PTC advert in UK - 10 ways solidworks Slows you down - PTC BS or not ?

They will probably just call your CEO and tell him that the incompetent
employees he's hired can't plainly see that Pro/E is God's gift to CAD
systems, and he should buy several seats immediately before his company goes
down the tubes

Ken

 

There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!

Ken

 

How about Pro/E's more accurate modeler. Pro/E by default uses a variable
sliding tolerance on their models to get them to work. If you force some of
their models to a fixed tolerance anywhere as tight as Parasolid, their
models will fail.

Ken

 

The flip side of this is that most mainstream CAM software employs the
Parasolid kernel so there is no translation!

Ken

 

You know; I just hate advertising. You can't take any of it at face value.
Same goes for news groups. Great place to find out how to format a BOM,
but beyond that ....? Lots of stuff thrown out in "statement of fact" form
but the truth is most of us usually don't have a clue what we're talking
about. Really hard to seperate the wheat from the chaff, anyway.

I think the relative tolerance scheme is intended to shorten feature
generation / re-generation times; to not impose a needlessly tight
tolerance. I'm pretty certain that "to get them to work" is not why it's
used and can only say that I've had more feature failures when using it
than I have when setting a reasonable absolute tolerance; 1 E-3 to 1 E-4
inch, in support of that. Btw, this has no influence on primitives which
are always done to double precision floating point values if I understand
what I've seen; e.g. a 0.123456 hole is always that regardless of accuracy
settings.

I disagree with what you are implying or, at least, wonder if the
differences come to a hill of beans. Could you explain? I might learn
something. I really don't know anything about the Parasolid kernel, but
feel pretty certain that most of the "common knowledge" about ACIS is BS.
"If you force some..."; well, duhhh. Can the same be said in the reverse?
Does it have more to do with exception handling (as in "tolerant modeling")
than accuracy of the created geometry?

At any rate, if someone can point me toward some documentation I'd
appreciate it. What, for instance is Parasolid's default tolerance, 1 E-8
meter? Is that value used for polynomial / NURBS intersections or just
primitive / analytic intersections?

 

.... Problem is, I don't have anywhere to upload it

Mladen,
If you don't mind going to the trouble would you email me a pre and post
fillet STEP (alternatively you could probably post it to one of the
multi-system sites; mcadcentral, mcadforums ...? where others can get at
it)? I'd like to give it a whirl on WF (learning experience) and can let
you know how it goes if you're interested.

 

More than half of our mold makers still ask us for IGES.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

I would love to see this. In fact, I would also like to see the files that
the competition generated. Did you get copies in STEP or some other format?
Follow the instructions below my name to clean up my email address for
sending the files(s).

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

Hi gents.

I'll send the SW and STEP (before and after) file - on NZ time Monday.
For WF and Ideas, I asked/guided demo jokeys during presentations to do
the part while I was watching, so I can't send you these as I don't
have it.
For Catia, I did it myself with r5v10 - but friend of mine confirmed no
change with the newest one (I guess v5r14).

Cheers,
Mladen

 

A while ago, I made one very telling filleting test that shows

Standing corrected - pleased to say.
While I'm sure 2002i and early WF couldn't (even this could be tested
if someone still has these installed), WF 2.0 will do this test easily.
Thanks Jeff and Paul.

Cheers,
Mladen