iv vs desktop

[Anonymous]

I need opinions early this morning. What can you do in MDT that can't be
done with IV. I'm talking about mainly plastic parts with ocassional complex
curved surfaces

--
Kevin Wehner
724.941.9704-3019
SKC Inc.
863 Valley View Road
Eighty-Four, PA 15330

[Anonymous]

Awh ... you've done it now ... the vultures are
circling. <G>

~Larry

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

"rllthomas" <
href="mailto:rllthomas@attbi.com">rllthomas@attbi.com> wrote in message

href="news:f158bd5.14@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f158bd5.14@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Oh
I agree, I would rather all the Inventor development went into the core
package. If Autodesk finds that they have more trouble getting new accounts
because SW has FEA and they don't however, it will be necessary to address the
issue.

I wonder if anyone has ever been sued because their FEA package
was misused and somebody got hurt.... seems like less of a stretch than the
hot coffee in the lap or food making you
fat.

Rich

[Anonymous]

MDT has better tools for 3D sweep paths
MDT can actually show surfaces in a drawing view
MDT has better 3D wireframe tools.

[Anonymous]

Not quite pertaining to the original question but might need to be said...



MDT is beefed up AutoCAD (or AutoCAD Mechanical). Inventor is...well...Inventor is NOT AutoCAD. B-)



MechMan

[Anonymous]

Wireframe ... blaah! ... If I ever work in wireframe again it will surely be
without fingernails.
How do you machine a surface anyway? Cut it down to nothing, maybe?
What do you think is better about MDT sweep paths? I haven't found any
problem with 3D Intersect; seems to work fine for me so far.
~Larry

"Joe Bartels" wrote in message
news:166FCE16B0B371DBC206AE2022D5F0F5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> MDT has better tools for 3D sweep paths
> MDT can actually show surfaces in a drawing view
> MDT has better 3D wireframe tools.
>
>

[Anonymous]

>How do you machine a surface anyway?

You apply tool paths to one side of it with something like hyperMill.

John Bilton

[Anonymous]

"How do you machine a surface anyway?"

Often we are required to show the customer supplied (surface) part in the
assembly drawing so they can visualize the orientation.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer

[Anonymous]

Ah ... I see ... I usually thicken a little and tag them reference parts for
that scenario.
~Larry

"Dave J" wrote in message
news:F993BD9BBEA96B2671BCC0FF36681B4B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> "How do you machine a surface anyway?"
>
> Often we are required to show the customer supplied (surface) part in the
> assembly drawing so they can visualize the orientation.
>
> --
> Dave Jacquemotte
> Automation Designer
>
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

Often thickening a customers part is not possible using Inventor. The surfaces
are not stitching properly and such. Too much hassle to get the customer to make
it right. I'm NOT an ex-MDT user, so I don't know much about the
surfacing tools there, and what help I have gotten here has been vague at best
(in this area only)

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer

[Anonymous]

Maybe nobody really wants to dredge up old MDT memories! MDT did have
pretty good surfacing tools I guess, but I like the way Inventor is heading
much better. For me I didn't use the surfacing tools in MDT enough that I
didn't have to relearn something almost every time. I use surfaces in
Inventor all the time because they are easy to use and helpful. Stitching
and healing imported surfaces can be a real pain, I know.
~Larry

"Dave J" wrote in message
news:AB2925D5D1E619854EC6671B6143900B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Often thickening a customers part is not possible using Inventor. The
surfaces
> are not stitching properly and such. Too much hassle to get the customer
to make
> it right. I'm NOT an ex-MDT user, so I don't know much about the
> surfacing tools there, and what help I have gotten here has been vague at
best
> (in this area only)
>
> --
> Dave Jacquemotte
> Automation Designer
>
>
>
>

[Anonymous]

Here is the note placed at the end of COSMOSXpress analyses done with
Solidworks 2003 (also, only individual parts can be analyzed):


Note:
COSMOSXpress design analysis results are based on linear static analysis and
the material is assumed isotropic. Linear static analysis assumes that: 1)
the material behavior is linear complying with Hooke's law, 2) induced
displacements are adequately small to ignore changes in stiffness due to
loading, and 3) loads are applied slowly in order to ignore dynamic effects.

Do not base your design decisions solely on the data presented in this
report. Use this information in conjunction with experimental data and
practical experience. Field testing is mandatory to validate your final
design. COSMOSXpress helps you reduce your time-to-market by reducing but
not eliminating field tests.

-Steve


"rllthomas" wrote in message
news:f158bd5.14@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Oh I agree, I would rather all the Inventor development went into the core
package. If Autodesk finds that they have more trouble getting new accounts
because SW has FEA and they don't however, it will be necessary to address
the issue.
>
> I wonder if anyone has ever been sued because their FEA package was
misused and somebody got hurt.... seems like less of a stretch than the hot
coffee in the lap or food making you fat.
>
> Rich