What's new

Needed Devlopments in Constraints

Max (and associates) -- Let us get at least one thing straight. In 2004 in ProEngineer Wildfire 4.0 it was possible to constrain a "Flat Head Screw" to a (properly) "Countersunk Hole" with good results. It was possible (to a lessor degree) to do the same with a "Male Pipe Thread" to a "Female Pipe Thread" (though this could ber quite "problematic"). ProEngineer had changed from Parasolds to ACIS not all that long before the Wildfire 4 release (though I am unsure of that timing).

Why are Alibre users still fighting this battle?
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
This has come up many many times before and is (if I'm not mistaken) listed as a suggested feature along with many other constraint types eg. gears, cam, etc. If Lew is correct in that PE/Wildfire/Creo can do this using the ACIS kernel then its a valid question.

Why?
 
This has come up many many times before and is (if I'm not mistaken) listed as a suggested feature along with many other constraint types eg. gears, cam, etc. If Lew is correct in that PE/Wildfire/Creo can do this using the ACIS kernel then its a valid question.
Sebastian -- I grant you that ProEngineer started out as a Parasolids modeler (at least through 1996 in my experience), but when I was "re-introduced" to it (in 2004) it had been "converted" to ACIS.
 

swertel

Alibre Super User
ACIS isn't a constraint solver, it's the geometry engine. ACIS has nothing to do with what you are talking about regarding countersink mates or any tapered mates, in general.

2D Constraints (used for sketching and drawing elements) is by D-Cubed's 2D DCM. That's the industry standard. And although D-Cubed has been purchased by Siemens PLM, Siemens does keep it in the "open" portfolio, the same as the Parasolid kernel.
3D Contraints (used for assembly modeling) is by D-Cubed's 3D DCM. Same situation as above.

If Alibre is not licensing these standard set of tools, then I'm very curious why. I would propose they are either wasting their money on a poorer product or wasting money trying to develop their own solvers.
https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en/products/open/d-cubed/index.shtml
 

simonb65

Alibre Super User
If Alibre is not licensing these standard set of tools, then I'm very curious why. I would propose they are either wasting their money on a poorer product or wasting money trying to develop their own solvers.
Looking at the dll's in the Alibre Directory, I suspect they have written their own ...

upload_2018-6-6_10-4-21.png

It doesn't link to anything external other than windows os libraries. I maybe wrong, it could be statically linked to a third party library and just wrapped for interfacing to the Alibre Design core.
 

simonb65

Alibre Super User
index.php
I stand corrected !
 

simonb65

Alibre Super User
There are some interesting (and very much needed in Alibre Design) constraints available in the 2D and 3D engines !! ...

2D

upload_2018-6-6_10-14-56.png

3D

upload_2018-6-6_10-14-32.png
 

simonb65

Alibre Super User
Based on the HLM used in AD, is is possible to get these outlined views in 2D drawings ?? The 'local outline' would be great for my documentation of my parts and assemblies (i.e.Technical Illustrations) :)

upload_2018-6-6_11-20-44.png
 

swertel

Alibre Super User
Thanks for finding the image of the current 3rd party licenses that Alibre uses. That's actually really good news because now that we know the core is current, we know that enhancements can follow. All Alibre, LLC needs is time.
 
More on "Constraints." We need what I break down as "Co-Rotate" and "Screw-Nut" Constraints!

In the "Co-Rotate" category this would be a Constraint that creates a "rotational ratio" between two (if you will) "Constraints." In one case the "axis of rotation" are Parallel and the other the "axis of rotation" are Perpendicular. The two Entities either "Rotate in the Same Direction" (Clockwise or Anti-Clockwise) or they "Rotate in Opposite Directions" (Clockwise & Anti-Clockwise or Anti-Clockwise & Clockwise). My suggestion is that if the "Ratio" is "positive," then they "Rotate in the Same Direction" and, if the "Ratio" is "negative" then they "Rotate in Opposite Directions." This should be obvious if the "Axis are Parallel" and somewhat harder the define and visualize should the "Axis be Perpendicular."

In the case of "Axis Parallel Co-Rotate," this may be thought of as conventional gear trains, chain drives, belt drives, and the like. A chain or belt drive would have a "positive Ratio" whereas a gear train would have a "negative Ratio." More to the point, each type should have a (if you will) "Zero Alignment Position" from which the various "Ratios" begin.

In the case of the "Axis Perpendicular Co-Rotate," this may be thought of aa a "Worm Gear." This should be fairly self-evident. I expect a lot of "Right Hand Rule" noise to be involved in determining "Ratios," but not that great of a learning curve.

The case of a "Screw-Nut" Constraint should be the simplest to define. Each rotation of the "Screw" causes the "Nut" to move one "Pitch." If the "Pitch" has a positive value, then the "Constraint" creates a "Right-Hand Thread" relationship. If the "Pitch" has a negative value, then the "Constraint" creates a "Left-Hand Thread" relationship.

Just think of the power these "Constraints" would add to our abilities in Alibre Design !!!
 
More on needed Constraints.

Modified Linear Offset Constraint: In ability to apply a Range within which Linear Motion is limited is needed. At the mot obvious level it would apply to a (say) pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder. Any position within these limits would be acceptable, but not outside of these limits.

Similarly, a Modified Angular Offset Constraint is needed. In this a Co-Axial Constraint would be allowed to Rotate within specified Angular Limits would be acceptable. One thought I have is that the Angular Limits would require three values: Start Value, Mid Value, and End Value. This would fully define the range of acceptable Rotation for something such as a hinge.
 
I'm liking all of these, Lew!
Yeah Sebastian -- Think about how a Linear Range Constraint could be used to make (say) Compression Springs act as they should within a Design! It would require other changes as well, but it is perfectly doable! These are things that we (the users) need to keep beating Alibre about the head and shoulders to obtain!

The most painful aspect of all of this is how close Alibre is to having the best product on the market. [And, mind you, I have yet to broach improvements for Tolerances or Allowances.]
 
OK kiddies. If you can't jump up and down, scream an yell,and foam at the mouth with your frineds, then who can you jump up and down, scream an yell,and foam at the mouth with? We need to jump up and down, scream an yell,and foam at the mouth about the "polishing" and "improving" needed by Alibre -- we just need to do it politely! All together now...
 

HaroldL

Alibre Super User
I'm liking all of these, Lew!

:confused::confused::confused::confused: I'm just a bit confused. Why, when Lew suggests the need for a new constraint you're quick to agree with him. But when JST indicated the need for a new constraint you were not so agreeable?
I still think expecting Alibre to create whole new constraint is a bit much, considering what else still needs to be fixed.
To my mind, any new constraint suggestion should be valid and worthy of consideration. Even with all the other things that could or should be fixed first in Alibre.

Just saying.
 
To my mind, any new constraint suggestion should be valid and worthy of consideration. Even with all the other things that could or should be fixed first in Alibre.
My "take" is that there is both an extremely large amount of "polishing" as well as actual "improvement" just waiting to be begun. Let us "jump up and down, scream and yell, and foam at the mouth" (politely, mind you) until the job gets done!
 

bigseb

Alibre Super User
:confused::confused::confused::confused: I'm just a bit confused. Why, when Lew suggests the need for a new constraint you're quick to agree with him. But when JST indicated the need for a new constraint you were not so agreeable?
Then allow me to clarify:

On the one hand (Lew's hand) we have constraint suggestions for bears, cam, worm gears, linear range limit, angular range limit, etc.

On the other hand (JST's hand) we have an align constraint suggestion for holes that don't align.

JST's issue is easily resolved using angular constraints. Lew's suggestions address issues for which there are no solution. Furthermore I have need for gear and range constraints. Seems pretty clear.
 
Then allow me to clarify:
On the one hand (Lew's hand) we have constraint suggestions for bears, cam, worm gears, linear range limit, angular range limit, etc.
At the risk of getting far ahead of my "suggestions," ome of the arenas I belive needs to be developed is to create "Reference Geometry" in accordance with "True Position Datum" declarations and, within context, apply "True Position Tolerancing" to designed "Features" in accordance with ASME and ISO requirements. Datums, Dimensions, and Tolerances so defined should automagically be applied to Drawings. That is where, ultimately, we should be heading!

On the3 other hand, we should be able to construct Modeks that behave in Model-Space the way an actually Assembled System will behave!
 
Top