The Online Community About Exciting New CAD Technologies
Does anyone have a firm understanding of how to translate 3D CAD data between platforms and into neutral formats like STP and IGES?
I am struggling to understand why, in this day and age, it is so hard to reliably define the geometry of a part and have that definition move from one platform to another.
We use Pro/engineer mostly, but have also picked up a few seats of SpaceClaim. Our customers mostly use Catia and our vendors use Solidworks. Our robotic CMM machines in the quality department can supposedly read GD&T data embedded in Step files.
I have been using Pro/e in a variety of industries for about 10 years. I am aware of alot of the headaches with translating data between systems but I am looking for any new information or techniques I may be missing.
A large number of our parts are rubber molded or overmolded parts with complex surface geometry. It is a random nightmare to translate data from one platform, into a neutral format and then import it into a target system.
Sometimes the imported solids aren't solid anymore. Sometimes the boundaries of surfaces get screwed up. Sometimes when transfering assemblies, certain components won't show up.
I had one assembly that I exported from Pro/e into spaceclain via via stp that was successful. I modified the arrangement of the components in Spaceclaim and exported the work as a step file. Before I sent this step file to a customer I wanted to verify the translation by bringing it back into spaceclaim. Some of the parts were missing. But opening the same file into Pro/Engineer yielded a complete assembly??? what gives?? Is the problem in the CAD tools? Is it the data formats??
I am much more aligned to the idea of generating an accurate part definition, with tolerancing, that all the people I interact with can use regardless of what CAD tool they use, than focusing on just using one CAD tool. It seems unrealistic to expect everybody in the supply chain to use the same CAD package. We are considering getting one seat of a bunch of packages to test the import of a model before we send it to a supplier or customer.
It has been a long time since I was in college and professors were talking about BREP and NURBS. Does anyone have a good reference book that talks about how geometry is defined in these packages?
Are the problems I am facing due to poor modeling practices? Are their modeling guidelines that would help result in better model definition?? Are there techniques to verify a data set as being accurate? Maybe a comparison of the Step file to the native model? Something a little more quantitative than "it looks good"?
We use Pro/engineer mostly, but have also picked up a few seats of SpaceClaim. Our customers mostly use Catia and our vendors use Solidworks. Our robotic CMM machines in the quality department can supposedly read GD&T data embedded in Step files.
I have been using Pro/e in a variety of industries for about 10 years. I am aware of alot of the headaches with translating data between systems but I am looking for any new information or techniques I may be missing.
A large number of our parts are rubber molded or overmolded parts with complex surface geometry. It is a random nightmare to translate data from one platform, into a neutral format and then import it into a target system.
Sometimes the imported solids aren't solid anymore. Sometimes the boundaries of surfaces get screwed up. Sometimes when transfering assemblies, certain components won't show up.
I had one assembly that I exported from Pro/e into spaceclain via via stp that was successful. I modified the arrangement of the components in Spaceclaim and exported the work as a step file. Before I sent this step file to a customer I wanted to verify the translation by bringing it back into spaceclaim. Some of the parts were missing. But opening the same file into Pro/Engineer yielded a complete assembly??? what gives?? Is the problem in the CAD tools? Is it the data formats??
I am much more aligned to the idea of generating an accurate part definition, with tolerancing, that all the people I interact with can use regardless of what CAD tool they use, than focusing on just using one CAD tool. It seems unrealistic to expect everybody in the supply chain to use the same CAD package. We are considering getting one seat of a bunch of packages to test the import of a model before we send it to a supplier or customer.
It has been a long time since I was in college and professors were talking about BREP and NURBS. Does anyone have a good reference book that talks about how geometry is defined in these packages?
Are the problems I am facing due to poor modeling practices? Are their modeling guidelines that would help result in better model definition?? Are there techniques to verify a data set as being accurate? Maybe a comparison of the Step file to the native model? Something a little more quantitative than "it looks good"?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Poorvesh Mistry on -
I feel Mr. Adam OHern could help you. He has place some videos on Youtube (links mentioned below) and have a hands on experience of many CAD systems. Do watch his other videos as well.
Normally majority of aspects of modelling in any 3D software depends on its Kernel (like ACIS, Parasolid . . ), the geometries you view in the GUI, is a lot of calculations being done by it. A simple example, a Circle, we know the formula for Circumference, Area etc, there are 3D curves forming while we design, those are calculations with standard formulae, there are many such details, but not easy to discuss. So the software interprets the input & accordingly gives the output, as it is programmed.
AutoCAD, SpaceClaim are having ACIS kernal & SolidWorks, Pro-E is Parasolid (I hope, I am right), so sharing of data finds issues. A curve in one system is not correctly interpreted by another.
Videos for Curves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VthyC7P9Bx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhszgjaqwMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt-3yWMNiYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMvDKd1rxyY
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Bock on -
Pro/e is built on the granite kernel. CoCreate has been ported to the granite kernel as well.
I haven't checked out the videos yet, but I will. Thanks for providing the links.
If the definition of geometry is controlled by the graphics kernel, then it seems obvious that the solution is that someone needs to develop an open source graphics kernel that everyone can use. Different CAD tools will end up being just different interfaces to the same chunks of geometry.
-
Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on -
In this context (which is a constant issue here, too) I have been approached by people who work for clients or suppliers, asking if we support JT open format.
I have no experience with this format yet, but from what they told me, it is becoming popular in certain industries, as it can seemingly transport crucial information (GD&T, faceted as well as nurbs entities, manufacturing data and so on), yet it is said to be open and flexible. Obviously it's used for documentation and PLM purposes already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT_%28visualization_format%29
Does anyone here have any experience with this?
Regards,
Martin
Advertising
Latest Activity
Here`s some news from SC 2010.
http://develop3d.com/reviews/spaceclaim-2010
Thanks,
d3
Lean Product Development Philosophy in 3D at Online (EDT)
August 11, 2010 from 12pm to 12:30pm
3D CAD data is vital to engineering and manufacturing organizations. Although CAD systems excel at capturing knowledge in 3D and archiving it from production through the end of its lifecycle, many key stakeholders in the design-through-production va…
- Increase Prototype Possibilities on July 22, 2010 from 2pm to 3pm
- Sustainable Minds Trainin on July 27, 2010 from 2pm to 3pm
My first day on spaceclaiming.com where I read and see a lot of things away from SpaceClaim... A bit strange !!!So let me come to my first favorite CAD: Anvil by Dr Patrick J. Hanratty. Father of CAD in the 80's
No video no advertisement. Just respe…
A group for all software developers using the powerful SpaceClaim API that comes with every single copy of the software.
Hi,Anyone know how to scale the main design window?I design small objects and would like to see them at a 1:1 scale. In other words, if the object is 8mm by 6mm, I would like to see it life-size on the screen. I can do it on a drawing sheet but that…
Pipelines 3D: Examples of pipelines design with Pipelines 3D at Online (Russian Daylight Time)
July 21, 2010 from 5pm to 7pm
This webinar will demonstrate the process of creation Pipelines in KOMPAS-3D by Pipelines 3D Add-In and getting BOM information of pipelines with report features.
Meeting Number: 840 940 671
Meeting Password: ApC4v1Jk
-----------------------------…
Badge
© 2010 Created by SpaceClaiming.
