Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Anybody out there that can help me with this one? I'm trying to model wires and ropes, that is bended. Like this: - The cross-section consist of several round parts. (only the outher ones has to be drawn. - The wire is spined around the center line like a helix. - The path for the helix center is bended, following a 3D guide curve. Is this possible in IronCAD? Any help or answer is greatly appreciated! / Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 15, 2005 Author Share Posted June 15, 2005 Maybe this is impossible in IronCAD, ha? Anyway. Anybody that know if it is possible to get a good render of a bended wire, with a bitmap aplied or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IronKevin Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 There really is no utility in IronCAD to create a wire like that. If you found a bitmap you could apply it to a tube shape to simulate the beaded wire. IK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Marcus, I think we modeled something like that for a demo. It was a rope isolation mount. I am trying to see if I can find the video for it. I'll keep you posted. Basically, we used 3D curves from center points on existing parts and then used the Connect/Fllet to connect the ends of the 3D curves to make a helical oblong rope/cable that ran thru the mounting blocks. I was very easy to do. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 Sounds interesting. I can barely wait / Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkline Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 This is easily done in Rhino. If you don't have it, you can download a free copy that works for 20 saves at www.rhino3d.com. In IC create your 3D curve that the wire should wrap around. Export the 3D Spline as IGES and import into Rhino. You may have to join the curve in Rhino. In Rhino, select Curve>Spiral>A, and select your imported IC 3D curve. You can adjust the diameter, turns, pitch, etc. This will create a spiral spline around your IC 3D curve. You can export the Rhino spiral spline back into IC via IGES and use the pipe command in IC, or use the solid>pipe command in Rhino and make your solid using the Rhino spiral spline as the guide curve. Hope this helps. Bret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Marcus I couldn't find the actual demo so I quickly created a new one. This provides the jist of it. Enjoy Tom ropedemo.zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 20, 2005 Author Share Posted June 20, 2005 This is easily done in Rhino. If you don't have it, you can download a free copy that works for 20 saves at www.rhino3d.com. Bret 10289[/snapback] Yes, this is easily done in many other programs, I used MicroStation before and it was realy easy to create things like this. Do I have to have another program to solve this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Maybe I do not understand the question. If I think you are trying to create the shape as in the attached image, then you can create it using a loft. Just make one loft and then use the triball to copy the number of wires. Cary Wire.bmp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkline Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) Cary, Your solution only works if the wire is straight. Check out my solution along a 3D spline in Rhino. You can't do this in IC because IC loft sections DO NOT exactly follow the guide curve. This is something I have been asking for for years. All major 3D packages (Solidwork, Pro-E, Vellum Solids, Rhino) can do this but as we enter IC Rev 8, we still don't have this. Bret Wire_Rhino.zip Edited June 21, 2005 by bkline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkline Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 (edited) Cary, Your solution only works if the wire is straight. Check out my solution along a 3D spline in Rhino. You can't do this in IC because IC loft sections DO NOT exactly follow the guide curve. This is something I have been asking for for years. All major 3D packages (Solidwork, Pro-E, Vellum Solids, Rhino) can do this but as we enter IC Rev 8, we still don't have this. Bret Edited June 21, 2005 by bkline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 That was a good looking wire, very near what I'm after. It's sad to hear that this isn't possible in IronCAD (if it is true what you say). And what scars me most is that you have asked for it for years. IronCAD, any particular reason not to implement it? What is the philosophy of IronCAD, is it to have a 3:d party application (like Rhino) for more advanced shapes? Do I have to have Rhino for these kind of things? / Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 In the past versions of IRonCAD, the helix following a 3D Curve path would have been very difficult since we used a loft for the Helix. IronCAD 8.0 created a new type of helix that is based off of the kernel helix definition in which we can use a sweep path (Much faster helix generation). Anyway, we are updating the Helix tool in the catalog to use this helix definition as well (current implementation is on the 3D Curve Toolbar). After this update, we should be able to add the option to have the helix use a 3D Curve Path. So we are moving in the right direction to get the command. Currently the update for the helix path is slated for PU1 of IronCAD 8.0 due out around September. I will see if we can sneak in the path option as well. R&D will need to determine the effort for that so it may not make, but I can ask. Thanks Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_temple Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I'm sad to say there are dozens of ERs and bugs on this forum that have never been addressed. Some are a bit bizarre and some would require major development. I understand those ERs taking longer to address. But many ERs and bug reports are simple items like adding a user preference setting or fixing reverse rotation of the triball. Not only are these items (and others) critical to the function of any CAD program, they are discussed on this forum on a very regular basis. I often wonder about the product development philosophy or vision at IronCad. The only hint Ive seen was in the protracted battle over automatic feature reordering. IC did not want to disable it because doing so would be against the product philosophy. Meanwhile, forum users explained at length how and why this was destroying models and wasting time. It indicated to me that the needs of professional CAD users are of little importance to the company. That observation has only been reinforced by the companys failure to implement many of the critical, well conceived recommendations discussed with great regularity in this forum. I hate disparaging IronCad but I've seen at least three versions in which simple issues have gone unaddressed. I'm grateful for the new features we have but frustrated with the bugs and inefficiencies that persist from version to version to version... Making prints in this program is so frustrating and inefficient that I have no choice but to buy something else, which is a nice segue to price. IC costs the same as other mid range modelers yet has the annoying quirks of a $100 program from Office Depot. Another curiosity in pricing is the difference between Innovate and IronCad. I know there are some modeling tool differences but the inclusion of drafting in IronCad is the big difference to me. The same drafting module that makes IC so frustrating adds $2000 to the price. I apologize for the length of this post and I would apologize for its content but this needs to be said. Only professionals are going to pay what IronCad costs. Were going to loft complex surfaces, draw big prints and all the other things professional Cad users do. Each release of IronCad needs to be better at all these things. Here in the forum, professional Cad users explain what we need, how to improve features we already have and possible methods to implement new ones. To maintain current users and attract new ones, IronCad needs to apply this feedback to the product. To date however, I havent seen it. Please please please prove me wrong and make IronCad a program I can continue using. I really dont want to buy something else, nor do I want loft features that dont follow their guide curves, space balls that move in opposite directions, a TriBall that rotates the wrong way, confirmation that I want threads on my drawings or 3 decimal place dimensions all the time. Please make IronCad the great program it could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bkline Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Meanwhile, forum users explained at length how and why this was destroying models and wasting time. It indicated to me that the needs of professional CAD users are of little importance to the company. That observation has only been reinforced by the companys failure to implement many of the critical, well conceived recommendations discussed with great regularity in this forum. 10307[/snapback] Amen Don, I could not have said it better. While I use IC on a daily basis, the workarounds for many simple items are frustrating. There are great tools in IC but they just don't always function as desired. Many of these items I point out on a weekly basis to Tech Support and some have been implimented but others (Lofts, Very Slow Rendering to the point of not being productive, Project 3D Edges looses Associativity Constrains, etc.) just get lost in limbo. I'm willing to pay more to get these features fixed because they will save me a lot of time and frustration. What do users have to do to get basic stuff that should have worked by rev 2 fixed? If these item were fixed, maybe IC would sell more US seats and my customers would stop asking "Ironcad who"? Bret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Khenkin Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 To add insult to injury, there was a very nice (really - no sarcasm or anything) person calling me from IC yesterday asking all kinds of question - what I use IC for, how it helps me, etc - marketing stuff. I am very happy to help you guys sell more seats and prosper, but THEN - then she asked me what I would like to see improved or added to IC, or some such. I mean - I and others here have been going at it for years - telling you guys what it is that we want - no, NEED! I understand I am not gonna get everything I want (need), even though some of these things are both elementary and optional, but there are some things many people have requested for years! I remember there was an e-mail questionnaire that we filled out - as if the forums weren't enough. Now there is a real human being asking questions. Is this, like, a new marketing manager having a burst of activity that then goes under the folder "Done a Study of Customer Preferences/Complaints"? Please don't misunderstand me - I LIKE both the product and the company; it is painful to see a potentially fantastic product not enjoying the success it deserves, and driving even its loyal (since version 3.2 in my case) supporters to exasperation ! -Alex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urban Olars Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I think there exists a black hole where most of the smaller requests ends up. As a user of IronCAD I feel like smaller requests is ignored most of the time if you don't keep pushing for it over and over again. With the increased sales of IronCAD I hope they can afford to hire more programmers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Currently the update for the helix path is slated for PU1 of IronCAD 8.0 due out around September. I will see if we can sneak in the path option as well. R&D will need to determine the effort for that so it may not make, but I can ask. Thanks Cary 10305[/snapback] Hi Cary! Good to hear that this might come in PU1. I can live with what we have until September for this, BUT NOT LONGER. We shall have an investigation if IC is the right tool for us here in september. Is there more information about what will come in PU1? (I hope that a lot of drawing and 2D things will be fixed as well) / Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Well I guess I should comment on this post. First of all I'm sorry that many of you don't think that we are taking an action on requests made in the community. However over the past 2 release, a high number of features or quality issues addressed came from the community (TriBall Move versus Copy Option, Spaceball ER's, Global Allow Reorder Setting Option, Perspective View, etc). Anyway, I don't want to get into a battle about this because we could go back and forth. All new features and quality issues slated to be addressed are reviewed prior to development phases. ER's come from the community, support, resellers, company strategic direction, direct customer communications. Yes there is overlap, however we get a real understanding of the important needs from the customers (For example the most common item requested from the surveys was the Mechanism capability in which we added for IronCAD 8.0). When we gather requirements from customer, it is important to gather the priority (That is why you see web surveys and direct calls). If you are submitting ER's without a priority, then they will tend to fall to the bottom of the stack (We do try to take care of some of these when we can when we hear them requested often and usually appear in Product Updates. EX: The Allow Reorder Setting). All the ER's submitted are also weighed on the direction we are taking the product. For example, IronCAD is not strong in Free Form Design for industrial designers and it is not the main target market for our product. However, there are a lot of things that we can do to aid in the market, so we try to offer companion products like the Free Rhino Integration. IronCADs primary target market is machine design and our functionality will be tailored for that market based on the architecture difference we offer against our competitors. IronCAD may not have all the functionality items, however if it is in the right market and right customer we are very productive due to our system architecture and the functionality we offer. So the future direction for ERs will mainly be more productivity tools and trying to complete gaps that stop customers from completing their job for our target market. We want to make sure we meet our market before we venture into others. Yes we know there is an overlap, but there are main functionality items in each market and we may not be able to add those items in a timely manner The best way to get your ERs in the list is to send a priority based list to support or community. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Bertilsson Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 ... So the future direction for ERs will mainly be more productivity tools and trying to complete gaps that stop customers from completing their job for our target market.... Cary 10338[/snapback] Thank you Cary for the good answer. And it is good to hear that you will have the focus on productivity tools. You have my vote for that. / Marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cborer Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Thanks Cary Bad news to me as a sculptor and designer! In fact I was sometimes amazed about which tools find place in a new version. There have been many which was never asked for in the forum (bidirectional dimensions V7, silhouette split, surface to curve fillet .), while others I asked for since Trispectives times never find place. Version 8 seems to be the Toolmakers Edit, they must be happy. I do not know which tread they have to IC cause I did not read of them in the forum. And I do not agree with you about designer: Iron CAD is could be the perfect tool for designers if it would be complete. I bought it cause they told me that it is made for designers. In fact are the possibilities of IC with the easy of use, scene browser, edit tools, intuitive working, tribal, editing after Boolean, and so on are exactly what designers need. Also the free form is not that badwith the loft and 3d line options they are OK. ...but still not complete. The control about the surface and curve quality should become better and it becomes in fact more and more importance to me. So should I search for another CAD, cause IC will not care anymore about us Designers? I do not want to leave, I love Iron Cad! And I paid my AA contract like the others do. So Cary this is a hot Iron! Is this an official statement? What will be the focus for 9.0 or 10 Best Carlo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 When we gather requirements from customer, it is important to gather the priority (That is why you see web surveys and direct calls). If you are submitting ER's without a priority, then they will tend to fall to the bottom of the stack 10338[/snapback] Hi Cary, If possible to do, I think it would be great if in the ER forum there be a "Priority Table" where for R/D. I know every ER will have TOP priority in the intinaitors eyes, but I believe most IC users are understanding enough to check the level reasonably. Also, this would help "standardize" on what level means what. I.e. If a IC user and myself have the same need at the same priority this "table" would allow for uniform voice as opposed to me saying level 2 and other saying level 3, get my drift? Anyway, like I said, not sure if it can be added but may be something to consider if it can. Thanks Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Ludin Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Tom - I just posted a similar request in another thread before reading this one. Actually, I would just love to have the possibility to rate IC's ER list. But in addition, I would also like to have my own ER list as part of my member profile which I can maintain and edit and which every other member of the forum and, more importantly, IC's decision makers could review, too. My priorities may change as my way of working with the product and the product itself are developing. Having my own editable list in the forum would let me keep it updated easily while giving the IC staff a valuable resource for making decision. What do you think? Beat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cborer Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Beat This is perfect! The list may even be open to see for everyone. Carlo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Good Beat, I go for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.