Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
ST2 the verdict - So far 1
- Thread starter karmoh
- Start date
PatCouture
Mechanical
Hi Beachcomber
"like still not having tolerance grades built in to dimensioning, not being able to add columns and text into a BOM,"
In ST2 I read about new functionnalities for the tolerance in dimensioning and there have been lots of improvement in the BOM according to the what's new document. I can't say if it means that you can take them off your wish list just yet but it may be worth a look.
I didn't use any of those improvements yet so I can't comment if they are good or not!
I think the option to design multiple sheet metal part in the same part file is a good tool and looks impressive. But IMHO the workflow seems more logical to design them in the context of an assembly using inter-part copies or part copies.
From what I see, Solid Edge seems to be able to do those things you wish for but they are surely not integrated as well as they are in Solid Works.
Patrick
"like still not having tolerance grades built in to dimensioning, not being able to add columns and text into a BOM,"
In ST2 I read about new functionnalities for the tolerance in dimensioning and there have been lots of improvement in the BOM according to the what's new document. I can't say if it means that you can take them off your wish list just yet but it may be worth a look.
I didn't use any of those improvements yet so I can't comment if they are good or not!
I think the option to design multiple sheet metal part in the same part file is a good tool and looks impressive. But IMHO the workflow seems more logical to design them in the context of an assembly using inter-part copies or part copies.
From what I see, Solid Edge seems to be able to do those things you wish for but they are surely not integrated as well as they are in Solid Works.
Patrick
beachcomber
Mechanical
If you look at the video, there are 2 separate plates which are then joined together by another flange to make one single sheetmetal part that is then flattened.
You can not do this in SE (that I know of).
It's all about re-configuring your part, which is much more likely in sheetmetal than in normal part modelling.
Just look at the SpaceClaim vid and you can see that an edge joining two flanges can be defined as a bend, a rip or as a flanged joint - so you could actually take your folded sheetmetal and break it up into separate plates, switch the model back to a normal part file and make them different thicknesses to be made as a welded construction.
You can also do the reverse.
This is the kind of flexibility that should be introduced, but is impossible in SE because they still insist that a sheetmetal part is a different file type.
By now (at least in sync mode) there should only be 2 file types - model and draft.
How many times have you wanted to just model a few bits for a quick scheme and ended up creating a load of part files and an assembly, or modelled it as one part then wanted to break it up into several bits.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
You can not do this in SE (that I know of).
It's all about re-configuring your part, which is much more likely in sheetmetal than in normal part modelling.
Just look at the SpaceClaim vid and you can see that an edge joining two flanges can be defined as a bend, a rip or as a flanged joint - so you could actually take your folded sheetmetal and break it up into separate plates, switch the model back to a normal part file and make them different thicknesses to be made as a welded construction.
You can also do the reverse.
This is the kind of flexibility that should be introduced, but is impossible in SE because they still insist that a sheetmetal part is a different file type.
By now (at least in sync mode) there should only be 2 file types - model and draft.
How many times have you wanted to just model a few bits for a quick scheme and ended up creating a load of part files and an assembly, or modelled it as one part then wanted to break it up into several bits.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
PatCouture
Mechanical
I agree with you BC about wanting to divide a part and finding out how difficult it is with the available tools!
I think the real key here as you said is FLEXIBILITY!
Cheers!
Patrick
I think the real key here as you said is FLEXIBILITY!
Cheers!
Patrick
- Thread starter
- #25
This is true, and the option to reconfigure a flange into a separate part in a history based system (V20 - Trad 100-102) is impossible. With Sync it should be as easy as shown in the Space Claim vid. As it stands Sheet Metal Sync in ST2 is a faint parody.
I attempted to follow the space claim vid and reproduce it ST2 Sync SM and could reproduce all but the corner manipulation and the separation of the flange in to a separate part………………….I could also do the same in V20!
beachcomber
Mechanical
"
Why????
You can have part files with multiple bodies, each with it's own history and then union them together, so why could you not split a part into separate bodies within the same file?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
Why????
You can have part files with multiple bodies, each with it's own history and then union them together, so why could you not split a part into separate bodies within the same file?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
- Thread starter
- #27
Hi Beachcomber,
Not sure what you mean?
Create a sheetmetal tab, add a flange. Then separate that flange from the tab, then add a new flange to the separated flange, which mates with the original tab. While retaining the integrity of the sheetmetal part
Identical to the Space Claim Vid?
Can you demonstrate or explain how please? V20 or Trad
Cheers
Not sure what you mean?
Create a sheetmetal tab, add a flange. Then separate that flange from the tab, then add a new flange to the separated flange, which mates with the original tab. While retaining the integrity of the sheetmetal part
Identical to the Space Claim Vid?
Can you demonstrate or explain how please? V20 or Trad
Cheers
beachcomber
Mechanical
I was asking why you thought the reconfiguring of a flange into separate parts was impossible with a history based system.
I was not claiming that it is possible with the way things work at the moment, just that it SHOULD be possible to do the things I said.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement, and you in fact meant that it was not possible with the way things work now.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
I was not claiming that it is possible with the way things work at the moment, just that it SHOULD be possible to do the things I said.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement, and you in fact meant that it was not possible with the way things work now.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
- Thread starter
- #29
beachcomber
Mechanical
Found this info on a "What's new in ST2" document.
So, well done SE, pity I'm still on ST1 !!
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
So, well done SE, pity I'm still on ST1 !!
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
beachcomber
Mechanical
In ST1 draft when I click some dimension text I get a little box next to the cursor with the dimension value in it.
In part, sheetmetal and assembly I don't - I have to go to the edge bar for the dimension.
Is this still the same in ST2?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
In part, sheetmetal and assembly I don't - I have to go to the edge bar for the dimension.
Is this still the same in ST2?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
- Thread starter
- #32
ST2 MP2 now has Sheet Metal activated.
The corner edge manipulation is as the Space Claim Vid (or similar)
BUT I haven't yet found a way of separating a flange and creating a new part with the same model/part. Although I will continue to play.
After using ST2 for a week, it's good, some nice features, although I'm still finding the workspace cluttered, I’m getting used to the ribbon bar and it idiosyncrasies.
The corner edge manipulation is as the Space Claim Vid (or similar)
BUT I haven't yet found a way of separating a flange and creating a new part with the same model/part. Although I will continue to play.
After using ST2 for a week, it's good, some nice features, although I'm still finding the workspace cluttered, I’m getting used to the ribbon bar and it idiosyncrasies.
beachcomber
Mechanical
Hi Don,
OK but it's still ONE body and you couldn't save the flanged section out to another file to create a new part.
Karmoh.. I'm glad you are getting used to the interface but I just find it totally frustrating with all the extra clicking between tabs. Maybe it's because I used the old interface for 12 years or so.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
OK but it's still ONE body and you couldn't save the flanged section out to another file to create a new part.
Karmoh.. I'm glad you are getting used to the interface but I just find it totally frustrating with all the extra clicking between tabs. Maybe it's because I used the old interface for 12 years or so.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
BC,
yes that's the case. I think 'Multi body part' is quite new to
parametric CADs. AFAIK SW can do it now and INV 2010 should
have it now (but I'm not sure). SE can handle only 'multi lump part'
that is all separate items will be treated as one body. The
third technic is 'multi part file' where a part file(!) can contain
other part files, each of these will be treated as distinct files and
can be referenced individually from other parts (i.e from within an assembly)
Autodesk MDT does have this functionality.
dy
yes that's the case. I think 'Multi body part' is quite new to
parametric CADs. AFAIK SW can do it now and INV 2010 should
have it now (but I'm not sure). SE can handle only 'multi lump part'
that is all separate items will be treated as one body. The
third technic is 'multi part file' where a part file(!) can contain
other part files, each of these will be treated as distinct files and
can be referenced individually from other parts (i.e from within an assembly)
Autodesk MDT does have this functionality.
dy
- Thread starter
- #36
- Thread starter
- #37
Hi Beachcomber,
I'm lucky in a roundabout sort of way, I rarely have issues with interfaces, but I still growl & curse until I find a way
Plus I extensively use Word and Excel 2007 versions, so was prepared for the style.
I still hanker for the simple V20 interface.
I too have been around since V7, the scary thought is I spend more time with SE than I do my wife![[surprise]](/data/assets/smilies/surprise.gif "[surprise] [surprise]")
I'm lucky in a roundabout sort of way, I rarely have issues with interfaces, but I still growl & curse until I find a way
Plus I extensively use Word and Excel 2007 versions, so was prepared for the style.
I still hanker for the simple V20 interface.
I too have been around since V7, the scary thought is I spend more time with SE than I do my wife
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
This reply is intended only as an attempt at historical accuracy.
Perhaps that might be the case with most CAD packages but NOT ALL.
Unigraphics/NX (also from Siemens PLM Software Inc.) has ALWAYS supported 'Multi-bodies' in the same Part file. While Unigraphics did not fully support PARAMETRIC solid modeling until UG V10.0 (released in 1993), fully integrated solid modeling was first introduced with UG V7.0 (released in 1989, limited parametrics first came with V8.0 a year later) and it supported multi-bodies, primarily because Unigraphics had already been supporting multiple surface bodies from inception (the first seat of Unigraphics was delivered in 1974), and so we implemented Solid Bodies using the same architecture which was already supporting multiple topological structures (surfaces) saved in a part part file or open in the same session. As the product evolved and we moved from surface models to sheet models to solid model to parametric sheet and solid models, since this was being done as part of the continuing enhancement of the core Unigraphics product line (companies who've been paying their maintenance since their initial investment in Unigraphics in 1974, have NEVER had to REPURCHASE a single seat of Unigraphics/NX) we have had to maintain a consistent working environment since we still support files saved from all previous releases (while some conversion was needed back during the V8.0 to V9.0 era, since V9.1 customers have been able to DIRECTLY OPEN any part file in the latest version of NX without doing anything special).
Anyway, I just thought that a little 'history' may be of interest to some of you. Anf if you'd be interested in learning even more about the early days of CAD, select the last item in my 'signature' below.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Perhaps that might be the case with most CAD packages but NOT ALL.
Unigraphics/NX (also from Siemens PLM Software Inc.) has ALWAYS supported 'Multi-bodies' in the same Part file. While Unigraphics did not fully support PARAMETRIC solid modeling until UG V10.0 (released in 1993), fully integrated solid modeling was first introduced with UG V7.0 (released in 1989, limited parametrics first came with V8.0 a year later) and it supported multi-bodies, primarily because Unigraphics had already been supporting multiple surface bodies from inception (the first seat of Unigraphics was delivered in 1974), and so we implemented Solid Bodies using the same architecture which was already supporting multiple topological structures (surfaces) saved in a part part file or open in the same session. As the product evolved and we moved from surface models to sheet models to solid model to parametric sheet and solid models, since this was being done as part of the continuing enhancement of the core Unigraphics product line (companies who've been paying their maintenance since their initial investment in Unigraphics in 1974, have NEVER had to REPURCHASE a single seat of Unigraphics/NX) we have had to maintain a consistent working environment since we still support files saved from all previous releases (while some conversion was needed back during the V8.0 to V9.0 era, since V9.1 customers have been able to DIRECTLY OPEN any part file in the latest version of NX without doing anything special).
Anyway, I just thought that a little 'history' may be of interest to some of you. Anf if you'd be interested in learning even more about the early days of CAD, select the last item in my 'signature' below.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
beachcomber
Mechanical
Catia supports multiple bodies, SolidWorks does and I used Intergraph EMS in the early 90's which also did and that was parametric if you wanted it to be. In fact the sketcher in EMS was almost identical to the sketcher in SE, which isn't surprising as Intergraph first developed Solid Edge.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
beachcomber
Mechanical
With the changes to parts lists are we still restricted to numeric item refs (balloons) or can we use letters?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Where would we be without sat-nav?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question