| Author |
Message |
jon_banquer
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Michael Gailey
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:11 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
jon_banquer wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
jon
|
The 4 recommendations somewhat sum up what the problem is. It won't
happen, just who would own/control the standard. I'm sure Autodesk would
like to control as much as it could, mo money under their control is
what big business is all about. The Dassault / Microsoft comment sums up
the whole problem, since they seem to want to have "their" own standard.
There may eventually be some interchangable effort at a standard but one
"cure all" may be an impossible task.
FWIW, if I bought software to appease Ingersoll Rand I would be using
Pro E. John Deere wants Pro E. The next guy wants UG. A remote fes would
actually ask for Inventor, ugh. If you try to please everybody, nobody
will like it. All the major corporations are never going to start over
"just so they" can exchange upon a new standard. If you do business with
these large corporations just be able to exchange files correctly.
Transmagic works pretty good for me when I get files of most formats.
I usually need the 3D data, most customers want to keep their
proprietary information in their own possession. I have several
customers who have stopped furnishing any cad files or prints, they say
just get what you need from the 3D model.
Take a peek at Transmagic, it works for me.
http://www.superiorcadcam.com/transmagic.htm
2005 Product description:
TransMagic offers a comprehensive suite of translators to exchange 3D
CAD Data, from any CAD system, to any CAD system. If your job requires
interfacing with companies or departments with different CAD systems,
then TransMagic is the ideal universal translator that will dramatically
save time and reduce the costs associated with data exchange. Whether
you work with solids, surfaces or wireframe data, it can be translated
and repaired easily with TransMagic.
--
Michael Gailey
Artistic CNC Mill, Router and Engraver Programming
3D modeling for Product Design and Development
http://www.microsystemsgeorgia.com/toc.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:11:07 GMT, Michael Gailey
<gailey@frontiernet.net> wrote:
| Quote: | jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
jon
The 4 recommendations somewhat sum up what the problem is. It won't
happen, just who would own/control the standard. I'm sure Autodesk would
like to control as much as it could, mo money under their control is
what big business is all about. The Dassault / Microsoft comment sums up
the whole problem, since they seem to want to have "their" own standard.
There may eventually be some interchangable effort at a standard but one
"cure all" may be an impossible task.
FWIW, if I bought software to appease Ingersoll Rand I would be using
Pro E. John Deere wants Pro E. The next guy wants UG. A remote fes would
actually ask for Inventor, ugh. If you try to please everybody, nobody
will like it. All the major corporations are never going to start over
"just so they" can exchange upon a new standard. If you do business with
these large corporations just be able to exchange files correctly.
Transmagic works pretty good for me when I get files of most formats.
I usually need the 3D data, most customers want to keep their
proprietary information in their own possession. I have several
customers who have stopped furnishing any cad files or prints, they say
just get what you need from the 3D model.
Take a peek at Transmagic, it works for me.
http://www.superiorcadcam.com/transmagic.htm
2005 Product description:
TransMagic offers a comprehensive suite of translators to exchange 3D
CAD Data, from any CAD system, to any CAD system. If your job requires
interfacing with companies or departments with different CAD systems,
then TransMagic is the ideal universal translator that will dramatically
save time and reduce the costs associated with data exchange. Whether
you work with solids, surfaces or wireframe data, it can be translated
and repaired easily with TransMagic.
|
You make signs & have problems with the letter "D" IIRC.
And the very concept of linear shrinkage.
And think that clay is slip cast in Silicone Rubber molds ..
And that custom motorcycle wheels are made from Aluminum billet ..
IIRC.
He's a hoot <G>.
It's widely speculated that poor jb got a 2D DOS CAD demo
from him (used) to calculate 2D line & circle intersections &
do simple trig ..... both well beyond jb's capabilities. And
clear proof that jb uses no other CAD or CAD/CAM or CAM
system.
DOS BobCAD it was, IIRC ... and not too long ago.
Poor jb was hugely impressed that he could draw
& dimension triangles & suchlike to get answers ....
--
Cliff
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guido
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:03 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
jon_banquer wrote:
| Quote: | http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
|
Sounds like a great step forward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:26 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
Michael Gailey wrote:
| Quote: | jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
jon
The 4 recommendations somewhat sum up what the problem is. It won't
happen, just who would own/control the standard. I'm sure Autodesk
would
like to control as much as it could, mo money under their control is
what big business is all about. The Dassault / Microsoft comment sums
up
the whole problem, since they seem to want to have "their" own
standard.
There may eventually be some interchangable effort at a standard but
one
"cure all" may be an impossible task.
FWIW, if I bought software to appease Ingersoll Rand I would be
using
Pro E. John Deere wants Pro E. The next guy wants UG. A remote fes
would
actually ask for Inventor, ugh. If you try to please everybody,
nobody
will like it. All the major corporations are never going to start
over
"just so they" can exchange upon a new standard. If you do business
with
these large corporations just be able to exchange files correctly.
Transmagic works pretty good for me when I get files of most
formats.
I usually need the 3D data, most customers want to keep their
proprietary information in their own possession. I have several
customers who have stopped furnishing any cad files or prints, they
say
just get what you need from the 3D model.
Take a peek at Transmagic, it works for me.
http://www.superiorcadcam.com/transmagic.htm
2005 Product description:
TransMagic offers a comprehensive suite of translators to exchange 3D
CAD Data, from any CAD system, to any CAD system. If your job
requires
interfacing with companies or departments with different CAD systems,
then TransMagic is the ideal universal translator that will
dramatically
save time and reduce the costs associated with data exchange. Whether
you work with solids, surfaces or wireframe data, it can be
translated
and repaired easily with TransMagic.
--
Michael Gailey
Artistic CNC Mill, Router and Engraver Programming
3D modeling for Product Design and Development
http://www.microsystemsgeorgia.com/toc.htm
|
Do you think it would be nice if the automotive and aerospace industry
got together and told the CAD/CAM companies you will impliment XML
Feature Models whether you like it or not ?
Seems like they are the ones losing the most money with I-Guess (IGES).
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:57 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:03:30 +0000, Guido <reuters@no-spam.net> wrote:
I suspect that a strong <GAK> is in order.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Gailey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:28 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
jon_banquer wrote:
| Quote: |
Do you think it would be nice if the automotive and aerospace industry
got together and told the CAD/CAM companies you will impliment XML
Feature Models whether you like it or not ?
|
That may help form a perfect world but I don't expect anyone to be
sending 3D Models files that also contain BOM etc within the same file
to vendors who have no business receiving such information. Inside a
large corporation every bit of data is not even shared with those who
shouldn't need to see it.
I just don't think the big picture has room for "everyone" involved in
manufacturing process having access to "every detail/trade secret" that
can be contained in a file.
I went to a new customer's shop last week. No pictures are allowed to be
taken ever, they send out No 2D cad files, they commented that they work
directly from the solid and that solid id the Bible for checking the
part. Shrink, rough material etc is all included in the solid. They did
mention that secondary machining operations that involve these solids
will be stripped out of the models before they are sent. I was told that
they no longer spend any time documenting anything on paper like with a
cad file. The solid is the gospel and nothing else matters.
This is a top line automotive company. They are pretty big on trade
secrets remaining just that. I was told by them that I would receive a
solid, don't call and ask questions just duplicate the solid model and
everything will be great. They didn't mix any words about it, since they
write the check, I will cheerfully comply with what they said. I was
then told if the model is wrong they pick up the cost.
FWIW, their engineers are SW users.
I think these people have their priorities in the right place, maybe
they see what China is doing and are just fortifying their interests and
trade secrets.
| Quote: | Seems like they are the ones losing the most money with I-Guess (IGES).
jon
|
Exactly how are the big companies losing money because of iges?
I don't have any problems with iges files. I have made tooling from iges
models for a long time and just don't see the urgency for an immediate
replacement. There are other formats as well that translate well between
various systems, I just don't see a total reinvention of the wheel as
being mandatory or even remotely urgent. I always think about the times
I wished that I had an iges file vs napkin sketches. Perhaps if someone
can't build tooling with an iges file, they may also not be able to
build the same tooling otherwise as well.
--
Michael Gailey
Artistic CNC Mill, Router and Engraver Programming
3D modeling for Product Design and Development
http://www.microsystemsgeorgia.com/toc.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:21 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
| Quote: | Exactly how are the big companies losing money because of iges?
|
Most larger companies have a multitude of CAD/CAM systems. IGES has no
provision for moving feature based models between various CAD/CAM
systems.
What ends up happening is they have to rebuild the model from a dumb
IGES model to a smart feature based one. This costs them a ton of
money.
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Black Dragon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:24 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
Mike Left Santa Cruz wrote:
| Quote: | the whole shop thing .. I'm am returning to a simple life like the
indians.... fishing, fucking, hunting..
|
sitting around the camp fire smoking peyote..
--
Black Dragon
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Left Santa Cruz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:40 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:03:30 +0000, Guido <reuters@no-spam.net> wrote:
I dont' know all the implications.. but I asked a guy from Israel how
the quick split worked so fast in Cimatron IT.. he told me the surface
information was changed into VRML.....
What does that actually mean?
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:09 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
Mike Left Santa Cruz wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:03:30 +0000, Guido <reuters@no-spam.net
wrote:
jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
Sounds like a great step forward.
I dont' know all the implications.. but I asked a guy from Israel how
the quick split worked so fast in Cimatron IT.. he told me the
surface
information was changed into VRML.....
What does that actually mean?
Mike
|
I'll take a stab at this, Mike:
I think that Cimatron puts the surface information into a language
(VRML) while your working with quick split so that when you need to do
the split all the pertinent info is already there and structured to be
solved quickly. I guessing that this eliminates the need to do the
complex surface math calculations that take a lot of time to solve.
Perhaps this is similar to how surfaces are / were tessalated so that
the toolpath could /can be calculated quicker ?
Are you using Cimatron E now ?
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Left Santa Cruz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:35 am Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2005 21:09:10 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Left Santa Cruz wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:03:30 +0000, Guido <reuters@no-spam.net
wrote:
jon_banquer wrote:
http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm
Sounds like a great step forward.
I dont' know all the implications.. but I asked a guy from Israel how
the quick split worked so fast in Cimatron IT.. he told me the
surface
information was changed into VRML.....
What does that actually mean?
Mike
I'll take a stab at this, Mike:
I think that Cimatron puts the surface information into a language
(VRML) while your working with quick split so that when you need to do
the split all the pertinent info is already there and structured to be
solved quickly. I guessing that this eliminates the need to do the
complex surface math calculations that take a lot of time to solve.
Perhaps this is similar to how surfaces are / were tessalated so that
the toolpath could /can be calculated quicker ?
Are you using Cimatron E now ?
jon
|
No.. I am using Cimatron IT I believe I have Elite keys last year I
was in maintenance... but didnt' want to learn all the new bugs and
work around... I stopped the maintenance couple of years ago... I have
had the keys from V9 for post processor creation.. and have about 15
posts for machines I was programming for until about five years ago...
everybody has their won systems now.. Last post I developed was for
an old horizontal...
.. The maintenance was too expensive for the improvments... truth is
most are still playing catch up.. I use Ashlar Cobalt for modeling and
mold design.. then dump it into Cimatron for machining, electrodes,
etc... the last three years I have mostly been involved in developing
new products.. so only built about 15 molds.. I'm am building my last
9 mold for a new product next month.. and then closing down my shop
and selling off everything.. much cheaper and faster to pay other
shops for machining and have mold built in Taiwan and China...
getting ready to go to China for two 3-6 month projects... then
coming back and settling into Bozeman Monatana and never work in a
shop again... Also have a customer in Taiwan I need to be close
too. for the next year.
For new product developement.. it is much cheaper to use quickparts
and protomold etc for tooling and test parts...
All this CAD/CAM stuff give me a headache... and I am burned out with
the whole shop thing .. I'm am returning to a simple life like the
indians.... fishing, fucking, hunting.. last few years was too busy
ro fish.. to tired to fuck.. and no where to hunt... :)
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:28:58 GMT, Michael Gailey
<gailey@frontiernet.net> wrote:
| Quote: | jon_banquer wrote:
Do you think it would be nice if the automotive and aerospace industry
got together and told the CAD/CAM companies you will impliment XML
Feature Models whether you like it or not ?
|
We found the idiot.
| Quote: | That may help form a perfect world but I don't expect anyone to be
sending 3D Models files that also contain BOM etc within the same file
to vendors who have no business receiving such information. Inside a
large corporation every bit of data is not even shared with those who
shouldn't need to see it.
I just don't think the big picture has room for "everyone" involved in
manufacturing process having access to "every detail/trade secret" that
can be contained in a file.
|
I doubt that that's the main consideration. Or even much of a minor
one.
| Quote: | I went to a new customer's shop last week. No pictures are allowed to be
taken ever, they send out No 2D cad files, they commented that they work
directly from the solid and that solid id the Bible for checking the
part. Shrink, rough material etc is all included in the solid.
|
Amazing, eh?
| Quote: | They did
mention that secondary machining operations that involve these solids
will be stripped out of the models before they are sent. I was told that
they no longer spend any time documenting anything on paper like with a
cad file. The solid is the gospel and nothing else matters.
|
This is new to you?
| Quote: | This is a top line automotive company. They are pretty big on trade
secrets remaining just that. I was told by them that I would receive a
solid, don't call and ask questions just duplicate the solid model and
everything will be great. They didn't mix any words about it, since they
write the check, I will cheerfully comply with what they said. I was
then told if the model is wrong they pick up the cost.
FWIW, their engineers are SW users.
|
Not their fault <G>.
| Quote: | I think these people have their priorities in the right place, maybe
they see what China is doing and are just fortifying their interests and
trade secrets.
|
They just don't want to confuse you.
| Quote: | Seems like they are the ones losing the most money with I-Guess (IGES).
|
After all these many years .... he still remains utterly clueless.
| Quote: | jon
Exactly how are the big companies losing money because of iges?
|
Probably by not paying jb <G>.
| Quote: | I don't have any problems with iges files. I have made tooling from iges
models for a long time and just don't see the urgency for an immediate
replacement.
|
You'd not be saying that poor jb is full of clueless BS again, now
would you?
| Quote: | There are other formats as well that translate well between
various systems, I just don't see a total reinvention of the wheel as
being mandatory or even remotely urgent. I always think about the times
I wished that I had an iges file vs napkin sketches. Perhaps if someone
can't build tooling with an iges file, they may also not be able to
build the same tooling otherwise as well.
|
There's a lot more to a full CAD/CAM model than a simple part
to be machined. Not that jb would ever know.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Black Dragon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:27 pm Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
paul wrote:
| Quote: | "Black Dragon" <bd@thedragons.lair> wrote in message
news:crlgvq$1k6h$1@bdhi.net...
Mike Left Santa Cruz wrote:
the whole shop thing .. I'm am returning to a simple life like the
indians.... fishing, fucking, hunting..
sitting around the camp fire smoking peyote..
Gee, that's funny, I always ate it. Maybe that's why it made me PUKE!!
|
That's a metaphor by the way...
And you can avoid that nausea, and bitterness, by doing a rectal infusion.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_cactus_guide.shtml#SEC5
--
Black Dragon
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Black Dragon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject:
Re: The Need For XML Feature Models |
|
|
jon_banquer wrote:
| Quote: | Exactly how are the big companies losing money because of iges?
Most larger companies have a multitude of CAD/CAM systems. IGES has no
provision for moving feature based models between various CAD/CAM
systems.
|
Nor does, STEP, Parasolid, or SAT. Who uses IGES anymore anyway?
Certainly not any of the big companies we work with, Ford, Chrysler, GM,
Honda, etc. The only time I see IGES files is when they come out of dank
little 3 man shit holes. (Hi Sam <g>)
| Quote: | What ends up happening is they have to rebuild the model from a dumb
IGES model to a smart feature based one. This costs them a ton of
money.
|
If you're importing data into a hybrid modeler (such as VX <g>), features
and history are totally irrelevant.
--
Black Dragon
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in