| Author |
Message |
P.
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:26 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
So we are, as a group, heading for a performance wall which CATIA v4
can deal with but the technology we have and that which might be
foisted on us doesn't have. Seems kind of strange to me.
Although, I was always of the impression that it was the parametric
side of things that really brought down SW. After all SW has to build
and tear down bodies from the first feature on if I don't miss my
guess, whereas the non-parametric modeler is alway living in the here
and now.
The other Paul
MM wrote:
| Quote: | Paul,
They didn't, They used Ver4 on UNIX clusters that utilized every idle
CPU on
the network.
Version 4 isn't an "exact" modeler so the data is easier to handle.
Mark
"P." <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote in message
news:1105134767.332796.270040@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am assuming CAA is a modeling kernal. If it is so slow how in the
world did Boeing make the 777 with it?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Salvador
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Cliff.. I could give you a response (not always right or right for you)
for just about every question (more or less experience responses) and
I'm sure you will respond with an other(s).
Mesh data sets, by themselves, are not an overhead which we/I have
issues with, the surface/solids are, and most do not work on fully
resolved data sets, they manage segments of the design (sub assemblies
with references).
And, this is not about manufacturing (cutting/tooling off polymesh data)
but about data management (PLM). Some systems store the mesh data with
the solids/surfaces or with properties and some separate linked data for
reference/management and some do not.
Man, you really like to get off on tangents, be argumenative or pose
other questions,... because,.. you're bored?
I'm trying to be constructive in understand where this is going, kernels
and PLM, because I don't have all the answers, just more questions.
But, Cliff, I don't care to play Q&A games to fill your time, ok?
Thoery and what was and what is, is all relative so, I think for you to
understand more (you're out of touch, imho),.. you have to actually
use/demo the programs related to these ng's.
Otherwise, enough of the know it all approach, it's been getting
stale,..
... 8^)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 03:54:31 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Salvador"
<paul@zxys.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Well, surfaces are usually represented (tessellated) using polymesh data
so you would have both in memory.
|
Meshes can easily be generated from surfaces "on the fly" locally,
using local CPU, graphics capabilities & memory, as needed, for
*display & rendering* purposes.
You cannot get back to the original surface from a mesh
approximation but you can interpolate/approximate the original
surface with a mesh to any desired accuracy (within the computational
limits) from the surface.
Example: The body of a 747 with a 2 foot mesh might work just
fine for some display needs. Not for manufacturing, dimensioning, etc.
to a .010" tolerance.
Once you start with a mesh you cannot get tighter/better accuracy.
The information to do so is lost.
| Quote: | What I'm saying is there is only polymesh data and most polymesh data or
vertices are scalable to meet the graphical/visual/detail needs
|
Scalable? Only if creating the mesh for display from the parent
surfaces.
What do you get if you try to subdivide one polygon? Just more
planar polygons in the same plane. No net effect; just more
computation needed for display generation.
| Quote: | (or you access other data sets).
|
The original parent surfaces?
When the entire point was to get rid of them and just send
mesh data?
| Quote: | And yes, it's a representation/approximation. Modifing the original
data is managed seperately.
|
With things like XML?
| Quote: | UG does this as well and most 3D cad programs do this as well now, i.e.,
to reduce overhead.
|
The mesh data is temp data, not stored as the part database, in
most cases.
Think also of the bloat .... suppose you had nice 20' diameter
sphere and got .010" X .010" polygons ..... how many "points"
would need to be in the polygon database?
| Quote: | Polymesh data is not that taxing on most systems/graphics cards today
|
I suspect thet their memory must hold the entire data set or you
will do a lot of swapping <G>.
| Quote: | and the graphics cards used back then for the 777 project would/should
have been just as good or better than what we user have now using high
end PC gfx cards.
|
Highly unlikely.
But the issue was, IIRC, storing the part data as polygons in the
first place .. what size polygons?
BTW, When you divide/cut/intersect set A of polygons generated with
tolerance B & size C with set D of tolerance E & size F what's the
actual net tolerance on the intersection curves? And how many curves
do you get?
--
Cliff
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Mossberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:30 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Cliff,
I think what Paul was trying to describe is the way they utillize a
combination of "resolved" and polymesh (what Catia calls "mock up" ) data in
order to facillitate the process of design. Catia 4 achieved this by
allowing you to generate a seperate associated mesh file for each component.
At least this is my understanding from people I've talked to at Boeing. We
didn't have the mock up module at my last job.
A fully resolved airframe is a huge data set. It's not necessary to have the
whole wing resolved in order to design the load ribs on the front of the
spar. All you need resolved is the spar itself, and the leading edge of the
wing. All other geometry can be represented as a shaded mesh.
This is probably not the most straight forward way of doing this, but it was
one of the first. Solidworks has "light weight" parts where only the display
list is loaded. Parts can be resolved, or made light weight, interactively
as you work. Pro-E has "simplified reps" which is similar. I would imagine
UG also has an anolog to this as well.
You were right about the graphics. In 1987, the highest end PHIGS, and
OpenGL subsystems (massive amounts of high wattage silicon) weren't nearly
as powerful as todays PC cards. That's just progress.
Regards
Mark
"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ekuvt0pjccnn4iqekfero37tbvd0qdn50m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 03:54:31 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Salvador"
paul@zxys.com> wrote:
Well, surfaces are usually represented (tessellated) using polymesh data
so you would have both in memory.
Meshes can easily be generated from surfaces "on the fly" locally,
using local CPU, graphics capabilities & memory, as needed, for
*display & rendering* purposes.
You cannot get back to the original surface from a mesh
approximation but you can interpolate/approximate the original
surface with a mesh to any desired accuracy (within the computational
limits) from the surface.
Example: The body of a 747 with a 2 foot mesh might work just
fine for some display needs. Not for manufacturing, dimensioning, etc.
to a .010" tolerance.
Once you start with a mesh you cannot get tighter/better accuracy.
The information to do so is lost.
What I'm saying is there is only polymesh data and most polymesh data or
vertices are scalable to meet the graphical/visual/detail needs
Scalable? Only if creating the mesh for display from the parent
surfaces.
What do you get if you try to subdivide one polygon? Just more
planar polygons in the same plane. No net effect; just more
computation needed for display generation.
(or you access other data sets).
The original parent surfaces?
When the entire point was to get rid of them and just send
mesh data?
And yes, it's a representation/approximation. Modifing the original
data is managed seperately.
With things like XML?
UG does this as well and most 3D cad programs do this as well now, i.e.,
to reduce overhead.
The mesh data is temp data, not stored as the part database, in
most cases.
Think also of the bloat .... suppose you had nice 20' diameter
sphere and got .010" X .010" polygons ..... how many "points"
would need to be in the polygon database?
Polymesh data is not that taxing on most systems/graphics cards today
I suspect thet their memory must hold the entire data set or you
will do a lot of swapping <G>.
and the graphics cards used back then for the 777 project would/should
have been just as good or better than what we user have now using high
end PC gfx cards.
Highly unlikely.
But the issue was, IIRC, storing the part data as polygons in the
first place .. what size polygons?
BTW, When you divide/cut/intersect set A of polygons generated with
tolerance B & size C with set D of tolerance E & size F what's the
actual net tolerance on the intersection curves? And how many curves
do you get?
--
Cliff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:26 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:47:49 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Salvador"
<paul@zxys.com> wrote:
Paul,
| Quote: | Cliff.. I could give you a response (not always right or right for you)
for just about every question (more or less experience responses) and
I'm sure you will respond with an other(s).
Mesh data sets, by themselves, are not an overhead which we/I have
issues with, the surface/solids are, and most do not work on fully
resolved data sets, they manage segments of the design (sub assemblies
with references).
|
Perhaps you missed the gist of my points?
Think of a client-server network, as an example. You would be
working on a client machine and the server would need to generate
meshes and send them to you (and all other users) for each need
OR you could generate them locally for *display purposes only*.
Do a zoom ... need a new mesh generated .... where is it done?
Watch the data. How much data must be transmitted over the network?
What of the other users?
Can you actually use the mesh as model, for accurate boolean
operations, dimensioning, etc? Or does that all need to be
associative to the actual geometric model?
In the later case, where's the model? Is it the mesh file?
| Quote: | And, this is not about manufacturing (cutting/tooling off polymesh data)
|
Which, while it may work in a limited subset of cases, works poorly
in te general case IMHO.
What if all you got was mesh data from the server which had been
generated with a 1" mesh but your tolerance was .001"?
You can only generate accurate meshes from the surfaces
(which can be parts of solids) hence you need the surface data
to begin with.
| Quote: | but about data management (PLM). Some systems store the mesh data with
the solids/surfaces or with properties and some separate linked data for
reference/management and some do not.
|
What good is the mesh data other than for display or perhaps RP
purposes?
And each application, display or specific RP need, would no doubt
need a different mesh size/tolerance.
What to do?
| Quote: | Man, you really like to get off on tangents, be argumenative or pose
other questions,... because,.. you're bored?
|
Sometimes <G>.
Sometimes it's interesting though ......
| Quote: | I'm trying to be constructive in understand where this is going, kernels
|
Do kernels have much to do with meshes?
| Quote: | and PLM, because I don't have all the answers, just more questions.
|
Others may chip in too.
Don't raise the issues/questions ... don't expect discussion or
learning.
| Quote: | But, Cliff, I don't care to play Q&A games to fill your time, ok?
Thoery and what was and what is, is all relative so,
|
I doubt that there's any magic to it.
| Quote: | I think for you to
understand more (you're out of touch, imho),.. you have to actually
use/demo the programs related to these ng's.
|
Running a demo & pushing buttons/icons does not tell you
what's going on. Nor can you extrapolate limits or he bsaics
from an ad.
| Quote: | Otherwise, enough of the know it all approach, it's been getting
stale,..
.. 8^)
|
Bandwith is bandwidth & CPU clock cycles are CPU clock cycles.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:30:20 GMT, "Mark Mossberg"
<Poundsandspammers@biteme.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Cliff,
I think what Paul was trying to describe is the way they utillize a
combination of "resolved" and polymesh (what Catia calls "mock up" ) data in
order to facillitate the process of design. Catia 4 achieved this by
allowing you to generate a seperate associated mesh file for each component.
|
In some cases this may speed up the visualization of reference
geometry (or sell more & faster networks & processors).
I'd expect that the main use might be to allow a sort of access to
the models without write/modify permissions. You can sort of see
but not touch sort of thing.
| Quote: | At least this is my understanding from people I've talked to at Boeing. We
didn't have the mock up module at my last job.
A fully resolved airframe is a huge data set. It's not necessary to have the
whole wing resolved in order to design the load ribs on the front of the
spar. All you need resolved is the spar itself, and the leading edge of the
wing. All other geometry can be represented as a shaded mesh.
|
But the data to represent the mesh is far, far larger in bytes than
the surface geometry needed for the actual parts I'd expect.
Someone, someplace, probably knows the tradeoff & break-even
points. Having to resolve displays from solids no doubt takes a lot
more processing power too and you still get a local (to your machine)
mesh for display purposes.
Thanks for the post .. interesting subject.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:51 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Mark Mossberg wrote:
| Quote: | Paul,
Neither I hope.
The rebuild times on Catia 5 are dismally slow, so is ACIS.
Mark
"Paul Salvador" <paul@zxys.com> wrote in message
news:a680668da3465cf3550745aed1c1ec03.36996@mygate.mailgate.org...
CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel?
We've all read and heard the talk about SW switching from parasolid
to
the acis kernel someday but,... what about the chance or why not
use CAA
V5 based??
http://www.3ds.com/products-solutions/brands/CAAV5/
It seems to make future sense for SW to use CAA V5 based, no?
Or, will DS use SW only as a means for marketing acis?
..
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
What do you base your comment that ACIS is slow on ? |
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Mossberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:06 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Jon,
From experience, Ironcad, and an eval version of Concepts Unlimited. It's
been well documented for years. It also uses allot more recources than PS.
CAD CAM publishing did a test about a year ago comparing the latest version
of Inventor, with Solidworks. The test model was an automotive grill modeled
native in both systems. When a change was made that required a rebuild, the
difference was 8X to 10X slower for IV. I don't kow how much was ACIS fault,
or the incompetence of the Adesk programmers. Probably a bit of both
I would hope that they've improved on this, and I'm sure they have to some
extent. ACIS does have some interesting features. And it may not bother some
people, but it'd sure bother me. Waiting for rebuilds really messes with my
concentration. Probably just gettin old....
Mark
It's much slower at building and re-generating complex shapes than Parasolid
"jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105303887.788678.111480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Mark Mossberg wrote:
Paul,
Neither I hope.
The rebuild times on Catia 5 are dismally slow, so is ACIS.
Mark
"Paul Salvador" <paul@zxys.com> wrote in message
news:a680668da3465cf3550745aed1c1ec03.36996@mygate.mailgate.org...
CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel?
We've all read and heard the talk about SW switching from parasolid
to
the acis kernel someday but,... what about the chance or why not
use CAA
V5 based??
http://www.3ds.com/products-solutions/brands/CAAV5/
It seems to make future sense for SW to use CAA V5 based, no?
Or, will DS use SW only as a means for marketing acis?
..
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
What do you base your comment that ACIS is slow on ?
jon
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:51 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Mark Mossberg wrote:
| Quote: | Jon,
From experience, Ironcad, and an eval version of Concepts Unlimited.
It's
been well documented for years. It also uses allot more recources
than PS.
CAD CAM publishing did a test about a year ago comparing the latest
version
of Inventor, with Solidworks. The test model was an automotive grill
modeled
native in both systems. When a change was made that required a
rebuild, the
difference was 8X to 10X slower for IV. I don't kow how much was ACIS
fault,
or the incompetence of the Adesk programmers. Probably a bit of both
I would hope that they've improved on this, and I'm sure they have to
some
extent. ACIS does have some interesting features. And it may not
bother some
people, but it'd sure bother me. Waiting for rebuilds really messes
with my
concentration. Probably just gettin old....
Mark
|
Hi Mark,
Covering what you wrote above and some stuff you and I use to discuss.
1. I agree that ACIS has always been slower than Parasolid and not as
robust on solid operations although it's seen dramtic improvement in
the last 2 years.
2. I think you could get a very quick answer to how well ACIS is
progressing in the speed area by downloading Alibre and comparing
similar operations with Solidworks.
3. At one point you complained that VX was not as fast at assembly
compared to SolidWorks. I don't think this is the case anymore. Further
I do believe from what I saw when evaluating Vision (before the name
change to VX)that *VX's kernel is as fast and as robust as Parsolid on
solid modeling operations*.
4. Both Parasolid and VX are better than ThinkID at solid modeling...
keep in mind that ThinkID was Eureka Gold and think3 has not had the
kind of time that VX and UGS have to develop their kernel.
5. ACIS's strong feature when compared to Parasolid is that it has much
more extensive surfacing tools.
6. I do understand what you and the person who started this thread
expect in regards to speed. For me it's not the biggest factor but for
many it certainly would be. My bet is that ACIS is much closer but
still not quite as robust or as fast.
Obviously my interest and focus is on better part modeling tools and I
would accept less robust solid modeling operations for better hybrid
tools.
Did you beta test MasterCAM X ?
jon
| Quote: |
It's much slower at building and re-generating complex shapes than
Parasolid
"jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105303887.788678.111480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Mossberg wrote:
Paul,
Neither I hope.
The rebuild times on Catia 5 are dismally slow, so is ACIS.
Mark
"Paul Salvador" <paul@zxys.com> wrote in message
news:a680668da3465cf3550745aed1c1ec03.36996@mygate.mailgate.org...
CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel?
We've all read and heard the talk about SW switching from
parasolid
to
the acis kernel someday but,... what about the chance or why
not
use CAA
V5 based??
http://www.3ds.com/products-solutions/brands/CAAV5/
It seems to make future sense for SW to use CAA V5 based, no?
Or, will DS use SW only as a means for marketing acis?
..
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
What do you base your comment that ACIS is slow on ?
jon
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:59 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
| Quote: | Waiting for rebuilds really messes with my concentration. Probably
just gettin old.... |
My bet is you don't won't to tolertate it anymore. IMO, very
understandable.
After someone modeled consumer stylized parts in CATIA, I don't
understand how they would tolerate SolidWorks for similar work.
Any comments on CATIA's UI and how you like it vs. SolidWorks ?
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Mossberg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:36 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
Jon,
| Quote: | Did you beta test MasterCAM X ?
|
Nope,, takes to much time (and patience, of which I have precious little)
Having used their product since 87 or so, my guess is they'll follow the
same pattern they've followed up to now. It will be "usable" six to nine
months after release, but they'll get it right eventually.
It will probably be a bit tougher this time. Since they've gone native
Windows, I can only assume that they'll be using the windows memory mangler.
One of the things that made the program so stable ( the most stable I've
ever used) was the fact that "you" could control how much physical memory it
used. Upon launching, MC would grab that chunk and control it.
We'll see,,,,,,
Regards
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:59 pm Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
In article <BbnEd.9839$5R.5017@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Mark Mossberg"
<Poundsandspammers@biteme.net> writes:
| Quote: | ACIS does have some interesting features.
|
That's not the fault of ACIS or ParaSolid.
"Features" in that context are the applications software
supplied by the CAD, CAD/CAM or CAM vendor for the most part.
Poor jb's always confused about kernels & everything else.
Don't let his endless confusion confuse everybody else. He
assumes that his imagined stuff are facts .. or that he can force
them to be if he lies enough to enough people & uses enough
(often redefined in his pointed head) buzzwords.
Impressive buzzwords, eh? It's not like he can define any of
them himself ....
HTH
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Steiger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:27 am Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
"Paul Salvador" <paul@zxys.com> wrote in message
news:d2ec06b9368bbf1edac8446b81036208.36996@mygate.mailgate.org...
| Quote: | I'm not sure what version 5 release Mark saw or uses but from what I was
told, the latest V5R14 or the last few releases have been faster.
|
Interesting. SW just seems to get slower.
| Quote: | And, the client (to be fair, an ex-UG user who was looking for something
faster and had the capital to do it) I was talking with said Catia
modeling was a bit faster than SW.
|
That's good feedback to hear. It seemed to be much faster in the demos, but
we're comparing a really skilled user in sales mode to a bunch of working
stiffs.
| Quote: | BTW, UG modeling rebuilds are faster, the problem I saw with UG was the
menu structure/steps which was suppose to improve more (few steps) with
NX3.
|
Exactly what we've seen in the demos. The NX3 UI is an improvement over NX2,
but it is still cumbersome. The Catia interface seems to require a lot less
clicks.
Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2005 20:51:39 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | 4. Both Parasolid and VX are better than ThinkID at solid modeling...
keep in mind that ThinkID was Eureka Gold and think3 has not had the
kind of time that VX and UGS have to develop their kernel.
|
IOW 3dinkies refused to send you any more ads or something.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject:
Re: CAA V5 based or ACIS kernel? |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2005 20:59:19 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Waiting for rebuilds really messes with my concentration. Probably
just gettin old....
|
A) It was stated that ACIS is slow. That was the exact point
or statements/post you are responding to.
| Quote: | My bet is you don't won't to tolertate it anymore. IMO, very
understandable.
|
B) So you are suggesting switching to ParaSolid?
Who? Clearly not you, ever.
| Quote: | modeled consumer stylized parts in CATIA, I don't
understand how they would tolerate SolidWorks for similar work.
|
C) So, because ACIS is slow you recommend tossing all your
investment & training in SW (or whatever) & switching to CATIA?
Or quitting & looking for work?
| Quote: | Any comments on CATIA's UI and how you like it vs. SolidWorks ?
|
So you don't know French?
What happens if 3dinkies switches to the XML kernel?
Still going to stick with Catia as the best thing since the
breadbox?
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in