What's new

Alibre Design: Future Improvements

GIOV

Alibre Super User
Alibre Design Future Improvements:
1. - Main open office Spreadsheet (Excel) able to be linked to entire model assembly, sub assemblies and parts with ability to be update all design automatically.
2. - Project to Sketch for assembly, sub assemblies and parts:
To have a new Inter designs project to sketch maintaining association with source entity from a new design explorer function like section view that right now doesn’t have this capability.
3.-Assemble Work space:
3.1.-The main equation editor must have access to all subs assemblies or parts equation editor by links,
3.2.- The Design Explorer must include all sub assemblies and parts;
3.3.- Import txt point files as insert points (reference geometry); Done:)
3.4.-The Toolbar Orient View needs add a two arrows to pitch the drawing easily upwards and downwards;
3.5.- Constraint Limits. Done; :)
3.6.- Symmetric Constrain;
3.7.-Triad Tools in one click and to be parametric for rotate and move the Part or Sub-Assemble;
3.8.- 2D and 3D Sketches for applied constrain to be a Part or Sub-assemble movement guide.
3.9.- Equal Segment Curve's divide with node (ref) points.
4.-Part work space:
4.1.- 2D Sketch
4.1.1. - Figure offset should be included into equation editor;
4.1.2. - Insert Plane should be included into equation editor;
4.1.3.- Import txt point files as insert points (reference geometry).:)
4.14.- Equal angle Constraints.
4.15.-Equal Segment Curve's divide with node (ref) points.
4.16.-Project to Sketch's History to find and modify the linked one.
4.2 - 3D Sketch:
4.2.1. - To have the same capabilities of 2D Sketch on the set plane;
4.2.2. - To included Surface and thicken generation;
4.2.3. - To have the same or better capabilities of Rhinoceros 3dm or/and ThinkDesign;
4.2.4. - The Toolbar Orient View needs add a two arrows to pitch the drawing easily upwards and downwards.
4.2.5.-Equal Segment Curve's divide with node (or ref) points.
4.2.6.-Project to Sketch's History to find and modify the linked one.
4.3.-Parts Feature:
4.3.1.-Solid Parts (casting)
4.3.1.1.- Mirror Chamfer & Fillet Feature;
4.3.1.2.- Feature Chamfer with intermediate measures as show in the drawing below;
4.3.1.3.-Feature Fillet with intermediate measures as show in the drawing below;
4.3.1.4.- Feature Loft Boss improvement to obtain more accurate body and shell of the part. Right now is so limited.(Important);
4.3.1.5.- Feature Section View> tools> area Properties like Area centroid, Area Moments;
4.3.1.6.-WorkSpace Sheet Sheet metal > Feature Contour with Loft (3DGuide Curves if necessary);
4.3.1.7.- Copy Features with its Sketches from design explore and paste into another part.
4.3.2.-Sheet (Metal) Part
4.3.2.1.-Loft between two sketch able to be developed.
4.3.2.2.-Feature Section View> tools> area Properties like Area centroid, Area Moments;
5.- Drawing work space:
5.1. - Include Area Properties as Region Properties like Area centroid, Area Moments;
5.2.- Equal angle Constraint
6.-Design Explorer:
6.1.-Inside of Design Explorer as feature, so copy an Specific sketch and paste in another sketch the drawing with its constraints and the possibility of Maintain association to Source Entity without enter to the sketch in the Design WorkSpace. This feature give the option of Project to Sketch between perpendicular planes too.
7. - Develop workbench;
8 - To have a console likes python to special user task; Done :)
9. - Improve the Menu language than graphic, for access to the special task without big ribbon space;
10.- Improve memory management. (Ex. import 3D Points from txt file take so much time). Done by Stefan Script :)

May be some of this features described above have been included into the last version.

Thanks :D
upload_2021-6-11_12-35-43.png
 

Attachments

  • Structure1.zip
    191.4 KB · Views: 25
  • 3D Curve From 2D Curves (2D Sketches).JPG
    3D Curve From 2D Curves (2D Sketches).JPG
    53.6 KB · Views: 19
  • AD Feature Fillet Edges and Chanfer Edges 1 OF 2.JPG
    AD Feature Fillet Edges and Chanfer Edges 1 OF 2.JPG
    55.8 KB · Views: 10
  • AD Feature Fillet Edges and Chanfer Edges -R1 2 of 2.JPG
    AD Feature Fillet Edges and Chanfer Edges -R1 2 of 2.JPG
    54.9 KB · Views: 12
  • ADV20 Home4.JPG
    ADV20 Home4.JPG
    68.8 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:

KMoffett

Senior Member
Giov,

Just a comment. When you post an Assembly, first "Package" it, then upload it. That way the Parts ans Sub-assemblies stay linked to wherever the Assembly is downloaded.

Ken
 

DavidJ

Administrator
Staff member
I think more detail would be needed for any of these to be implemented.

For example - as I read item 3.2 on the list, my response is "it always has done, hasn't it?" - so I obviously don't get what functionality is felt to be missing. A more explicit description/example would be helpful if you ever submit any as improvement suggestions.
 
And, from my "knothole on the universe," I would prefer to see Libre Office become the "standard" for Geomagic Design. Libre Office is (if you will) "begware" where those so limited can acquire it for free (and those will greater resources can make annual donations to support the Libre Office team). Libre Office Calc (the spreadsheet) is more consistent update to update than Excel. And, finally, Libre Office is more "consistent" with the marketing niche of Geomagic Design.

(Corrected a spelling error)
 

HaroldL

Alibre Super User
Posting all these enhancement requests here in the forum certainly lets other users see and comment on what's being asked for. But IF you really want 3DSystems/Geomagic to work toward implementing any suggestions then I hope you are submitting them to Support.

I had a list of sheet metal improvements that were initially posted in the forum. I asked Support if they could follow the link I gave them to the posting and enter them as enhancements. Support told me to submit them as individual tickets so they could be entered into their ticketing system. Of course, after I took the time to submit those several enhancement tickets I got a reply stating that they had combined them into one submittal to development. :shock: :x
 
HaroldL said:
But IF you really want 3DSystems/Geomagic to work toward implementing any suggestions then I hope you are submitting them to Support.
I rarely go longer than 2 weeks without submitting a written request to Support. I call them regularly (call it 2-3 weeks) to stay in touch with them. My fear is that "reorganization" has "broken the chain of institutional knowledge." I have one document on Constraints that I have submitted pretty much every year since 2009. It galls me.

I admit that anybody listening to my rants for improvement is likely to come away with the impression that I dislike Geomagic Design. Nothing is further from the truth. However, the multitude of shortcomings that would place it head and shoulders beyond the capabilities of their competition leave me frustrated!

To cite merely one example -- the Hole Preset System. Were the sub-category organization (already applied to the alibre_unicode_custom.mtl dataset) be applied here, it's utility would be massively improved. The code has already been developed, it is only an application thereof issue. And, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done in 4 years. This is what really galls me!
 

GIOV

Alibre Super User
HaroldL said:
Posting all these enhancement requests here in the forum certainly lets other users see and comment on what's being asked for. But IF you really want 3DSystems/Geomagic to work toward implementing any suggestions then I hope you are submitting them to Support
Ref.:Ticket #5605-10143785
:)
 

GIOV

Alibre Super User
Here are an example for my Alibre/GD capacity extended dream: Integration with a main Spreadsheet between Assembles, Part and Sketches using only one independent variable. :D
 

Attachments

  • Cube B.JPG
    Cube B.JPG
    128.4 KB · Views: 18
  • Cube A.JPG
    Cube A.JPG
    125.7 KB · Views: 32
David,
DavidJ said:
For example - as I read item 3.2 on the list, my response is "it always has done, hasn't it?" - so I obviously don't get what functionality is felt to be missing. A more explicit description/example would be helpful if you ever submit any as improvement suggestions.
I believe that what Giov is asking for is that the Design Explorer, by default, shows are Parts and Sub-Assemblies making up a Sub-Assembly within a given Assembly. At least that is the way I interpret his Item 3.2. The problem lies with when do you stop displaying such "detail?" Do you show the make-up of (shall we call them) Sub-Sub-Assemblies? How about Sub-Sub-Sub-Assemblies? You can get there with the system as it sits today, it merely requires manual intervention.

This is the "point" of my insistence on a Parts List (as opposed to Bill of Material) approach. Something I have applied more effort to than I care to admit.
 

JST

Alibre Super User
I think I MUCH prefer to see JUST the current level parts by default. That is far less confusing.

Since it is easily possible to see whatever you want, all by itself, defaulting to a full display seems unnecessary. But YMMV, and one might prefer full access all the time.

That said, there are quite a number of things in GMD that would be good to have as selectable options. This is one. GIOV wants to see everything all the time, I prefer to see just this level unless I need to see more. No matter what is shown, one of us will be unhappy. Making this a setting preference would satisfy both of us.

Probably at least a dozen other things would be great to be able to SELECT the defaults for. Another one is whether the offset for a part constraint defaults to current position, or a zero offset. There are more.
 

jfleming

Alibre Super User
I just want to extrude something 4" from one side of the sketch plane and 12" from the other side. All in one "extrude" doing it twice is such a pain.
 

JST

Alibre Super User
jfleming said:
I just want to extrude something 4" from one side of the sketch plane and 12" from the other side. All in one "extrude" doing it twice is such a pain.

No problem.

Put a plane 12" (or 4") from one of the surfaces, and sketch/extrude from that. The "sketch plane" is whatever you say it is, and any reference features can be projected to it.
 

jfleming

Alibre Super User
JST said:
jfleming said:
I just want to extrude something 4" from one side of the sketch plane and 12" from the other side. All in one "extrude" doing it twice is such a pain.

No problem.

Put a plane 12" (or 4") from one of the surfaces, and sketch/extrude from that. The "sketch plane" is whatever you say it is, and any reference features can be projected to it.

Creating a plane is an extra step involved though. Other CAD programs you can sketch on the "centerline" plane, and extrude in either directing from it, however much you choose, or "too surface", etc. All in one dialogue box. My CAD experience has always been that the less steps you gotta take to do something the better. This is one of those things that is an extra step and has annoyed me for three years now (the time I've spent using Geomagic).
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
That's how it works though. One of the reasons GD is cheaper than the CAD packages that can do that.

As it is you have three options:
1) Two extrudes, one in each direction
2) Creating a plane offset by the one direction value and extruding the full amount.
3) Extrude in one direction and use 'move face' to extrude in the opposite direction.

jfleming said:
Creating a plane is an extra step involved though. Other CAD programs you can sketch on the "centerline" plane, and extrude in either directing from it, however much you choose, or "too surface", etc. All in one dialogue box. My CAD experience has always been that the less steps you gotta take to do something the better. This is one of those things that is an extra step and has annoyed me for three years now (the time I've spent using Geomagic).

You should be creating a plane anyway. That's just good CAD practice. Not really an extra step.
 

NateLiquidGravity

Alibre Super User
bigseb said:
You should be creating a plane anyway. That's just good CAD practice. Not really an extra step.
NO NO NO! That is a workaround everyone does because most cad software have poor options for changing sketch planes/faces after the fact. Including Alibre/Geomagic Design. Widely habitual and accepted does not a good practice make.
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
NateLiqGrav said:
NO NO NO! That is a workaround everyone does because most cad software have poor options for changing sketch planes/faces after the fact. Including Alibre/Geomagic Design. Widely habitual and accepted does not a good practice make.
It is good CAD practice:
- Sketches can be moved, rotate, etc as they are not bound to the supplied fixed datums. This allows for greater flexibilty.
- Sketches are not reliant on geometry (face, etc). When geometry is changed/delete then the sketch become invalid. User-defined datums prevent this.

Ability to change sketch datums after the fact is not better than creating a stable, robust design in the first place. That is what I was taught and experience has proved it to be true.
 

Giecon.nl

Senior Member
I can right click on any sketch and select relocate in my current CAD software. No need for workplanes
I can start/end any extrusion/revolve at any value from the sketch plane (so plus 50 to minus 12, -10 to -18, 10 to 18) again without the need for workplanes.

So good practice or work around for poor cad......
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
Giecon.nl said:
I can right click on any sketch and select relocate in my current CAD software. No need for workplanes
Then how is your geometry defined? A random sketch in a random point in space. How does it relate to the other features around it?

Easy does not mean good.
 

Giecon.nl

Senior Member
On any face of the geometry or if you insist on a workplane
And if I delete the geometry where I placed the sketch on I can still keep the features that consumed the sketch.
So yes it is possible to have a sketch floating in space without rebuild errors
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
Giecon.nl said:
On any face of the geometry or if you insist on a workplane
And if I delete the geometry where I placed the sketch on I can still keep the features that consumed the sketch.

So now your feature is undefined.

Giecon.nl said:
So yes it is possible to have a sketch floating in space without rebuild errors

It might not matter for your line of work (I don't know what you do) but it doesn't change the fact that your geometry is undefined. This is just plain bad practice. And unacceptable in the aviation and automobile industries.
 
Top