10 Reasons To Use Ironcad

[Guest IronKevin]

Here's an article I found relating to PRO/E and the same principles apply to SolidWorks, Inventor, Solidedge, etc.

 

It's nice to remember that in IronCAD we are NOT tied down by these 10 annoyances that kill productivity and the enjoyment that the design process can provide.

 

 

 

 

Rediscovering "Good Modeling Practices"

Eldon Goates, Synthesis Engineering Services

 

Just recently I read a short article in Design News about the merits of properly choosing model references. The article (scanned here for reference) talks about this "new" way of increasing effectiveness of CAD. Although they emphasize the value of datum planes, in Pro/E the same is true using any stable reference -- a base feature, datum, curve set, etc..

 

I chuckled as I read the article because, like a new revelation, the author was saying, in effect, that choices in how a model is created make a difference in how easy it is to manipulate and extend its use.

 

It's a good piece and it says the truth. I chuckled only because PTC used to (very past tense) emphasize the value of "good modeling practices". Now, (present tense) with Wildfire, PTC has gone the other direction by making choices for you in selecting references and seem to care only that you can make features with fewer mouse picks than with Solid Works. The truth is -- this type of modeling is sloppy and like the article points out, reduces both efficiency and ROI (Return on Investment).

 

So, this Tip (Or perhaps better stated, this Reminder): Use modeling techniques that enhance the usability and robustness of the model. As you work, think about how easy or difficult it will be to manipulate for the next ECR (Engineering Change Request -- or whatever your company calls it), and take time to choose good, stable references that reflect design intent.

 

There are no hard and fast rules for good modeling, rather a bunch of guidelines because there are always circumstances that change the relevance of the rules.

 

For reference, here is a quick list of guidelines. The list is by no means complete, but contains some of the big things that will make a difference in the usability and robustness of the typical model:

 

1. Carefully choose references. This includes references for sketching planes, sketch orientation, sketcher references, edges or surfaces for rounds, etc..

 

2. Choose references that follow the design intent. Though it's easy to make all your features reference only the base datum planes, the model won't follow when modifications are made. Choose references that allow the model "move" with the intent as changes are made.

 

(In Practice: Don't just accept Pro/E's automatic references (especially in Wildfire). Think about the design intent and choose references that are stable and reflect that intent. Wildfire is horrible about automatic references. Unless you're sketching on a default datum in the assumed orientation, automatic references are rarely applicable or appropriate. So much for minimizing mouse picks.)

 

3. Choose references that won't disappear. References like edges that disappear when rounded, are not usually the best choice. Datums and planner surfaces are typically better. References from base features are typically more stable than those of later ones.

 

(In Practice: Pro/E provides different methods of selecting references that give similar results, and some are more stable than others. For example, surface selection by Surf & Bnd, or Loop Surfs when selecting for draft (and other times). Select using Intent Chain for edges. These are just a few examples. Choose the best method for your application.)

 

4. Choose references sparingly. More references mean more feature inter-connectivity which can make the model more difficult to work with. However, choose enough references to make the model follow design intent.

 

(In Practice: Some models are so tightly tied with references that the model fails with almost any modification. Users wonder why Pro/E is so hard to work with, but in fact, it's the way the model was constructed. Choices like Thru Next have no references.)

 

5. When several features are to reference the same thing (like a planner surface or axis), create datums for control.

 

(In Practice: Key datums (planes, points, axes) are easier to find and select when they are named. Named features also denote significance for someone changing the model later. Name your important datums.)

 

6. When several aspects of a part must interact (like cuts and protrusions to allow wall thickness and spacing) build control features like curve sets to manage the interactions, then reference them with the features.

 

7. Create relations that associate features when direct references are not practical.

 

(In Practice: When writing relations, use comments for "what" and "why". If other people use the model, they'll be more impressed if you are specific in your comments.)

 

8. Drafts and rounds are often best left to the end of the model. Although this is a good rule, there are times when they are required earlier. Care should be given to where the features are inserted in the model tree.

 

9. Rounds should normally be inserted as round features rather than put in a sketch. Again, this is a good rule of thumb, but there are times where a round can't be created or a dimensioning scheme (design intent) requires the radius in a sketch. As above, carefully consider when. (The same is true for Drafts, Chamfers, etc.)

 

(In Practice: It is often good to build models without drafts and rounds, then go back using Insert Mode to put them in -- where possible clustering them with the parent features.)

 

10. When the above guidelines don't make sense, carefully consider your options.

 

(In Practice: Good modeling practices are far more important early in the model than at the end when you're trying to put in the last round or draft.

 

Does all this seem silly when you're under the gun to complete a design?

 

I can see the reasoning. However, I can say from experience, it pays. I have done several projects that, a year or two later came back for upgrades for the next generation. For one particular project, 6 weeks of work went into the first generation, but it took only 4 days to completely re-build (with pretty drastic changes) models for the next generation.

 

For the most complex part, with the extent of the changes to the first few features, I was amazed that the model would regenerate the next 740 features with so few areas having to be rebuilt. Yes, there were rounds, drafts and other things to be rerouted or redefined, but most of the model regenerated perfectly. Truly it paid off for that customer.

 

[Mike Twining]

... uh... what is a refrence?

[Guest IronKevin]

EXACTLY !!!

[tpankratz]

Kinda makes one wonder why so many Pro/E people, without ever seeing even a demonstration of IronCAD, will just turn up their noses and hop up on the Pro/E Soap Box. I don't know about the rest of you... But I never took a single class for IronCAD and have heard from quite a few that it's virtually impossible to be self taught on Pro/E.

[Alex Khenkin]

... uh... what is a refrence?  

7979[/snapback]

I would venture a guess that it's what we call "constraint" in IC.

-Alex.

[Guest IronKevin]

I think reference could also be the item that you tie the current feature to, this relates to their rigid history appoach. So for example, if you place a boss on a part, then attach a rib to that boss, then later decide you don't need the boss so you delete it. The rib gets deleted also.

 

IK

[Mike Twining]

WARNING: Complete and utter non-sence follows. If you are looking to be productinve, this post is not the place for you...

 

I think reference could also be the item that you tie the current feature to, this relates to their rigid history appoach.  So for example, if you place a boss on a part, then attach a rib to that boss, then later decide you don't need the boss so you delete it.  The rib gets deleted also.

 

IK

7997[/snapback]

 

...let me get this straight...you are telling me that to solve the "refrence" problem i need to get rid of my boss when I no longer need him, which will also get rid of his ribs... (i get that part)? Will that then make me the boss, and if so, should I worry about someone trying to get rid of my ribs?

 

MikeT

[mmccall]

Kinda makes one wonder why so many Pro/E people, without ever seeing even a demonstration of IronCAD, will just turn up their noses and hop up on the Pro/E Soap Box.  I don't know about the rest of you...  But I never took a single class for IronCAD and have heard from quite a few that it's virtually impossible to be self taught on Pro/E.   

7994[/snapback]

 

 

Well.. I am self taught on Pro/E... but the learning curve is much longer than on IC...

 

But you are correct... I constantly get into battle with Pro/E people and show them time and time again... IC vs Pro/E and now Pro/E Wild Fire...

 

IC is just better... hands down...

 

I challenge them on stuff I did in the past... they can look at how the model was made... I can explain it to them... they just really have a hard time thinking of where to begin... "References?"...

 

What the HELL for is my response... JUST DO IT.... start anywhere...

 

Freaks them out... and pisses them off...

 

They throw down the mouse... "It can't be that easy and work worth a DAMN !!!"

 

In IC... control what you want, where you want , when you want to... you are never painted into a corner!!...

 

Hell... you can get painted in a corner on Pro/E EARLY in the design.. and if you didn't catch it!... 100 features later... YOU ARE SCREWED !!!... start over BABY !!!

or be "re-defining" "references" for the rest of your life...

 

Those of US the so called "power" Pro/E users know that ... for time sake,.. export the file as a step... re-import as the base feature and do some surface modeling, cuts etc to get it to work... but in the future, be prepared to do a re-model so the rest of the Pro/E community can work with your file..

 

OH yeah.. its not as simple as IC... cut and paste... !!

 

Just think of having a model potentially crash just because you want to suppress a feature?... that whole thing about references and parent child relationships... OH yeah !! did I mention top down assemblies ?... what if you get a circular reference going on and you do a change.. there are several schools of thought... but in any case, you have to run a feature info report and find where you may have set external references to other geometry or parts...

 

 

KEVIN... at the next IC meeting... just call... I would be more than happy to do a talk on this...

 

Surely there are others in the IC community that know just as much about this stuff.. and we could all go on and on...

 

Versatility where you need it?.. Pro/E can be made to do it... its just a matter of how much time you have and you had better have the skills to pull it off or you are in real trouble...

 

With IC.. there are alot of things that can't be done that Pro/E can do... but from my experience in every industry from Military to high production commercial products... you just don't need all that complexity to do the job...

 

With IC.. find yourself in a corner?... blow away all the features and just keep on KICKING !!!...

 

The beautiful thing about it is that EVERYONE in the IC community knows how to do it...

 

THATS WHAT MAKES IRONCAD THE BEST !!!!

[snelson]

I currently use pre made parts to make larger assemblies and do very little part design from scratch at this job. This is also my first job using IC and it's only been for a few months.

 

At previous jobs I used Mechanical Desktop and other Autodesk products. I would have to say that this argument is very dependent upon one's work and the parts they are creating. Just as you guys have grown to love how this program does part modeling, myself and others have grown to love references, constraints and other dependents that other products offer. It may have been my previous line of work with the parts we made, but I relied on constraints and references for everything and was very happy for it. When my parts needed changes it was nice to go in and change one dimension and see how it would effect everything else down the line. All of my parts or features at that job needed these constraints using references and I wouldn't have had it any other way.

 

If you know how and where your part will be used then it is usually pretty easy to pick or find an edge or reference that will not disappear. Before, I made upgrades and guards for parts that were additions to existing parts or machines; therefore it was really easy to pick a reference point that was going to be consistent no matter what. I know that not everyone has the luxury of having existing geometry so again; this all depends on what you design for a living.

 

Now I may not be fully trained on IC yet, but I'm getting sick of tri balling everything into place and assembling everything in order to move multiple parts at a time instead of constraining them once and picking any of the contained parts to move an assembly. I know that IC has constraints but as I have heard, no one here (at my job) even uses them and all that we do are assemblies.

 

It also seems that this list of ten reasons is really just one long drawn out rant on references and two mentions of drafts and rounds. So I read it as only two reasons in ten sentences.

 

As far as rounds are concerned, depending on how the part is machined used to determine where in the design I would insert my rounds. Some of them can be inserted at a sketch level where sometimes it would be beneficial to add them at the very end of a design. I use the same principals here with IC, when I can get the rounds to even work in IC. Never have I seen something so finicky as to how the sketch is made and how every single line intersection is constrained for a round to work. I have to go around and individually make sure every single line intersection is joined correctly with a tangent constraint or similar. It seems rather incapable of blending imperfections that are hidden by the round itself after it is made. These imperfections at the intersections are not an issue or even noticeable when it is extruded yet rounds will not work. I waste valuable time hunting down very small sketch issues that cause a round or extrusion to not work properly.

 

Bottom line is that it completely depends on the line of work you are in and what you do that dictates what drafting program is right for you. I like the smart snaps in IC (when they work) for projects I do here and don't think too many other programs could do great in this area of dropping pre-made parts in one after another and having them just pop into place. But I loathe using the sketching and part modeling in IC more then anything else I have done in any program. I despised sketching in Pro-E 2001 and earlier revs but this program bugs me even more.

 

Steve

[Rick Dorrington]

Start

 

Flaming

 

Here.......

[Guest IronKevin]

One quick point when you want to move multiple parts and/or assemblies that are unconstrained:

 

Select them all, activate TriBall, move.

 

IK

[snelson]

Start

 

Flaming

 

Here.......

8018[/snapback]

 

Flame suit is on. I kept myself to the point, on topic and descript in my response. I kept myself very civil when in reality; I would rather tear this program to bits. I feel I provided a valid response to this. If you guys can't take constructive criticism pointing out positive uses for both this program, and heaven forbid, other programs then I will gladly withdraw from posting here again. If someone wants to take this is a real “attack” on the software and would like to make this personal then I see no use in being around.

 

Currently I work with someone here who provides weekly feedback to IC in finding bugs, oddities, and fatal errors all in hopes of bettering the daily use of this software. I am not the type to complain all day long without doing something constructive in the bettering of my situation using this program. I provide feedback in the use of this software to someone who directly conveys my situation and findings with someone at IC. I provide screenshots and detailed info to help solve problems. If you feel that I am only a basher and would like to “flame” me for posting, then I’ll be happy to leave.

 

About IronKevin’s response:

 

When making irregular shaped, stacked assemblies, a square, whole part, all or nothing selection tool is of little help, and you have so many parts stacked on top of each other and inside of each other that your best bet is going through the browser selecting them piece by piece. And when you use the same part over and over it’s not as simple as just picking it by name. So, “selecting all” can get very time consuming.

 

Again, depending on what some of you design for a living, you may not use this software nearly the same way as I do. Not your fault, not bashing you, just stating that you may not use it the same way I do and some of the features you didn’t like in other products, I did.

 

Steve

[tlehnhaeuser]

Everyone has an opinion.

Steve.... I truly would like to understand your love of constraints and references, maybe you can eloborate what industry you find them useful. I'm being serious, not funny.

 

Because I have used ProE, SDRC, MDT, SWX, SE and a few more and all in various design arenas and these elements always got in my way. But that being said, if you can give me an example of when these work better than IC's approach, I truly want to learn and welcome the feedback. Because I can use IC with references and constraints if I want, I just choose not to and if you can provide a good reason why I should start, then maybe I'll will.

Thanks

tom

[snelson]

Creating mounting plates where many parts have to stay certain distances from each other and other objects, no matter what, is the perfect place to use references. I would make large mounting plates and if anything that attached to one of them had to move, I wanted to change just one dimension and have everything else adjust. I used to do machine design that had me mounting many parts onto steel plates. I used the edges of my mounting plate most of the time for reference points. This keeps you from referencing possible changing features like cuts or adding walls, just go to the outside of the part. Or, if these needed to be dependent upon one another, say, a nail feeder into a nail gun, but yet stay away from the laser positioning unit, moving them all in unison is a great thing to be able to do.

 

You learn really quick what not to reference when creating detailed parts. Just the same as you learn what things can and can't be done in IC.

 

Maybe for some of you referencing was a nuisance, but for me it was a daily time saver.

 

Time to head home, see ya,

Steve

 

[Mike Twining]

Steve-

What you described can be easily acomplished using "Smart Dimensions" (default on the LHS toolbar near the bottom): Pick the tool, drop in the dimension you want to constrain/control... right click the displayed dimension and choose "Lock". Booya, you have a "refrence". Hope this helps a bit.

 

I am sure that the more you use IronCAD, the more little tricks you will pick up, and the easier you will find it to get your job done. I would personally be interested in your opinion of IronCAD after using it for, say, another 6 months.

 

MikeT

[Mike Allen]

I'd just like to confirm for everyone that Steve is a thoughtful guy, who is giving IronCAD a fair shake, even when it frustrates him.

 

The point is well-taken that sometimes constraints can be immensely useful in part design. I also know that the more we use IronCAD, the less we tend to see a need for constraints. The beauty of the program is that it allows for fully constrained sketches, parts & assemblies - but never requires them.

 

The task of easily selecting parts to be moved as a group can be extremely complex & have many solutions - but I think in Steve's & my case, the Box Select tool provides the best solution, since it works across assemblies to select parts based on their location in space. If the same set of parts needs to be selected more than once, we also have a Group command (in the Shape menu) - although it doesn't work across assemblies, so some prior planning is involved in using it effectively.

 

Part of the issue here, is knowing how a model will react in any particular situation. Whether you work with or without constraints, you tend to become reliant on your model behaving in a certain way. Since I almost never use constraints, I take that into consideration when manipulating parts - and almost always can make it work to my advantage. When I am working with a model that was designed with constraints, I also try to use that to my advantage - although constraints, by their very nature, allow for extremely limited manipulation. Each situation is what it is - complete freedom of motion or completely constrained motion - both can cause problems, but won't if you know what to expect.

[Rick Dorrington]

Steve,

 

Unwind a bit. Just my poor effort at humour. No need to be offended. We're actually a pretty friendly crowd.

Since you're relatively new here:

 

Remember Rule #8

 

Don't_take_Rick_too_seriously

 

I can honestly say that I can't recall ever seeing a flame war on this board and I've been here for about 4 years. The thing is that most of the people here have been down the SW/SE/Pro-E/whatever road before and really love this product, and for good reason.

 

Your first post was a bit confrontational and frankly a bit surprising. We don't often see that around here. Rather than rip into it I decided to chuckle instead. Getting too old to care I guess.

 

This group is probably the most civilized I have ever met. Ask intelligent questions (or not so intelligent) and you will get informative answers rather quickly. The IC staff are amazing and we can't say enough good things about them.

 

Peace and welcome aboard.

[mmccall]

Yes... in the end.. to each their own...

 

I am currently working on a project with a whole host of other people on Pro/E Wildfire with very large assemblies... I mean... don't even try to pull up the full assembly or your computer will crash!!...simplified reps only... (the IC equivalent of simplified reps would be "configurations") ...those size assemblies with a GOV agency...

 

We are having to work with simplified reps and a very well thought out skeleton (system of datum planes that define EVERYTHING) that drives parametrically with references...all that ... the entire assembly to make changes...

 

In this instance... it's almost the only way to go with Pro/E since with the size of the assembly and the amount of time it would take to modify each part... a real headache..

 

Other than having to boot all machines on a 3gig switch... I would dare to say that if IC could handle an assembly of that size... (I am not a computer wiz.. I just use the program so I have no way of really knowing if IC could take an assembly that size)... the speed at which changes could be made and the care free nature of the program... freedom to change anything anywhere along the design process.. IC could do the same job.. faster... easier and without some power user needed to make such a massive change.

 

Now... thats on the topic of large assemblies...

 

With conceptual design... rapid changes... freedom of thought where references and design structure are really more of a hinderance rather than an asset...SPEED... IC can't be touched!!

 

But to each their own... it is a matter of what you need and I just feel that throughout all the industries I have been in...IC is more than capable... and for some reason in the past IC has been labled unjustly as a TOY cad system...

 

I have given massive amounts of criticism of IC in past threads... yes.. to help the company improve what I feel has become a major contender in the CAD product arena...

 

I feel it has more than surpassed my initial expectations when I was screening IC back in version 2.0.... I called it "ANIME CAD"... the black lines made it look soo much like anime... too funny...

 

But hey... here we are at 7.0... the things I do with the system kick butt... and my clients at the DOE are really taking notice to the programs abilities... and IC makes me look really good... !!! ... I can kick out alot of concepts really fast... to their admittance... much faster than anyone possibly could on Pro/E.. any version... and there are some REALLY good Pro/E users there... some of the best I have ever met...

 

Thanks IC....

 

MDTG

[tlehnhaeuser]

It turns out there appears to be two schools of thought;

Constraint-Based Engineers and Freedom-Based Engineers. Each has its place. Although throughout the sales process and meeting with many companies, it turns out that the need for constraint-based abilities are the minority in EVERY industry.

We have done massive sales research and the constraint-based methodology typically only related to manufacturing companies that have a STRICT product line wherein MINOR alterations are made to an existing product to achieve a new product. These companies are the minority. I do not have an actual percentage on this, but I estimatate the percentage to companies that NEED constraint-based modeling is in the single digits.

 

Most companies we have interviewed typically manufacture CUSTOM products using existing components, which is vastly different and lends itself to Freedom-based modeling (IronCAD). Whereas, the engineer/designer can create products using components from IC's catalogs (custom to the client) and generate new products without fear of the design "falling apart". The beauty of IronCAD in these cases is that the engineer can design the product with or without constraints and references and at will "deactivate/reactivate" them when the get in the way of the design intent. NO OTHER PROGRAM allows this, at least to my knowledge.

 

So believe it or not, IronCAD is REALLY the de-facto approach to designing the MAJORITY of products, because lets face it...its all about the bottom line and IronCAD thrives there.

 

TO STEVE...

"I used the edges of my mounting plate most of the time for reference points."

 

I have attached a tutorial (3.3MB) that may help better explain how you can use reference edges in your design.

 

http://www.magnacad.com/support/bookshelf_tutorial.zip

 

Briefly, when you want to reference the edge(s) of one part to another, simply EDIT CROSS SECTION and using the PROJECT 3D EDGES tool , RIGHT click on the edge you want asa reference (assocative). It puts a little red tick mark indicating the associativity. As usual IC will allow you to either keep it our delete in case you wish to reference a differnt edge. AS for the part distance constraints. Mike T was correct, thats one of the functions of IC's SmartDimensions, when their locked they become Parameters that can be used in parametric design. Hope this helps.

Tom

Edited October 20, 2004 by tlehnhaeuser

[cborer]

I do not agree that there are only 10 points to get IC!

There are more!

Still there is a thing with the constrains which really does not work proper.

See the 2 files (I reported it at IC 6, but it still is not working)

One from me / one from Urban (thanks to Urban)

It is a table with a wooden sheet on top. I like to change the size of the wooden top and want to go the whole rest with it.

Play with it! And see!

Sometimes it just changes the top sheet.

Or it will change the profile of the steel - frame.

In both cases IC unlocks locked dimensions, as well between shapes or parts as in the shape – cross section.

 

The file from Urban works.

 

I do still not understand why his is working and why mine fails.

( I ll post mine in the next one)

Tisch_Rahmen_variable_Urban.ics

[cborer]

Heres mine

Tisch_Rahmen_variabel.ics

[Per-Arne Almeflo]

I would like for IronCAD to manage mechanisms in a meaningful way, even if that would include some constraining...

[Alex Khenkin]

Here's my 2c on the subject:

I started 3D modeling with Ironcad (3.2) and have never worked with a parametric system. I was mildly chastised in the beginning by some "parametric" people. Their friendly picking could be summarized by this phrase (not quoting literally, but the meaning is the same) "if later you want to move a connector hole, the connector should move with it." That made a lot of sense to me (see how gullible I am ?). What I realised much later is that constraining my model in any way is only possible once I know what kinds of changes I am NOT planning to introduce in the future. Yeah... To continue with the connector example - it all worked fine until I was forced to change the mounting part completely - there went the hole I constrained the connector to. Almost every time I tried to use constraints I had to change or remove them later on. That's actually not the worst - the worst possible outcome I can imagine is if I become too enamored with them (or even more lazy, if that's even possible ) - and will not attempt a change because it will force me into changing/removing too many constraints. The bottom line of all this is that constraints imply some knowledge about the future direction of my design, and most of the time I have no way of having that knowledge.

-Alex.

Edited October 20, 2004 by Alex Khenkin

[Cary OConnor]

Carlo,

Your file will not work since you are constraining the top part to the bottom part at the part level. Part-to-part constraints only drive positions, not feature/shape size. You would need to create parameters and expressions to drive the feature size. Refer to the attached Parameter Tutorial (Basics).

 

ftp://ftp.ironcad.com/download/Parameters.exe

 

I agree with others in this post where it really depends on your design and if you can foresee changes to the model in the future. Consider this....Say it takes you 5 extra hours to create a model with constraints/relations (I'm being conservative here). During the entire design process you only change the model twice where the relations actually helped out. Could you have made the same changes to the model without the constraints in less time? Traditional design systems tend to want to force the user to work in this relation manner regardless if they will be used or not (they call it design intent -- seems odd to call it that since the system forces the user to use them, even though they are not really part of design planning ). IronCAD allows the user the freedom to use them when needed and to work without them. So in reality, you may think you only spend the 5 extra hours in the example above, but you really spend a great deal more working entirely in that type of mode. ----Just a thought to consider.

 

Cary