Geomagic Design vs The World
- Thread starter bigseb
- Start date
bigseb
Alibre Super User
Haven't much to report on GD vs Powershape yet. We get a lots of product files from clients and these have mostly been in very bad shape. The amount of repair work thats required is mind boggling. GD really isn't meant for that task as these repairs are all done using surfaces. Interestingly, Moi wipes the floor with Powershape :shock: Its easier and quicker to use (i.e. less steps) and seems to produce very reliable models for further modelling in GD.
More to come...
More to come...
bigseb
Alibre Super User
A little update:
A lot of the the models we are getting are absolute garbage. Don't know how these designers are still in business. We spend a lot of time just repairing bad models. Powershape is good at this as it will import just about anything and has great surfacing tools. Unfortunately it means having to rebuild the entire model from scratch, something one would have to do in GD anyway as it doesn't always allow you to work with bad models. I end up fixing the really bad stuff in Moi and have to say that Moi is one hot little design tool. Far more intuitive to use than Powershape and as a result far quicker. It isn't parametric but then neither is Powershape. I wouldn't design anything in either Moi or Powershape simply because going back to make changes requires a fair bit of extra work (think mould plate with holes, slots, etc) So once again GD is simply unbeatable.
GD and Moi is, in this case, an unbeatable combination. The exception would be Catia. GD FTW!
A lot of the the models we are getting are absolute garbage. Don't know how these designers are still in business. We spend a lot of time just repairing bad models. Powershape is good at this as it will import just about anything and has great surfacing tools. Unfortunately it means having to rebuild the entire model from scratch, something one would have to do in GD anyway as it doesn't always allow you to work with bad models. I end up fixing the really bad stuff in Moi and have to say that Moi is one hot little design tool. Far more intuitive to use than Powershape and as a result far quicker. It isn't parametric but then neither is Powershape. I wouldn't design anything in either Moi or Powershape simply because going back to make changes requires a fair bit of extra work (think mould plate with holes, slots, etc) So once again GD is simply unbeatable.
GD and Moi is, in this case, an unbeatable combination. The exception would be Catia. GD FTW!
JST
Alibre Super User
Aside from the ease of use issues..... which are obviously important...
Is not the one huge problem that marks GMD as "for home hobby use only", the lack of library features?
I understand that some outside add-ins like the old "Vault" are a workaround for that, at least to a limited extent. But the whole issue of having no built-in ability to use a fixed location library with parts which are never saved unless specifically edited is a deal killer. That is to me one big separation between a professional tool, and a "home use tool" that "can be made to work".
Yes, there are ways to work around to a limited extent. But the whole idea of having to be able to save every part, and being able to edit AND RE-SAVE any part at any time is a problem. It just is NOT a "library" unless it is protected.
Just about every simple-minded PWB layout tool in the world uses a library system, it's just not that odd nor difficult.
And, with that, the use of the filename with location as the part descriptor AND the identifier, as well as the Keyshot material..... NO ability to modify description, etc without "breaking" every usage of the item everywhere. That's just "wrong".
Is not the one huge problem that marks GMD as "for home hobby use only", the lack of library features?
I understand that some outside add-ins like the old "Vault" are a workaround for that, at least to a limited extent. But the whole issue of having no built-in ability to use a fixed location library with parts which are never saved unless specifically edited is a deal killer. That is to me one big separation between a professional tool, and a "home use tool" that "can be made to work".
Yes, there are ways to work around to a limited extent. But the whole idea of having to be able to save every part, and being able to edit AND RE-SAVE any part at any time is a problem. It just is NOT a "library" unless it is protected.
Just about every simple-minded PWB layout tool in the world uses a library system, it's just not that odd nor difficult.
And, with that, the use of the filename with location as the part descriptor AND the identifier, as well as the Keyshot material..... NO ability to modify description, etc without "breaking" every usage of the item everywhere. That's just "wrong".
dwc
Alibre Super User
It is for this reason that the organisation where I am now working won't even look at GM.JST said:
If there is no way to assure that standard parts are never changed, even by mistake, it is hard to imagine its use in places where the companies fortunes depend on no errors, as in most companies.
I have been beefing about this for years, but nothing happens.
Don
JST
Alibre Super User
There IS, or may be, A WAY, I believe.
If you notice, you cannot do any editing of a part downloaded from this site and opened directly in GMD. You have to save it locally first. Until you do, the part of assembly is shown, but all the editing commands are grayed out.
That being the case, presumably the file is marked "read-only".
If so, then a library part could be so marked and it could not be edited. I have not checked to see that "edit her" also does not work. Hopefully, it is not editable even in that way.
I do not know what happens if you try to save an assembly with a "read-only" part in it. As it was not changed, it may not be marked for saving, and everything may be fine.
But if there IS a way to edit it, then there is a problem
If you notice, you cannot do any editing of a part downloaded from this site and opened directly in GMD. You have to save it locally first. Until you do, the part of assembly is shown, but all the editing commands are grayed out.
That being the case, presumably the file is marked "read-only".
If so, then a library part could be so marked and it could not be edited. I have not checked to see that "edit her" also does not work. Hopefully, it is not editable even in that way.
I do not know what happens if you try to save an assembly with a "read-only" part in it. As it was not changed, it may not be marked for saving, and everything may be fine.
But if there IS a way to edit it, then there is a problem
bigseb
Alibre Super User
I have no issue with parts from a parts library being editable or not. As I mentioned in 'the other thread' dumb solids could be used but even these can be edited.
On a related note this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone requiring parts from a library not to be editable. Just saying.
And to bring the thread back on topic: GD is simply awesome.
On a related note this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone requiring parts from a library not to be editable. Just saying.
And to bring the thread back on topic: GD is simply awesome.
JST
Alibre Super User
bigseb said:...
On a related note this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone requiring parts from a library not to be editable. Just saying.
And to bring the thread back on topic: GD is simply awesome.
I thought you worked in Aerospace.... Hmmmmmmmmmm. Didn't you have ECOs? You could just "decide" that a part ought to be changed, and do it?
Must have been Airbus, 'cause Boeing and Bombardier aren't like that....
As for GMD.... no disagreement there...... You know, if you don't love it, you don't care what it does or doesn't do....
bigseb
Alibre Super User
Seriously? That's ridiculous. You should know that in aerospace the documentation is massively OCD. No-one can 'just change a part' without there being serious consequences. We worked with many library parts and they were all editable. However all parts and assemblies go through triple vetting before being greenlighted and it is impossible to change greenlighted parts and assemblies without flags being raised. The CAD software is not the nucleus of this industry, documentation is.JST said:bigseb said:...
On a related note this is the first time I have ever heard of anyone requiring parts from a library not to be editable. Just saying.
And to bring the thread back on topic: GD is simply awesome.
I thought you worked in Aerospace.... Hmmmmmmmmmm. Didn't you have ECOs? You could just "decide" that a part ought to be changed, and do it?
Must have been Airbus, 'cause Boeing and Bombardier aren't like that....
For the record that company I worked for was tier 2 supplier to Airbus, Boeing, Eurocopter and Mclaren. However I am now back to designing injection moulds for the automotive industry.
JST
Alibre Super User
bigseb said:
ANNNNND.... Yes, that was PRECISELY my point!
No APPROVED ECO, No change to the part or the library part. Locked up tighter than the bank vault.
But you cannot DO that with GMD.... In general you can waltz in and change anything you want, anytime you want. The only protection is the OS protection, which isn't much. It's a fairly MAJOR fault, even for a normal company that has nothing to do with aerospace.
You need an outside program to fix it, which admittedly is possible, or USED TO BE possible with "Vault". But there is still the part naming issue.
JST
Alibre Super User
My blood pressure is low.
And, they don't HAVE to...... Not unless they feel the need. But MOST of those companies already work that way.....they know. If they don't they will pay for it, sooner or later. But most already Do those things, because they already know they have to. They don't need me to tell them.
Just ask BigSeb... he KNOWS..... I have worked where they did, and where they did NOT control parts and modeling, for PWBs and for CAD. One way works, and the other way "kinda works" until one fine day, it doesn't, the stuff hits the air-mover, and then you find out why serious companies DO use standard libraries and have ECOs, etc..... Most of the places that did not, had at least one major mess-up, after which they got on the bandwagon in a big way.
If you CAN do that locked library with GMD, I'd like to know, because I have a need for that myself.
And, they don't HAVE to...... Not unless they feel the need. But MOST of those companies already work that way.....they know. If they don't they will pay for it, sooner or later. But most already Do those things, because they already know they have to. They don't need me to tell them.
Just ask BigSeb... he KNOWS..... I have worked where they did, and where they did NOT control parts and modeling, for PWBs and for CAD. One way works, and the other way "kinda works" until one fine day, it doesn't, the stuff hits the air-mover, and then you find out why serious companies DO use standard libraries and have ECOs, etc..... Most of the places that did not, had at least one major mess-up, after which they got on the bandwagon in a big way.
If you CAN do that locked library with GMD, I'd like to know, because I have a need for that myself.
bigseb
Alibre Super User
Some of the files are impossible to open with GD. I don't blame GD... the files are in a terrible condition and, in my opinion, the very reason why surface modellors should avoided. Too many designers just slap surfaces together without checking if they are watertight. The result is a mishmash of solids and surface that are impossible to differentiate. I shouldn't say impossible, I'll get nailed for that, but it certainly is very difficult. Powershape can open these files at least but still requires a massive amount of reworking and even then the model is still unusable in just about everything else. Bad models are just bad models.
I try import the files and selecting discard non-solid faces but it still won't do it. If GD was able to import these type of file and edit them (or at least chop them up to reworking them) then 3DS is on a winner.
I try import the files and selecting discard non-solid faces but it still won't do it. If GD was able to import these type of file and edit them (or at least chop them up to reworking them) then 3DS is on a winner.
bigseb
Alibre Super User
So Delcam was bought by Autodesk some time ago and we just installed Powershape 2017 and Powermill 2017. Ironically the change was a new splash screen, dumbed down simplistic icons and the Autodesk cube in the top right corner of the workspace. I couldn't help but see the parallels to the 3DS purchase of Alibre.
Beyond that its same old same old...
Beyond that its same old same old...
JST
Alibre Super User
Old thread.
Re-reading, I am laughing at the folks telling me not to say that how thousands of companies do things is wrong.......
If you get ISO, or do work for certain industries or customers, you will have to put in procedures that are basically workarounds for not having locked libraries. Yes it IS "that" important, and GMD is definitely in the "bush league" on that issue by not implementing even simple means for having locked libraries. Or, actually, kind of working AGAINST locked libraries. Definitely a limit on number of potential customers.
Thanks for reminding me again to kick GMD CS about that. Getting quite the list.....
Re-reading, I am laughing at the folks telling me not to say that how thousands of companies do things is wrong.......
If you get ISO, or do work for certain industries or customers, you will have to put in procedures that are basically workarounds for not having locked libraries. Yes it IS "that" important, and GMD is definitely in the "bush league" on that issue by not implementing even simple means for having locked libraries. Or, actually, kind of working AGAINST locked libraries. Definitely a limit on number of potential customers.
Thanks for reminding me again to kick GMD CS about that. Getting quite the list.....