In the end, it�s Us vs. Them

[mmccall]

In the end, its Us vs. Them

 

For a long time, PTC dominated the so-called midrange CAD arena and I began to worry. Monopolies are not good, and it seemed as though they were well on their way to becoming one. But here we are with a host of options to make our lives easier, thanks to the brave souls who ventured out on their own.

 

I was recently criticized by someone for always comparing IronCad to Pro-E and that I do so because they are the best. In that persons mind, by always referring to Pro-E, I somehow proved this point. Actually, and sadly I must admit, Pro-E seems to be the necessary reference point because it is well entrenched in the CAD programs sector and to me, it is a perfect example of unnecessary complexity that most people can relate to. The person that criticized me feels that IronCad isnt in the same class, despite being proven otherwise in every case.

 

Lately, my interest has been in IronCad surface modeling capability due to an

event that occurred this month. In short, a Pro-E expert at another company

created a plastic shroud for industrial engineers, a pretty nice looking alien

shape. He used surfaces for every feature. Bravo! That is a real test of

skill, but with a fatal flaw - the model is extremely unstable. This guy

didnt have any of the ribs or bosses; he didnt have any of the necessary

features to make this a functional part. It was just a pretty picture. I began

helping one of my friends at this company to complete the file (my friend was

born and raised on Pro-E; he is extremely talented. I have converted him over to the dark side! How about that!). Regardless of what we did, such as adding a protrusion, BAM! - regeneration errors, geometry checks, you name it. The original file has 350 features. My friend totally re-created the model and reduced the number of features to 135 by using surfaces in an intelligent

manner, not just because the tool is there.

 

The Pro-E administrator at this company said that IC could not do surfaces.

Looking at this example, it seems as though Pro-E cant do them either! I

already know how to use surfaces in Pro-E and now my interest is developing my IC surface modeling skills. IC is already easier.

 

The people I typically clash with in regards to CAD programs are Pro-E

enthusiasts who make ridiculous assumptions about what IC can and cant do. My response to them is always the same, Pro-E started from the bottom like everybody else! Then I get out my laptop and show them it can.

 

Let me explain why I do this and why it should be a welcomed comparison. In the mean time, I hope I dont offend anyone.

 

Surely, the IC enthusiasts understand and can appreciate that these open forums are in place so that IC can gain further input for its SWOT (Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. For these reasons alone, I feel

it should be a duty for us all to challenge IC, to let them know what others are

doing and to let them know what we like about those other programs. Be bold and name the programs specifically. There should be no need for covert and around-the-block generalizations of what you may have seen.

 

It is as if we are IronCad Beta testers, and quite frankly, I dont mind

because I want to see IC rise to the top. As you may have concluded for

yourself, the barriers to entry for CAD programs are either very low or

virtually nonexistent. It seems as if a new company is born every month! I

must admit that some of them have really good insight. I have no regrets or

reservations about investigating different CAD programs. I love CAD programs; they make my job easy and very fun. With the sudden onslaught of new programs, it is hard to keep up. I have used IronCad since version 2.0, and many of you out there have mentioned showing your loyalty for much longer; trispectives, I think some have called it.

 

I am in your corner, IronCad, until the end. Together, along with many others, I will infiltrate and research other programs for as long as I can get to them and make visits to

[Rick Dorrington]

Bravo. Well said.

 

I sort of feel the same way about Apple and Microsoft. Nearly every day someone rolls their eyes in my presence when I blast off about Bill and his gang of robbers.

 

These days I feel somewhat vindicated because many of my converts are carrying the message forward. I just smile when I hear them raving about some cool thing that their Mac does.

 

Of course I think that I singlehandedly saved Apple from the brink of extinction. (Doesn't everbody?)

 

Regards,

 

Rick

[Chris Lohman]

Keep in mind that our decision makers do read the posts on this discussion forum so any comments regarding what you like and dislike about us and other CAD app's are most certainly heard and taken into consideration. We encourage you to say what's on your mind and by using these forums; others can agree with you.

 

So please do "plague" us with information about what our competitors have that you desire and anything else that you want to say. We make this application for you, the user, so what you have to say about our future product direction is VERY important to us.

 

Can you think of some things that those applications that you listed have that we should have? How can we take their idea and improve on it so that it's easy in IronCAD. Why would someone use the other application instead of ours?

 

Thanks

 

 

[tlehnhaeuser]

Howard has state his case the BEST I have every seen and I want to send mu KUDOS to him and Chris for his repsonse to this matter.

 

I will continue to add to my list as I get time, but to start I have 2 to submit.

 

1. Solid Edge has the ability to projects edges off 3D parts and offset them to create a Prametric association part. SE calls it Inter-Part Linking. It is very cumbersome to use BUT an extremly vital function for Mechanical Engineers. IronCAD is 99% there, As I see it, all we need to do is when Project Edges by Right Clicking which creates associativity to original part. Now all we need to do is be ability to maintain the associatity, but offset the profile a specific distance...Whallah. This would go a long way in creating easy to build FULL paramteric Assemblies.

 

and

 

2. I often refer to Think3 as IronCAD on steriods. It has the same Catalog function (don't know all the limitations as opposed to IC). But they have SmartObjects which allow to to drag and drop them onto parts which would alter mulitple parts simultaneously. For Instance, Drag a Tonue and Groove SmartObject. It will applt the tongue to Part A and the associative Grovve to Part B. This will add even further to the Parametric scheme of things.

 

My 2 cents...I am up to about $1.98 so far.

Tom

 

PS: I just want to add that I am an IronCAD user forever and will NEVER change. I still feel that even though there are certain functions other programs have that we SHOULD have, they still need to catch up to become a tool that makes you money and not costs you money.

 

 

 

[Robert Andersson]

Tom,

Why do you want to have "FULL paramteric Assemblies" ?

Just curius...

 

Robert Andersson

Solidmakarna

[tlehnhaeuser]

Hi Robert,

2 reasons.

 

One - to compete with other Apps better

Two- That's what 3D is all about for mech Engineers. When you can one part, you want several others to update as well. Thats where the power comes in. Don't get me wrong, IC can do this, but I feel this one simple modification to existing tool would be an HUGE leap to help in both sales of IC and Functionaity

 

Tom

 

 

 

[Guest Floris Stam]

I agree with Tom. Like the connical constraints are very difficult to use when you wan't to make more then 3 conicals that have to interact with each other. I think this is a third party product and off course it can be changed. I think that whe should not discuss to much whether IC is or isn't a Parametric design and engineering application but we need to follow and get ahead of the competition. Not by ignoring there new function and claiming that IC is still better on different levels but make the competition scared of IC with not more but better and intelligently made function.

[Guest Urban Olars]

 

That's what 3D is all about for mech Engineers....

I don't agree. 3D for mech engineers is all about constructing machines as fast as you can. In IronCAD you can do that a lot faster than in the competitors software because you don't have to deal with parameters and constraints. That's the whole idea with IronCAD. People who move from other software to IronCAD do it to get rid of parametric modelling.

 

I do however agree that the parametric functions in IronCAD has to be a lot better because sometimes it's a must have. When you really need it, it's a very powerful modelling technique. Up till now this has been a very weak part of IronCAD, but after PU1 was released things got a lot better and I expect many more improvements of this in the next full release.

Building fully parametric assemblies is complicated and takes a lot of time. You only want to do that when you really need it. With better parametric functions in IronCAD you can however have the best from two worlds, non-parametric construction most of the time and powerful parametric functions when you really need it.

 

What a mechanical engineer is missing most in IronCAD today I think is linkage constraints. The recent one-way constraints is not very useful if you want to simulate true mechanisms.

id=green>

 

 

[dsulli]

Wow,

 

I am certainly impressed with Howard's vast array of MCAD programs in use at his company. You and Joe Greco have alot in common. And Rick's comparison of Apple with MS is a good one, although there are far more MCAD programs than there are operating systems. Out of all the MCAD programs out there, it surely looks like SolidWorks is dominating the field. Our company has both SW and IronCAD and the only two reasons I can see that anyone here uses SW is because they have to modify/query models that were generated by outside companies or because they wish to be marketable in case they decide to leave our company to go to another.

 

By the way, I saw recently that SW 2004 is touting hole charts and photo-realistic materials; I guess they are still playing catch-up in many ways!

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

[Robert Andersson]

>> Parametric versus “Instant”modeling, or a combination?

 

Urban states this pretty well. I want to add some words to explain what is meant with the description "Parametric" modeling and why there is a need for alternatives to that modeling method.

 

Parametric modeling:

Parametric modeling is the way to change the dimensions, positions and the number of instances of a feature, part or a assembly in 3D space.

In which way the models will update after changes, is predefined.

Dimensions/ Number of instances can be controlled by editing the dimension/ value direct, or trough a embedded or external spreadsheet.

PTC introduced this with their product Pro/Engineer back in the 80’s. Then we have seen windows versions of that technology in Solidworks, Solid Edge and in later years Inventor from Autodesk. Parametric modeling is very powerful but there are some fundamental problems associated with it. I will get back to later.

Besides parametric there are other modeling methods for 3D:

 

Boolean modeling.

Among boolean modelers there are AutoCAD 3D and CADKEY (they added parametric’s a couple of years ago).

They have no history tree and are pretty cumbersome to use for solidmodelling.

If you have a block with a hole in it, you can’t change the location of the hole at a later time. You have to fill the hole and create a new hole at the new place.

 

Dynamic modelling

A very good attempt to get rid of the problem associated with history based parametric modelers, is showed in HP / Cocreate with Solid Designer (They have later changed the name to Onespace Designer Modeling)

Designer uses no history at all. You may call this modeling metod for “Dynamic” modelling.

This makes it possible to change any geometry at anytime from anybody. That is not possible with parametric modellers.

A drawback is that you cannot use supress and reorder history, because there is no history. It is also difficult to control the models with parameters because parametrics wants history.

It is propably the best modeler in the world for working with imported 3D geometry do.

Why?

Imported geometry comes without history, no sketches, only a solid body, and this is of course neccesary to have in a history based modeller. Designer doesn’t need sketches, parameters and history, so that’s great for “dumb” bodys. Here the “intelligence” recidences in the tools, rather in the models.

Some technology used in Designer is also found in IronCAD. That is called DFM or Direct Face Modelling. You can do a lot with this in IC but not at all as much at you can do in Designer. The advantage for IronCAD is that this is only IronCAD’s secondary modelling metod, used mainly on imported geometry.

 

What does it take to make parametric models work:

To make a parametric control system to work, the user has to apply constraints and rules that define in what way the model is changed when the user later changes parametric values.

Then the models have to be test drived to check if it really is doing what expected.

 

Hove does this work?

This is all done by creating models that are constrained and associated together, sketches are fully constrained, parts and datum planes are defined in position relative each other.

Number of instances can be controlled by formulas like “If dim10 > 1140mm and dim10

People that demonstrate parametric modelers often talk about the great “Intelligence” of their models. What they call "Intelligence" is nothing but behavior rules do. Rules that someone have to apply/ define and understand. The user then has to take great attention to those rules.

 

If you have a sheet and want to place a hole in that sheet, you are forced to place a dimension in X and Y for that hole, relative something else, like two edges of the sheet.

So if you place that dimension from a edge of the sheet you can later move the edge

and the hole will move along.

This is good, as long the hole SHOULD move along if you move the edge. When you create the hole, you have to think of in what way future changes wi

[mmccall]

Well said!

 

Very effective... I will be using the Robert Andersson response to help convert and instruct the "lost sheep" !

 

Very detailed explanation on how to "think" through designing in IC vs Pro-E.