Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

DAcc Worm Gear Nomenclature

14 REPLIES 14
Reply
Message 1 of 15
WalkerRA
620 Views, 14 Replies

DAcc Worm Gear Nomenclature

First of all, thanks for the Design Acc package, it looks like a nice addition to AIS.

I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future?

Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" to the point that they are not really suitable for presentation. I realize that it is a mighty task to generate a realistic Worm Gear, because of the complexity of the tooth form. However, the DAcc Worm Gears have straight sided teeth. The first thought that occurs to an engineer viewing the meshed Worm and Worm Gear is that "something looks really wrong". Any improvement here would be appreciated.

-Russ
14 REPLIES 14
Message 2 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

Hi There is a wish list Internet address that maybe you should put this at. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=1073397 But maybe you get better response from AutoDesk here. "Russ Walker" wrote in message news:2626706.1100114563010.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum1.autodesk.com... > First of all, thanks for the Design Acc package, it looks like a nice > addition to AIS. > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am a bit > disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. Why not AGMA? Maybe > in the future? > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" to the point that > they are not really suitable for presentation. I realize that it is a > mighty task to generate a realistic Worm Gear, because of the complexity > of the tooth form. However, the DAcc Worm Gears have straight sided > teeth. The first thought that occurs to an engineer viewing the meshed > Worm and Worm Gear is that "something looks really wrong". Any > improvement here would be appreciated. > > -Russ
Message 3 of 15
WalkerRA
in reply to: WalkerRA

Done.

-Russ
Message 4 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

The Design Accelerator was developed in Europe, so the terminology they use reflects that. We will be improving the UI so the terminology is correct. Currently, DA is producing simplified models. At one time, this was seen as a good thing, because accurate geometry was too compute intensive. As hardware has improved, this is less of an issue. Personally, I think we should offer a choice of simple or accurate geometry. Loren Jahraus Inventor Functional Design QA Tech Lead
Message 5 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

> I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? Hi Russ, The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more as a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would use to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between performance and functionality. Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. Your continued feedback is important to us! -- Autodesk, Inc 7995 SW Mohawk Tualatin, OR 97062 503-692-8339 gary.r.smith@autodesk.com
Message 6 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

Don`t forget we who lives and work in Europe, I don´t like when Autodesk ask what we want to be changed, it must be what we want to be added....... "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message news:41929ecf$1_3@newsprd01... > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? > > Hi Russ, > > The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an > American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving > considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > > > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" > > Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more as > a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would use > to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between > performance and functionality. > > Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the > world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus > our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. > > Your continued feedback is important to us! > > -- > Autodesk, Inc > 7995 SW Mohawk > Tualatin, OR 97062 > > 503-692-8339 > > gary.r.smith@autodesk.com > >
Message 7 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

Agreed! "Lars Grundberg" wrote in message news:41931760_3@newsprd01... > Don`t forget we who lives and work in Europe, I don´t like when Autodesk ask > what we want to be changed, it must be what we want to be added....... > > "Gary R. Smith (Autodesk)" wrote in message > news:41929ecf$1_3@newsprd01... > > > I have been working in the Worm Gear section lately and am > > > a bit disappointed that all the nomeclature is non-AGMA. > > > Why not AGMA? Maybe in the future? > > > > Hi Russ, > > > > The team that developed the DAcc is European hence one reason why an > > American manufacturing association may not have been one of their driving > > considerations. What specifically would you suggest be changed? > > > > > > > Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" > > > > Agreed that the part files that are generated in several cases serve more > as > > a calculation "placeholder" than as a high fidelity model that you would > use > > to send to a CNC machine. The intent was to strike a balance between > > performance and functionality. > > > > Our intent was to get the MechSoft capabilities into the hands of the > > world-wide customer base and listen to feedback on where we need to focus > > our longer-term efforts at refining what is there. > > > > Your continued feedback is important to us! > > > > -- > > Autodesk, Inc > > 7995 SW Mohawk > > Tualatin, OR 97062 > > > > 503-692-8339 > > > > gary.r.smith@autodesk.com > > > > > >
Message 8 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

Perhaps memory is failing me but I thought at one time, there was a choice for simplified or realisitc models from DAP (when it was Mechsoft). Loren Jahraus (Autodesk) wrote: >The Design Accelerator was developed in Europe, so the terminology they use >reflects that. We will be improving the UI so the terminology is correct. > >Currently, DA is producing simplified models. At one time, this was seen as >a good thing, because accurate geometry was too compute intensive. As >hardware has improved, this is less of an issue. Personally, I think we >should offer a choice of simple or accurate geometry. > >Loren Jahraus >Inventor Functional Design QA Tech Lead > > > >
Message 9 of 15
WalkerRA
in reply to: WalkerRA

Not sure if a change is required, but examples of differences follow:

Center Distance C vs. a
Worm Threads Nw vs Worm Teeth z
Lead angle (lambda) vs Helix angle (gamma)
Worm pitch dia d vs d1
and so on...

It is not a show stopper, but it certainly requires additional translating in the mind of the engineer not accustomed to the European standards.
Message 10 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

One area that we know can be improved is providing better descriptions of the variables and the supplied formulas. My rhetorical question about "change" was not meant to imply that we would eliminate the European aspects of this new functionality - an "addition" is a change too! Here is a case where widely accepted international standards would simplify things and as we get more feedback on what has been used the most, the least, what is liked, what could be better, etc... in the Design Accelerator, we will have a better idea how to set our agenda for the coming release cycles.
Message 11 of 15
Anonymous
in reply to: WalkerRA

Thanks for that Gary, I'll be sure to pass you any feedback that I recieve! John Bilton
Message 12 of 15
miluse.latalova
in reply to: WalkerRA

Design Accelerator still provides 2 types of models but all of them are simplified. The first one has simplified the tooth profile and the second one is just a simple shape representation that we call 2D.

-----------
Message 13 of 15
miluse.latalova
in reply to: WalkerRA

Thank all of you for your points.

> Also the Worm Gear models (ipt) produced are "weak" to
> the point that they are not really suitable for presentation.
> The first thought that occurs to an engineer viewing the meshed Worm and Worm Gear is that "something looks really wrong.

Are you looking for an exact tooth profile or just visual effect like approximate curve would help?

miluse.latalova@autodesk.com
Message 14 of 15
WalkerRA
in reply to: WalkerRA

A better approximation is what I was referring to. If you take a look at the attached sample, you will see relatively large regions of interference.

I've used single arc approximations for involute gearing and splines for many years. It is amazing how little variation there is between a simple arc and an involute profile. I was thinking that utilizing arcs for generation of the worm gear profile would provide similar results - "a lot of bang for the buck"

Thanks,

-Russ
Message 15 of 15
miluse.latalova
in reply to: WalkerRA

Russ,

I see now what you are talking about.

Thank you,

Mila

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report