, if you will; a comment by the user not befitting a name. They lack any tact and are far from politically correct. They dont give the program any meaningful direction to its use, that it is more than just a CAD program. I would like to see some reference to engineering and perhaps move away from the word design. Although, in our minds, the two may be interchangeable in some fashions, IC would carry a much better impression with this simple language change. Besides, this would still cover all uses; I gather from the chatroom that there are many that use the program for industrial design (engineering) or even architectural design (engineering). What ever happened to the name TriSpectives? Without knowing much about the history of the company prior to a dated Cadalyst article by Joe Greco, http://cadence.advanstar.com/2002/0302/fr0302.html , the TriSpectives name seems like it would still be a valid choice even though it doesnt mention the word engineering. Maybe we settle for engineering being in the product motto? I could even imagine the logo being some futuristic or abstract colorful outline of the tri-ball shape! (Im not sure if thats what it was from the start) Although IronCAD, LLC, the developers of the new InnovationSuite, was formed early last year, the company actually has been around for many years. Its roots can be traced back to 1981, when a company named 3D-EYE made its debut. In 1995, it introduced revolutionary 3D software called TriSpectives. A few years later, along came a company called Visionary Design Systems, which added some mechanical capabilities to TriSpectives and released IronCAD 1.0 in 1998. Its corporate focus remained the same until 2000, when the IronCAD software became part of Alventive, a CPC (Collaborative Product Commerce) solution provider. But that didn't last too long; at the end of 2000, Alventive spun off the IronCAD software business and a new company--IronCAD, LLC--was formed. In conclusion, the IronCad product has by leaps and bounds outgrown its current status. The product today is, in my opinion, a far cry from the TurboCads you will find in book stores and has its place right along side of Pro-E and all the others. I feel that the name may be the source of the many glaring eyes and sneers, laughter if you will, when doing engineering and analysis work on a 1.5 billion dollar neutron scattering device (my current project). So, this may be something to consider when the Marketing department doesnt get any calls back from the Lockheed Martins, Boeings, ORNLs, etc. But take some relief in knowing that MDTG is doing its part to convince these monster companies that IronCad, both the company and the product, is more than just a name. Howard McCall President CEO MDTG www.multidistech.com

HA... here we go again... Nobody should feel left out... we had a real train wreck here on several designs over this same issue.. we even got the Physics Profs involved.. and you know how a PHD can make you feel like an idiot... !! Things get even stranger when working in Mechanica... some people eliminate the problems by making sure they apply gravity to the session... We even do monthly classes where all the contractors have a meeting covering ANALYSIS problems... very important around here... I will get the notes from that particular session.. and type them in.. maybe they will help us all... since the PE's sign off on all the work.. I guess we can trust them... HA..

This program has been around for some time... try it.. CONVERT.EXE

GET YOUR HANDS UP.... EVERYBODY!! NOBODY MOVE !!! ONE WORD ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE ABILITY TO SWITCH KERNELS AND I WILL HAVE TO HURT SOMEONE. .... HMMMM... KEVIN.. YES... I WILL HURT KEVIN...

YES... We should listen to "Bat Man"... he will save us from the evil criminals of Gotham!! You tell them Bat Man... !!!

I wish it were more like Disney... or IC !!! But surely its better than working at PTC !!! HAA

AAAHHH... I see the original question... Mike Twining is correct... But as far as the model is concerned... again.. you would only expect the weight of a 1meter part to be 10.2 from the analysis.. only if you had 1cubic meter volume... The volume of the part is less than 1cubic meter.. therefore you are getting a weight less than 10.2kg. Alex has it... HA... I am not a professional... I have to deal with these physics professors everyday... like being in school.... better to ask than to get it wrong...

Is the volume of your component truly 1 cubic meter? I just did it with a simple block.. but can you attatch the model of the channel you are using?... The units for the density would be "weight/meter^3"... If the volume of your geometry is 1 cubic meter... or 1 meter long by any other dimensions that will give the volume to be 1 cubic meter.. then you will end up with a weight of 10.2 kg.. Seems like it should all work itself out.. there would have to be something wrong with the geometry.. or the tabulated value for the weight of the channel or given dimensions are incorrect.. maybe the tabulated weight is only a close guess... How far off are your results? If you are converting to metric in the scene... you may already be behind the curve... I ran into some issues on a previous design from switching units back and forth... rounding error stacking... Attatch the file if you can...

HAAAA... That is a good question!!! www.multidistech.com

Make sure that you are really getting what you want when modeling using the "hole" features. You will notice that there are 3 options... in the "threaded options" area. thread transfer thread to drawing transfer callout to drawing... Selecting the thread option applies the thread to the hole... The "transfer thread to drawing"... this option actually re-models the hole size to the proper drill size... if this is not checked.. the modeled hole will simply be the thread nominal size.. .meaning a 1/4 hole will model in as a .25 diameter instead of a .201 drill size... Selecting the "transfer callout to drawing" ... does just that... I wasted some parts on this.. somehow I unchecked the "transfer thread to drawing" option.. and none of my screws worked... HA... scandium is approximately $7000 per pound !!!.... can't afford to do this too often... can you say Helicoil?? Watch out... till then... ROCK ON BABY...

Did my suggestion work?

HA.... this is a loaded one... pretty funny looking back on it... We get into this all the time ... one of my customers is the DOE... and we deal with Physicists from around the world and here in the US.. Its really funny.... I am not up to speed in the metric system.. so I have to walk around with my calculator... We have files all over the place some in US .. some in Metric... can be a real pain..especially when coming down to weight and stress analysis... everybody is scrambling to make sure they have all the parts in the same system and that all the densities were input correctly... we got imported files... density of 1 ..HA... I have had assemblies with weights out to 12 places... !!!... making the earths rotation wobble... tennessee began to sank into the gound... maybe it would resurface upside down somewere on the other side?...HA... Well.. the debate will never end... but maybe we will all get on the same page... but until our speed limit signs change here... I guess we are safe... And when they do.. I am just going to run 100MPH and plead ignorance... HA

Yes.. that is slick... Pro WildFire.. has an interesting way to do this... Take for instance your example ... in WildFire.. once you place the bolts on the hole.. you can select the pattern option.. then select "reference" option... Pro will automatically duplicate the pattern for the bolts since it knows that the hole has a pattern feature tied to it... That way ... if you change the pattern for the hole.. the bolt pattern will update also... you have only 1 pattern to adjust.. not 2... also if you change the shape of the hole pattern.. the bolts will also follow.. pretty slick I must admit.. I think IC could also do this somehow... mabe some type of "mystical AIPCIAPIC" programming? But your example gets us halfway there.. Thanks Tom...

WHEEEWWW Soooo... you are looking for something really slick?... Let me seee... HA HA HA... this may cost you BUD !!!

When doing alot of importing and exporting.. I run into cases where there are several components in the tree with the same name... Chances are... several of them are only surface models, even though the icon shows it to be a solid shape. This happens almost always when dealing with an imported part fro Pro where the engineer would have used the "hole" tool to get the threaded holes ... etc. When they use this tool, Pro puts a cosmetic surface in the hole for the threaded region.. and when you bring the step into IC, it will keep all these but each individual surface will have the same name as the solid component.... To sort all this out quickly... just select all the components in the tree... then go to "tools" "regenerate"... and it will turn all those icons to their true model form... meaning.. .surfaces will have the surface icon.. and solids will have the solids icon in the tree... At this point... I just delete all the surfaces.. cause.. I don't need them... the hole stays the proper threaded diameter so.. unless you like to have them in the tree.. they are just taking up memory...

http://www.stereoscopy.com/faq/lenticular.html Some info I found.. Hope this helps some... Will keep looking... will check some sources I have..