Again, the point of this simplified example isn't to say, "this geometry can't possibly be created". The point is to demonstrate in an easy to share manner that the software breaks when you try to go about it a certain way. In the year 2017, my personal expectation is that the software shouldn't break when I ask it do do things that are entirely reasonable. There are probably a dozen or more perfectly valid ways to create that simple geometry. Depending on your end goals, how the part relates to other parts in the design, and your own modeling preferences any of the dozen could be perfectly valid. The fact that the tool breaks when you try half of them *is the problem*.
Issues with the loft tool, a nice clean example of where AD seems to always fail me
- Thread starter cdub
- Start date
simonb65
Alibre Super User
As a software developer and user of AD, I tend to agree with cdub. If the operation and workflow work in other CAD programs then it needs to be fixed in AD. You can't spend your time and productivity time on workarounds ! It at worst makes AD unfriendly and is perceived by anyone (especially when deciding what to uses as their core CAD tool and invest their cash in) as being buggy. AD is good at what it does for the price, but don't defend it as if its the be all and end all. It has issues, they need to be voiced and they need to be fixed. The longer core issues persist, the more knock on effects they cause and the harder it becomes to find the root cause of the bugs.
Mirroring fillets is my biggest bug bear ... and no, I dont want to do them all in one operation at the end. I draw a portion of a complex symetrical design and detail it for a reason, it shoud work that way.
Mirroring fillets is my biggest bug bear ... and no, I dont want to do them all in one operation at the end. I draw a portion of a complex symetrical design and detail it for a reason, it shoud work that way.
JST
Alibre Super User
OK. I agree AD should just WORK.
Now...... I suspect that not all of the problems are strictly in the AD area, although some, or even most, may be. My question is the following:
To what degree is AD being limited by the well-out-of-date ACIS?
That is the basic engine driving the 3D, and if it is not doing the job, might be time to update Alibre with a newer version. I know there are later versions.
Does anyone know what "engine" Onshape uses? I know most Autodesk seem to use ACIS, and it seems to work better than Alibre, but then I suspect Autodesk is up-to-date.
Since Onshape was started by Solidworks people, it is a reasonable bet that Onshape uses the same "engine" as Solidworks. And that it is the latest version.
Now...... I suspect that not all of the problems are strictly in the AD area, although some, or even most, may be. My question is the following:
To what degree is AD being limited by the well-out-of-date ACIS?
That is the basic engine driving the 3D, and if it is not doing the job, might be time to update Alibre with a newer version. I know there are later versions.
Does anyone know what "engine" Onshape uses? I know most Autodesk seem to use ACIS, and it seems to work better than Alibre, but then I suspect Autodesk is up-to-date.
Since Onshape was started by Solidworks people, it is a reasonable bet that Onshape uses the same "engine" as Solidworks. And that it is the latest version.
bigseb
Alibre Super User
bigseb
Alibre Super User
I agree with many of the things said here... AD should just work. I have had my fair share of frustrations regarding certain flaws in AD.
But... sometimes a simplified approach is required because of 1) the control it gives the designer or 2) because a protocol dictates it. An example for 1) is the link I shared regarding JST's loft issue. Now he is correct in saying that it should work but at the same time the method I used was, say, a bit more robust. Something to consider, no. An example for 2) when certain tools are just not permitted. When I was doing work for aerospace certain tools were off limits. Loft was one, blend was another. The reason was that the exact form was not determined by geometry (this ties in with point 1 too). A tangent tangent loft might truly be tangent to geometry at both ends but what happens inbetween. So simplified methods are to be used where precisely dimensioned and constrained geometry creates the required shape. (and this was using Catia)
swertel
Alibre Super User
Does anyone know what version of ACIS is currently being used by AD? ACIS itself isn't a problem, although Solid Edge started with ACIS and switched to Parasolid. That was a rough transition since the fundamental building block of the software changed. IronCAD uses both Parasolid and ACIS together. It is so transparent that the user can't even tell which geometry kernel is being used to create or modify the geometry. The user just gets the result they expect. Let's put in a enhancement request!
[By the way, Solid Edge never owned Parasolid. Parasolid was an independent company until it got bought by what is now Siemens PLM, which also happened to acquire Solid Edge from Integraph/EMS during that acquisition and, of course, the period of time it was called Unigraphics Solutions (UGS) based off the title software package Unigraphics (UG) which is now called NX after the acquisition of SDRC and merger with I-deas all to link together Metaphase and iMan into what is now called Teamcenter.]
JST
Alibre Super User
Acis may have BEEN a problem, and by your comment, at least one company felt it was important enough to switch, despite that really ripping up the program.
At one point I DID have the info about the version, and I don't know where it came from. At that point it was with Geomagic, and when I looked at the ACIS site, the newest version was considerably later (I am still using GMD, although I could update, if I thought 2017 was stable, but I keep reading about issues). I do not think the ACIS version has been updated, certainly not while 3D SYS was doing nothing with the program.
The whole ACIS issue is a question for Max and Co.
At one point I DID have the info about the version, and I don't know where it came from. At that point it was with Geomagic, and when I looked at the ACIS site, the newest version was considerably later (I am still using GMD, although I could update, if I thought 2017 was stable, but I keep reading about issues). I do not think the ACIS version has been updated, certainly not while 3D SYS was doing nothing with the program.
The whole ACIS issue is a question for Max and Co.
simonb65
Alibre Super User
Looks like AD uses ACIS R25 ...
The latest, according to the Spatial website, is 2018 1.0 (https://www.spatial.com/products/3d-acis-modeling) ...
There have been a couple of release since then ...
The latest, according to the Spatial website, is 2018 1.0 (https://www.spatial.com/products/3d-acis-modeling) ...
There have been a couple of release since then ...
oldfox
Alibre Super User
Hey guys, anyone remember what happened on 11 July 2011?
Max and the boys/girls have had only 3-4 months to undo, redo, straighten out and anything else necessary to get Alibre back to where
it used to be. So let's cut him a little slack and give him a chance to get the job done.
Max and the boys/girls have had only 3-4 months to undo, redo, straighten out and anything else necessary to get Alibre back to where
it used to be. So let's cut him a little slack and give him a chance to get the job done.