Geomagic Design vs The World

[Lew_Merrick]

In terms of threading issues, I have just started an Improving Cosmetic Threads topic.

 

[albie0803]

I have used the Hole Preset System to set up centre drill holes but decided not to try and enter other sets because, as you say, there is filtering option.

 

[3dcad.fi]

3dcad.fi wrote:
4. Sketch rectangle by midpoint

Does the center located Rectangle function of the Shapes tool not work for you?

(I acknowledge that LOCATING the entity of a Shapes tool is a little awkward)

I didn't ever think of this :shock: I have used a lot of round shape and rectangle with rounded corners but my mind always ignored to notice there is also traditional rectangle.
Might be good enough, should be found under rectangle though.

Thanks for pointing this out Jimpulse.

 

[3dcad.fi]

1. 3D systems, please let Geomagic Design users contribute in development process. Tell us what are your plans, what is going on and what is coming up! Let us give feedback and vote for priority on new features.

+1. Geomagic, this is the most efficient and direct market research you will ever get !

4. Sketch rectangle by midpoint

+1

9. Saved views

You can already do this ! Create a custom view then use it to create the 2D drawing or shaded view (with section if needed). I use it extensively for getting the right isometric, non-standard but in some cases a more clearer, view.

About point no 9:

7. Wireframe view with only visible edges to all workspaces
8. 3D measurement tool for creating visible dimensioning to 3D model. I mean multiple visible dimensions to be able to create quick manufacturing drawing directly in 3D workspace.
9. Saved views, for creating drawings like views with sectioning, dimensions, etc. directly in 3D workspace and save them for quick access / print.

These 3 requests are related to each other. The main goal would be to create not-standard prints in 3D mode with details and dimensions for manufacturing shop with out suffering the pain of double work done with actual 2D drawings.
I can understand that standard 2D drawings are needed for certain documentation. Other than that just printable views DIRECTLY from 3D workspace (part, sheetmetal or assembly) including dimensions, detailed/section/partial views would cover the needs of shop to manufacture parts.

I have my own shop for woodworking, we use a lot of screenshots from part/assy workspace and even from sketches. Usually I have to add few dimensions manually but it's still way faster than to begin from empty drawing sheet after finished actual modeling.

10. Maintain feature colors in Keyshot export, we should be able to assign different material (paint color) to different colored features.

I save all my parts with a material and colour code in the part name, then use the Material Template feature of Keyshot to auto assign the texture based on those codes. It's a work around, but save a bunch of time. Would be nice to automatically pick up the material and colour in keyshot from the part properties though.

Ultimate goal would be to integrate the renderer into Geomagic Design completely rather than being a seperate tool, then you could do more with part properties and metadata.

I ment the actual feature colors, if you set some feature (extrude, cut, hole, chamfer or so) assigned to different color than actual part color you can't repeat this in keyshot. Whole part will be in one color / material.

+1 For 100% integrated keyshot which would allow modifications and exploded + other views to model without double work on rendering.

To be honest I would put +1 for getting rid of all add-ons and other non-integrated features since they tend to be short term features making people to stick with older versions. Only way to keep software moving forward is to get all users to current version and hear what they/we need in addition to current and work hard to achieve this.

 

[simonb65]

I ment the actual feature colors, if you set some feature (extrude, cut, hole, chamfer or so) assigned to different color than actual part color you can't repeat this in keyshot. Whole part will be in one color / material.

Yes, sorry, I was thinking assembly level, but I know what you mean and it is annoying that feature level colours get lost ! I have a huge library of electronic parts with lots of feature detail and colour which I can't realistically use to render in Keyshot, but look great on GMD 2D solid shaded drawings

 

[kev h]

+1 for centre rectangle !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0dTXtUXsqs (2nd option centre rectangle)

Cheers Kev

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

3dcad.fi wrote:
4. Sketch rectangle by midpoint

Does the center located Rectangle function of the Shapes tool not work for you?

(I acknowledge that LOCATING the entity of a Shapes tool is a little awkward)

I didn't ever think of this :shock: I have used a lot of round shape and rectangle with rounded corners but my mind always ignored to notice there is also traditional rectangle.
Might be good enough, should be found under rectangle though.

Thanks for pointing this out Jimpulse.

Shapes are poorly done. The rectangle shapes are nowhere close to a rectangle with a reference line across it with a node midpoint in the center.

You can't explode shapes.
You can't trim to shapes.
You can't trim on shapes.
You can't copy shapes.
You can't dimension to the figures of shapes.
You can't constrain to the figures of shapes.
You can't make shapes dynamic (without formulas in parameters).
I'm sure I missed something.
The only thing the shape tool is good at is quick independent shapes in an array.

Shapes are so bad they didn't make my list because of how much I avoid them.

 

[kev h]

Shapes are poorly done. The rectangle shapes are nowhere close to a rectangle with a reference line across it with a node midpoint in the center.

You can't explode shapes.
You can't trim to shapes.
You can't trim on shapes.
You can't copy shapes.
You can't dimension to the figures of shapes.
You can't constrain to the figures of shapes.
You can't make shapes dynamic (without formulas in parameters).
I'm sure I missed something.
The only thing the shape tool is good at is quick independent shapes in an array.

Knew there were reasons why i dont use shapes and centre rectangle would be sooo much better !! 8)

 

[bigseb]

Did you know that Creo you can't open an assembly (or sub-assembly or even a part) and save that assembly/sub-assembly/part with the same name in a different location? Bonkers...

Been working with iterations of an assembly lately. These iterations often use many of the same sub-assemblies/parts so I like to open that sub-assembly/part and then save to the new location. This is impossible in Creo. The only way to do it is to export that sub-assembly/part as a step file, open the step file and resave in the correct place. This method only works if the step file is saved in the new location. If this procedure isn't followed the one cannot use the same name (necessary for BOM purposes).

Seriously, not a day goes by when I don't curse Creo. Geomagic is a dream to use.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Seriously, not a day goes by when I don't curse Creo. Geomagic is a dream to use.

Hi Sebastian -- Yes, I know what you mean. I was required to use ProE/Wildfire3 for a project a number of years ago. It was a nightmare. The design intent manager constantly and consistently decided that my fully-constrained and manually defined features could not have been what I "intended" -- and would rebuild my (4500+ parts and sub- assemblies) to suit its artificially intelligent check-list of intent. The final straw for me came when I had to make a presentation based on that model in another location. Four hours before the presentation, I loaded it on another version and everything disintegrated on me.

Most of the ProE/CREO-using companies with which I am familiar construct their parts in assembly origin space and then only use origin alignment to control placement! The only feature of ProE/CREO that I would wish for GMD is the cone-to-cone constraint (which is really handy for locating flathead screws).

 

[bobster]

Very well written and insightful.
I use NX9.5 at work and have used PRO-E and IDEAS and of course AutoCAD.
NX9.5 is very powerful, but in many cases GD gets the job done quicker and with less hoops to jump thru.
I will soon be retiring from industry, and I have considered SW, again, as a means of offering design services to a wider audience than is served by GD.
For my own use, GD does what I need, but to market my design skills, the much more widely used SW is an obvious choice.
There is no question, at least in my mind, that GD is the price VS performance leader. I've been using GD (Alibre) since version 5 or 6, and I've been with it as it grows, sometimes falters but keeps on delivering the performance I need for my "at home" design work.

 

[RocketNut]

Salutations

I was wondering is there any CAD packages out there that have [an work as] GM configurations does?

 

[Dave H]

Salutations

I was wondering is there any CAD packages out there that have [an work as] GM configurations does?

Yes. Solidworks has configurations. I believe it has to be one of the higher level versions though. Not sure if Basic has them. And they work almost identically.

 

[RocketNut]

Thanks Dave H for info. I check it out an looks promising except it's outside the budget.

 

[bigseb]

Did you know that Creo you can't open an assembly (or sub-assembly or even a part) and save that assembly/sub-assembly/part with the same name in a different location? Bonkers...

Been working with iterations of an assembly lately. These iterations often use many of the same sub-assemblies/parts so I like to open that sub-assembly/part and then save to the new location. This is impossible in Creo. The only way to do it is to export that sub-assembly/part as a step file, open the step file and resave in the correct place. This method only works if the step file is saved in the new location. If this procedure isn't followed the one cannot use the same name (necessary for BOM purposes).

Dealing with this again today. What a schlepp. Need to move an entire assembly from my desktop to the server... Creo can't do it. It just can't do it. *insert argh smiley*

Also why does everything in the workspace windows have to be in capitals and everything in window explorer have to be in lower case letters? And no spaces allowed either? So I can't name a part 'Blind Rivet'... it would be 'BLIND_RIVET' in the software and 'blind_rivet' in Windows... seriously?! I assume its some kind of UNIX legacy nonsense but get with it PTC. Its 2015!

Creo is garbage. My opinion.

 

[dmckee101]

...
2) Extruding to a concave face is not possible as demonstrated in the screenshot.
...

Hey man,
Don't know if you solved your extrude to a concave face dilemma, but if you haven't:
The problem is plane normals when you extrude to a surface and you are inside a spherical geometry, even if it is not closed, the extrusion will be normal to the sketch plane. If you construct a plane with a flipped normal (pick an axis running thru the plane, the plane itself, using 180° angle) and sketch on that new plane it will extrude fine. Would be nice if the reverse box was active during "to geometry".
In this jpg below I've extruded from a flipped plane <Plane 3> (in which the normal face away from the solid convex surface) and the <YZ plane> which faced the convex.

 

[drbris]

The holes tool in assembly should actually update the parts like SW. Would be very useful for molds ( KO pin holes, leader pin holes etc. through all the plates at once and they should stay linked so they can be moved).

 

[bigseb]

The holes tool in assembly should actually update the parts like SW. Would be very useful for molds ( KO pin holes, leader pin holes etc. through all the plates at once and they should stay linked so they can be moved).

Global parameters can achieve the same thing.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

Didn't they add assembly level hole features?

 

[simonb65]

They did, but that doesn't modify the actual part used in the assembly, it just adds a hole at the assembly level.

So it isn't much use for locating bolts/rivets in parts using the assembly. You have to do it by applying holes to one part and 'match' drilling the other using inter-design constrains.

... unless anyone can tell me otherwise ! :?