Acad Mechanical DX

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

I have heard a little bit about this Autocad Mechanical DX. What exactly is
it? Where Can I get it?

Any insight please

Thank You.

Mark Smith
SPX Air Gage Co.

[MattH]

Check Out

http://d3technical.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=544

Regards

Matt Hutchinson

[Anonymous]

So do I get this from the subscription site, my
VAR, when 8 ships.......

How do I get it?

Mark Smith

SPX Air Gage Co.

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"MattH" <
href="mailto:matt@pennine-group.co.uk">matt@pennine-group.co.uk> wrote
in message
href="news:f19c040.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f19c040.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Check
Out

href="http://d3technical.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=544">http://d3technical.com/forum/phpBB...
Regards
Matt
Hutchinson

[MattH]

I "think" so.

Regards

MattH

[Anonymous]

Be aware that I believe on this release it will only do ipt files. It
doesn't support IAM files yet.

--
Kent Keller
http://www.MyMcad.com/KWiK/Mcad.htm

Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program

"Mark Smith" wrote in message
news:480C15E938A3D4941C85EDFEEE351D10@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> So do I get this from the subscription site, my VAR, when 8
ships.......
>
> How do I get it?
>
> Mark Smith
> SPX Air Gage Co.
> "MattH" wrote in message
news:f19c040.0@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Check Out
> http://d3technical.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=544
> Regards
> Matt Hutchinson

[Anonymous]

Kent,

Since I am not really fluent in IV yet my terminology may be incorrect. But
I had heard if you DEMOTE an assembly of parts it may actually work some how
? Just not sure how.

[Anonymous]

I think you mean DERIVE.
Mike

"cadsysmgr(Tim Miley)" wrote in message
news:4B2D2C62972066E1B1727714CCEC0C5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Kent,
>
> Since I am not really fluent in IV yet my terminology may be incorrect.
But
> I had heard if you DEMOTE an assembly of parts it may actually work some
how
> ? Just not sure how.
>
>

[Anonymous]

Hi Tim

You may be right and they may have done some more stuff beyond what I saw, but basically
demoting in Inventor is simply putting a group of parts into a subassembly which is of
course nothing but a assembly itself.

--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"cadsysmgr(Tim Miley)" wrote in message
news:4B2D2C62972066E1B1727714CCEC0C5E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Kent,
>
> Since I am not really fluent in IV yet my terminology may be incorrect. But
> I had heard if you DEMOTE an assembly of parts it may actually work some how
> ? Just not sure how.
>
>

[Anonymous]

Well DEMOTE is probably not correct and as Mike posted DERIVE would make the
parts all one. So I don't think either is probably correct. Guess we will
just have to wait and see what the powers to be to decide.

I wil have to start yelling about if IPT's can be used in MDT/Mechanica DX
then HEY, give me assemblies also.
BUT if I can bring in more than one IPT in maybe I can build the Assembly in
DX. Hummmmmmm????

[Anonymous]

The question I have is: Does the IV part actually get directly
referenced into the Mechanical DX file, or does it create a 'proxy',
(that get's updated)like when you reference MDt parts into IV?

Aaron

cadsysmgr(Tim Miley) wrote:

> Well DEMOTE is probably not correct and as Mike posted DERIVE would make the
> parts all one. So I don't think either is probably correct. Guess we will
> just have to wait and see what the powers to be to decide.
>
> I wil have to start yelling about if IPT's can be used in MDT/Mechanica DX
> then HEY, give me assemblies also.
> BUT if I can bring in more than one IPT in maybe I can build the Assembly in
> DX. Hummmmmmm????
>
>
>


--
Aaron R. Friedman
ARF Designs

[Anonymous]

I was at a seminar with AutoDesk reps today and the word is it is Linked to
the MDTdx/Mechanical environment. You can then make you drawings using it.

If the model is changed in IV then the link in MDTDX and MECHDX is also
updated. So it is a live link. Not a Proxy.

The same type of live link you can now have with IV7 and MDT Parts.

[Anonymous]

If you tell it to keep the seams, when you derive, the MDT DX view should
show them too.
I agree, we should be able to bring in IAM's too.
My classic example is a, panel with PEM's pressed in. In my world, it's one
part. In Inventor's world, it's an assembly, which also excludes it from
auto centerlines.

Mike


"cadsysmgr(Tim Miley)" wrote in message
news:5153D8D3C25111FDDD67064A9B8770FE@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Well DEMOTE is probably not correct and as Mike posted DERIVE would make
the
> parts all one. So I don't think either is probably correct. Guess we will
> just have to wait and see what the powers to be to decide.
>
> I wil have to start yelling about if IPT's can be used in MDT/Mechanica DX
> then HEY, give me assemblies also.
> BUT if I can bring in more than one IPT in maybe I can build the Assembly
in
> DX. Hummmmmmm????
>
>

[Anonymous]

But the link between IV and MDT parts is shaky at best. As soon as you
change the MDT part inventor looses all constraints to the proxy ipt part
and you have to reconstrain. The change could be just changing the
placement of a dimension on the drawing. I hope it is more robust.

Kathy Johnson

[Anonymous]

Just another comment and a + one at that. IF this works, if I can also bring
more than one part into MDTDX/MECHDX to make an Assembly. IF AutoDesk irons
out any kinks this cases and keeps developing the functionality, I
personally think this will be a significant step in a success story.

Users concerned about having to Migrate their MDT database to IV now don't
have to. Also now IF a user wants to move to IV they can knowing that a part
from IV can also be used in their historical DATABASE in MDT.

If users have hesitated moving to IV not because they don't like the
modeling but hate the documentation portion of it all they can now Model
happily in IV and document in MDT/MECH. They can now give the part of the
world wanting a DWG a GOOD and USABLE DWG.

I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV user
community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many users
in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's improvements.

I also think users may now take that step to IV they were now willing to,
even if it is only to the modeling portion.
AutoDesk just had to realize MDT was not going to die just because IV came
along and they followed suit trying to make both sides happy.

Okay, enough of the soap box antics and my 15 minutes of glory and $0.02
tossing in.

[Anonymous]

>I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV user
>community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many users
>in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's improvements.

IMO it's a crutch. Instead of addressing the issues in the IDW (or at least
adding support for the API so we could address them ourselves) they have
provided a way for people to detail in AutoCAD. IMHO (gonna get flamed for
this I'm sure) it's a step backwards. If some portions of the IDW interface
worked the way they should there would be no need for this.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"cadsysmgr(Tim Miley)" wrote in message
news:5D5B29712DDD03D847B97C012EDDAA93@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Just another comment and a + one at that. IF this works, if I can also
bring
> more than one part into MDTDX/MECHDX to make an Assembly. IF AutoDesk
irons
> out any kinks this cases and keeps developing the functionality, I
> personally think this will be a significant step in a success story.
>
> Users concerned about having to Migrate their MDT database to IV now don't
> have to. Also now IF a user wants to move to IV they can knowing that a
part
> from IV can also be used in their historical DATABASE in MDT.
>
> If users have hesitated moving to IV not because they don't like the
> modeling but hate the documentation portion of it all they can now Model
> happily in IV and document in MDT/MECH. They can now give the part of the
> world wanting a DWG a GOOD and USABLE DWG.
>
> I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV user
> community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many users
> in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's improvements.
>
> I also think users may now take that step to IV they were now willing to,
> even if it is only to the modeling portion.
> AutoDesk just had to realize MDT was not going to die just because IV came
> along and they followed suit trying to make both sides happy.
>
> Okay, enough of the soap box antics and my 15 minutes of glory and $0.02
> tossing in.
>
>

[Anonymous]

From what I heard (maybe I misunderstood), it was meant for the person who
didn't have Inventor, could detail the .ipt in DX. Since Inventor, MDT, &
Acad are all bundled together, why would anyone do it that way.

Personally, I won't be using it that way. Until I have time to automate in
Inv., and the rest of the dept. gets faster computers for running Inv., we
still do rack layouts in 2D Acad & this will give me a quicker method of
getting 2D views into Acad.

Mike


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:A849D41B533C31D818A86035FB022A69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV user
> >community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many
users
> >in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's improvements.
>
> IMO it's a crutch. Instead of addressing the issues in the IDW (or at
least
> adding support for the API so we could address them ourselves) they have
> provided a way for people to detail in AutoCAD. IMHO (gonna get flamed
for
> this I'm sure) it's a step backwards. If some portions of the IDW
interface
> worked the way they should there would be no need for this.
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> www.sdotson.com/faq.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous]

I look at it more like Tim does.

Those of us that have gotten used to Inventor and don't have to deal with companies that
only use Acad probably won't find it that exciting, but for people trying to make the
switch especially if they have to deal with other Acad only customers it will be a great
tool.

I do think for it to be really accepted that it will have to do IAM's and to a lesser
extent IPN files. It is unfortunate that it wasn't done for this release.


--
Kent
Assistant Moderator
Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
>
> IMO it's a crutch.

[Anonymous]

I agree it sounds like a crutch, and is a big step backwards, they should
just fix the idw. But since I haven't been able to find any real info about
DX on AutoDesk's web site yet. I think most of us don't have the whole
story and those that have used it may still be under disclosure rules yet.
We will have a better idea next week, what we really have and how bad or
good it is. Please tell me where it is if i missed it.
msk

[Anonymous]

Here's a reason why someone would want to do it this way:
We have four manufacturing plants in 2 countries. We are the only plant
using only Inventor (some are just playing with it). While I can send a pdf
to any of them for the shop floor to ignore, the CNC geometry HAS to be dwg.
Have you ever tried to export 120 dwg's with title block & all annotations?
(and that's only 1 of 20 assemblies) We have been using Inventor since v5.0
& only use AutoCAD when forced to, but to this day I still say ANYTHING 2d
can be done 4 times faster in AutoCAD.
Just my $2.00 worth

--
Dave Hoder
Product Design Engineer
idX Seattle
www.idxcorporation.com
"Mike Maenpaa" wrote in
message news:EAEAB5133C9B33579534862A56C2ACBD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> From what I heard (maybe I misunderstood), it was meant for the person who
> didn't have Inventor, could detail the .ipt in DX. Since Inventor, MDT, &
> Acad are all bundled together, why would anyone do it that way.

[Anonymous]

I think it's not a step backwards but an improvement on the export to DWG.
The IDW has been improved in Inventor 8, I don't think DX will replace the
IDW and for people who need to manipulate their data in DWG a linked part is
better than an exported one.

Jerry

"Sean Dotson" schreef in bericht
news:A849D41B533C31D818A86035FB022A69@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV user
> >community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many
users
> >in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's improvements.
>
> IMO it's a crutch. Instead of addressing the issues in the IDW (or at
least
> adding support for the API so we could address them ourselves) they have
> provided a way for people to detail in AutoCAD. IMHO (gonna get flamed
for
> this I'm sure) it's a step backwards. If some portions of the IDW
interface
> worked the way they should there would be no need for this.
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> www.sdotson.com/faq.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "cadsysmgr(Tim Miley)" wrote in message
> news:5D5B29712DDD03D847B97C012EDDAA93@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Just another comment and a + one at that. IF this works, if I can also
> bring
> > more than one part into MDTDX/MECHDX to make an Assembly. IF AutoDesk
> irons
> > out any kinks this cases and keeps developing the functionality, I
> > personally think this will be a significant step in a success story.
> >
> > Users concerned about having to Migrate their MDT database to IV now
don't
> > have to. Also now IF a user wants to move to IV they can knowing that a
> part
> > from IV can also be used in their historical DATABASE in MDT.
> >
> > If users have hesitated moving to IV not because they don't like the
> > modeling but hate the documentation portion of it all they can now Model
> > happily in IV and document in MDT/MECH. They can now give the part of
the
> > world wanting a DWG a GOOD and USABLE DWG.
> >
> > I know this will probably not be thought well of by the hard core IV
user
> > community but I see this as a major move to address issues from many
users
> > in these News groups regarding the IDW environment and it's
improvements.
> >
> > I also think users may now take that step to IV they were now willing
to,
> > even if it is only to the modeling portion.
> > AutoDesk just had to realize MDT was not going to die just because IV
came
> > along and they followed suit trying to make both sides happy.
> >
> > Okay, enough of the soap box antics and my 15 minutes of glory and $0.02
> > tossing in.
> >
> >
>
>