Per-Arne Almeflo

Yes, and he also has lots of other questions in his enclosed file: problems.zip

See the shoot-out between Inventor and Solid Works on: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=2178040&linkID=2749403 This was carried out by a couple of Autodesk User Groups. Solid Works did not have the guts to send a guy there, but someone hired a SW user that was currently unemployed to work the SW software. Much critisism was arised in the SW community about biased tests and such, but now its in black on white on the Autodesk home page anyway. Why don't turn the bias in favour of IronCAD for once? The test should include a large conceptual change half way to the finish. This is what the CAD visionaries are looking for and it would give them something to write home about. It should not be impossible to carry out such a test, if you really want to do it.

We are getting close to the purchase of new work stations. I believe it will be the HP XV 4000 of some sort, but we have yet to decide about the graphics cards. The ATI Fire GL 8800 has been raved about here, are you still satisfied with this also with the new IronCAD 6.0? What about the newer ATI's, the GL X1, Z1 or E1? Anyone tried these? Or are the Nvidia driver issues fixed by now? What about the benchmarks, dsulli?

PTC doesn't give any support for their Pro/Desktop Express - but then again it's free.

We happily can see that the talk about more frequent press releases is followed up by action. It is also interesting to to read the article: "Cad five years down the road" by John Connolly, follow the extremely long adress link here: http://www.timecompress.com/magazine/magazine_articles.cfm?article_id=204&issue_id=65&articles=204,206,207,208,209,210,212,213,214,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,215,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,172,173,174,175,176,177,1 The two top trends in his article are: 1. A movement toward the Internet for sharing data live and for quickly modifying complete solid models. 2. A movement to work more freely with large assemblies in a true what-if environment, making radical design changes on the systems level without breaking the rules governing construction of current history-based models. I believe IronCAD is on the right track here, just go tell the masses. Also, PTC seems to have spread lots and lots of their Pro/Desktop Express software. No wonder, since it's free. Maybe IronCAD should consider a similar route to make the IronCAD 3D modeling interface introduced to many times more people, and create some inertia. Perhaps a free Inovate Lite could be it, or if licencing for sub program codes makes this impossible, a $99 version could make it very tempting for a lot of people, even for their private pocket money. The proper functions should be omitted, the ones that professionals need, but students and home users would not miss, just like Adobe has done with their $609 Photoshop vs the $99 Photoshop Elements.

id=quote> Please explain, do you mean: "No wonder, it's an ATI, and we all know about these, don't we" or: "Strange, since all these people talked so nicely about ATI Fire GL 8800 here lately, and NVIDIA seem to have all the issues now."

The 6.0 datasheet states that 512 MB RAM is preferred (256 MB min.). The specification for earlier versions were 64 MB preferred. I have 256 MB in my machine and have felt to be over the edge with some assemblies, will the 6.0 drain all life out of my computer, or is the new spec just an adaption to what I have already felt with IronCAD 5.2? Meaning; should I wait with 6.0 until I can get a new computer? (The old one can only house 384MB, so upgrading is no real alternative).

Yes, and you cannot get the smart dimensions to work between sectioned and unsectioned parts unless you are in precision mode. But, I have also run into some trouble when leaving the section tool supressed in an assembly. I have the pneumatic cylinders that I used the "Section Part/Assembly" tool to put a smart dimension between the piston and the inside bottom of the cylinder housing. When done, I left it in the supressed mode. Later when I imported these cylinders as linked parts into an assembly I found that it was not possible to save and exit that assembly anymore. When I deleted the Section Tool from the cylinder all was OK again, and it was possible to save the assembly.

I once got the jpg file type associated with "Microsoft Photo Editor". It was impossible to change in the usual way, due to some Microsoft bad manners. But, as with some other association mentioned in this forum, the method is to delete the jpg file type from the list and add it anew with the wanted association.

But, how small, or big is IronCad? No info on the home page, just a picture of a building in Atlanta. Probably some other companies in there too...

I thought advertising was an investment towards better sales and profit... And, it's a well known "secret" that advertising paves the way to more editorial space.

It's a link to: http://www.ironcad.com/ironcad.asp?URL=/products/IRONCAD/NewFeatures/IRONCADV6/IRONCAD6.htm&Title=IRONCAD%20New%20Features%20Info&Style=IRONCAD&Tagline=IRONCAD Add these lines into one on the adress line in your browser.

Thanks for the tip, this is useful when trying out the stroke length of a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder. It is a pity that the constraints are so limited in IronCad so far. On the URL: http://www.d-cubed.co.uk/customers.htm it is presented that most of the 3D CAD companies including IronCad are using the D-CUBED modules for constraint handling. Why is it then that those other CAD software packages have more possibilities and stability with their constraints? And, look at those other modules they offer at D-CUBED, anyone besides me that's interested in such possibilities?

Has anyone tried IronCad on the Intel® Extreme Graphics on board video: http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/chipsets/graphics/index.htm What can be expected?

I was hoping IronKevin could tell us improvements are on it's way, as he did so meritoriously once before! Anyway, going to full motion simulation software seems to be massive overkill. I guess such a software would cost more than the full IronCad, and I just want to see how things move between end stops of the cylinder, not simulate forces or strain. Also, IronCad documentation lacks all information about linkages and mechanisms. A tutorial would be appreciated, even more so when the mechanism possibilities are extended.

Thanks for the example file. There seem to be very much of one way streets with these constraints. The crank can move the slider, but the slider cannot move the crank. Also the second hole in the link is not controlled by the slider pin, but by a smart dimension that keeps a constant height over the base guide. Isn't it possible to get the second hole of the link follow the slider pin? Or is this type of feedback info prohibited? It seems necessary to allow feedback info, for a pneumatic cylinder to tilt when the piston rod turns a link, or do you have any workaround tips for this?

Is there a way to make a chamfer with one specified length and an angle. I often want to make a 15 degree chamfer for plain bearing seat entries. I would like to do this directly onto the 3D part, not in the sketch environmet.

I'm not talking about animation here, but how to get an arm to move a pushrod which moves another arm in real time. When I change one smart dimension all the linkage should move according to the constraints. This is to design the right ratio so I get the movement I want. I don't want to make calculations on a paper. In 2D I could draw it graphically with off setted circles and lines, and now I want to do it with solids in the 3D world. Has not anyone explored the limits around this in Ironcad?

Another, very quick way to put linked parts in the catalogs is to select the linked part in the scene, right click and cose copy, go to the catalog and right click and paste. That's it, the link follows. The drawback is that you get only a standard IC icon in the catalog.

What are the possibilities and limitations for modeling linkages in IronCad? I need to make hooks and board turning arms and such, powered by hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders. Can it be done iterative with IronCad parts? Is anyone doing similar things?

From the article "Kernel Wars, Episode 1" at http://www.cadenceweb.com/1999/1199/issuefocus1199.html Parasolid is a multithreaded kernel, which generally results in a 30 to 50 percent speed increase when employed in a dual-processor system. Vossler points out how easy it is for developers to implement the kernel's multi-threaded functions, as they only need to change a setting.

I found it and lots of other useful standard component 3D models on: http://www.web2cad.co.uk/

Does anyone know where to find 3D models of grease fittings? grease fittings.ics grease fittings.ics grease fittings.ics grease fittings.ics

Thanks for your input, At the time the shop personnel tell me they need the mirror image, then it's not redundant though... It seems possible to enter views from more than one model in one single drawing, in that way we could have an isometric view of the mirror imaged part without producing a lot of "redundant" drawings that need to be updated. What pitfalls could there be along that path? Is there anything I can do to make sure the parts list comes from one part only and not both? /Per-Arne

We build machines in both right hand and left hand (mirror) versions. A lot of parts and drawings must therefore be created in mirror versions. Any information about useful, good, innovative, or what have you, methods to obtain this would be greatly appreciated. Would it e.g. be possible to model a part that is the linked mirror image of another part regardless of what changes are made to the first one? Thanks