Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Odd STEP Problem

52 REPLIES 52
Back to Inventor Category
Back to Topic Listing
Reply
Message 1 of 53
Anonymous
463 Views, 52 Replies
‎02-04-2003 06:00 AM
‎02-04-2003 06:00 AM

Odd STEP Problem

Here's a new one to me... I have an entire
machine assembly in STEP format. When I bring it into IV it comes in as one IPT.
When I bring it into MDT it comes in as an assembly of parts... bizzare. So once
it's in MDT I decide to make a new STEP (always had success STEPing between MDT
and IV), IV still brings this in as one solid base part. Also tried saving the
assembly as an MDT DWG file, then importing the MDT into IV, that
failed.

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

Andrew

IV6 SP2 • MDT6 SP4 • WINXP PRO
SP1
Report
0 Likes
Reply
52 REPLIES 52
Message 41 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-09-2003 02:47 PM
‎02-09-2003 02:47 PM

Sean,
There is good reason to use multiple solids in one file for assembling
purpose, and there is even better reason to use this for being able to push
the modeling capabilities a huge step further.
Personally, I don't have much use for the later, but have done it before in
MDT when it's modeling capabilities were too weak to model my simple work in
one solid, so I did it in multiple solids and joined them later on.
Suppose we surfed a bit off topic...
Maybe you have a visit on the SW NG to look what they are speaking about,
they see it as revolutionary as skeletal modeling!

Regards,
--
Leo Laimer
Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 42 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-09-2003 08:05 PM
‎02-09-2003 08:05 PM

Yes I have been snooping a bit. To be honest I find it a bit humorous.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Leo Laimer" wrote in message
news:AA8C814BE9193C71167611FAF771CFA8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Sean,
> There is good reason to use multiple solids in one file for assembling
> purpose, and there is even better reason to use this for being able to
push
> the modeling capabilities a huge step further.
> Personally, I don't have much use for the later, but have done it before
in
> MDT when it's modeling capabilities were too weak to model my simple work
in
> one solid, so I did it in multiple solids and joined them later on.
> Suppose we surfed a bit off topic...
> Maybe you have a visit on the SW NG to look what they are speaking about,
> they see it as revolutionary as skeletal modeling!
>
> Regards,
> --
> Leo Laimer
> Maschinen- und Fertigungstechnik
> A-4820 Bad Ischl - Austria
>
>
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 43 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-09-2003 08:48 PM
‎02-09-2003 08:48 PM

Thanks for the responses Wayne, Loren. I
will have to take the time to sit with one of our Catia guys to review the
options they have in their STEP translator (I'll let you know what I find once I
get the chance to experiment a little). I do realize the difference in age
between CATIA 4 and IV6, and that things are not always going to work the way
you expect. The MDT problem, which I think Jeff pinpointed to regular 3D
solids, really needs to be fixed.


size=2> 

Regardless, I'm glad I'm not the one that has to
develop this stuff 😉

 

Thanks again for the
clarifications,

Andrew
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 44 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-10-2003 12:26 AM
‎02-10-2003 12:26 AM

I think there is a "possibility" you may change your mind in the future on this one. 8^)

--
Kent
Member of the Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program


"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:E17FE1A63A50AE4555532429BD131F73@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Sure but when all is said and done this becomes one solid body. I guess I
> was agreeing with your statement as to why or when people would use two
> disjoint solids in one file as two parts? According to Leo this is done but
> IMO it's bad practice and I certainly would not allow it wherever I was
> responsible for engineering/CAD departments.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 45 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-10-2003 03:10 AM
‎02-10-2003 03:10 AM

This thread has grown a bit but I think this is a good spot to jump in with
my opinion.

I am probably not the best person to answer the question of why someone
would want to define a part with disjoint solids. Personally I think it may
serve as a convenient, efficient, and acceptable shortcut in some
situations. Perhaps you may want to treat a rigid assembly as a single part
at some point.

Inventor does support the notion of a part with more than one disjoint
solid. STEP also supports this notion. Inventor and STEP also support the
notion of an assembly of parts. I think the definitions and data structures
are sufficient and if all systems use them correctly then there will be no
ambiguity.

In my opinion any system that writes a STEP file needs to decide what
represents an independent part in their system. Each independent part
should have its own product definition and shape representation in the STEP
file.

To address this issue we need to understand how the CAD world is using (or
misusing) the STEP format. Clearly supporting real life workflow is more
important than sticking to the technically correct specification. So once
again any insight into Catia, UG or other systems would be appreciated.
This issue may stem from a problem on the Catia or UG side.

- Wayne



"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:0AE57F48B888E83265FCA1A2DF10D218@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I wholeheartedly agree. I usually adhere to my simplistic view of
physical
> reality when modeling and think of a part just as I think of a solid; a
set of
> surfaces that define a volume and consider it to be a shortcut to model,
for
> instance, a weldment without modeling the component parts that someone has
to
> fabricate to create it. I use the shortcut frequently where the extra
> definition isn't necessary, but it's still a shortcut. Just my way of
> thinking.
>
> I'm not arguing the point so much as trying to fathom the rational behind
the
> translator's current behavior.
>
> Y'all have a great one.
>
> ============================
>
> "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> news:E17FE1A63A50AE4555532429BD131F73@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Sure but when all is said and done this becomes one solid body. I guess I
> was agreeing with your statement as to why or when people would use two
> disjoint solids in one file as two parts? According to Leo this is done
but
> IMO it's bad practice and I certainly would not allow it wherever I was
> responsible for engineering/CAD departments.
>
> However offering additional features has never been a bad thing.
>
> And Leo of course I was kidding...Just because I don't use something I'm
not
> arrogant enough to assume no one else will (almost but not quite)
>
> --
> Sean Dotson, PE
> http://www.sdotson.com
> Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> www.sdotson.com/faq.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 46 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-10-2003 08:18 AM
‎02-10-2003 08:18 AM

Thanks a million for the feedback, Wayne, and good luck with it.

================================

"Wayne Catalfano" wrote in message
news:9D14C4103E8E08E35465E76389BB6B7B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
This thread has grown a bit but I think this is a good spot to jump in with
my opinion.
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 47 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 12:27 AM
‎02-12-2003 12:27 AM

I received feedback from UG and Catia. I am told that both of those systems
will create assemblies of parts in the STEP file the way Inventor 6 expects.
In these cases it seems that these models with multiple solids were most
likely created as single parts in both UG and Catia.

Can anyone dispute this? Were these actually assemblies in the systems that
created the STEP files?

Thanks,
Wayne
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 48 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 03:39 AM
‎02-12-2003 03:39 AM

Wayne,

 

I'm going to post a STEP file for you in CF under this thread title.
This is the file that was directly exported by Catia V4. Bring it into IV6 and
you get a 2 part assembly, the large part is one body. Bring it into MDT6 and
you get a file with a part and a subassembly, the subassembly contains a handful
of separate parts (like Catia intended).

 

Also, the MDT problem using regular 3D solids still exists as well.

 

Thanks,

Andrew
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 49 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 04:34 AM
‎02-12-2003 04:34 AM

Andrew,

Thanks for the posting. 

 

I found only 2 "PRODUCTS" in this STEP file. 
According to my contact at Dassault this indicates that it was modeled
in Catia as 2 parts, not as assemblies.   Please let me know if
you can dispute this.  Can you go back to the source and confirm that these
are indeed assemblies in Catia?

 

Regarding MDT and older versions of Inventor. 
Those systems were decomposing these parts into assemblies.  Clearly that's
what you would like in this case, however, that behavior did not conform to the
STEP specification.   At this time it appears that Inventor is
importing the data as Catia intended.

 

Thanks for raising this issue and for
your feedback.

 

Wayne


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

Wayne,

 

I'm going to post a STEP file for you in CF under this thread title.
This is the file that was directly exported by Catia V4. Bring it into IV6 and
you get a 2 part assembly, the large part is one body. Bring it into MDT6 and
you get a file with a part and a subassembly, the subassembly contains a
handful of separate parts (like Catia intended).

 

Also, the MDT problem using regular 3D solids still exists as well.

 

Thanks,

Andrew
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 50 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 08:13 PM
‎02-12-2003 08:13 PM

Wayne,

 

These were assemblies according to the Catia
operator. I remember because he genereated four different files, trying
different settings on export for me to see all the parts
individually. Eventually I imported into MDT and they all worked
there.

 

Mind you, I have recieved Catia data since then
that has imported correctly into IV6. This may have been isolated to
the handful off assemblies I experienced this with last week.

 

Thanks for your help with this issue. What about
the MDT issue with regular 3D solids combining when going to IV6 through STEP?
Is that something that will eventually get repaired or is that not supposed to
work since they are not intelligent MDT parts?

 

Thanks,

Andrew

 


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

Andrew,

Thanks for the posting. 

 

I found only 2 "PRODUCTS" in this STEP
file.  According to my contact at Dassault this indicates that
it was modeled in Catia as 2 parts, not as
assemblies.   Please let me know if you can dispute this. 
Can you go back to the source and confirm that these are indeed assemblies in
Catia?

 

Regarding MDT and older versions of
Inventor.  Those systems were decomposing these parts into
assemblies.  Clearly that's what you would like in this case, however,
that behavior did not conform to the STEP specification.   At this
time it appears that Inventor is importing the data as Catia
intended.

 

Thanks for raising this issue and for
your feedback.

 

Wayne


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

Wayne,

 

I'm going to post a STEP file for you in CF under this thread
title. This is the file that was directly exported by Catia V4. Bring it
into IV6 and you get a 2 part assembly, the large part is one body. Bring it
into MDT6 and you get a file with a part and a subassembly, the subassembly
contains a handful of separate parts (like Catia intended).

 

Also, the MDT problem using regular 3D solids still exists as
well.

 

Thanks,

Andrew
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 51 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 09:58 PM
‎02-12-2003 09:58 PM

Andrew,

It's good to know that Catia assemblies often
import as expected.  This feedback combined with the feedback from Dassault
leads me to believe that the Catia operator is actually creating the
assembly as a single part or doing something to export it as a single
part.

 

Regarding MDT.  I was not involved with
the MDT STEP translator and I can't comment on why it was designed to create a
single part from the ACAD 3D Solids.  The issue has been raised with the
MDT team and they will consider how to address it.

 

- Wayne 


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

Wayne,

 

These were assemblies according to the Catia
operator. I remember because he genereated four different files, trying
different settings on export for me to see all the parts
individually. Eventually I imported into MDT and they all worked
there.

 

Mind you, I have recieved Catia data since then
that has imported correctly into IV6. This may have been isolated to
the handful off assemblies I experienced this with last week.

 

Thanks for your help with this issue. What
about the MDT issue with regular 3D solids combining when going to IV6 through
STEP? Is that something that will eventually get repaired or is that not
supposed to work since they are not intelligent MDT parts?

 

Thanks,

Andrew

 
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 52 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-12-2003 10:27 PM
‎02-12-2003 10:27 PM

I just got some feedback from the MDT team. 
You can create blocks in ACAD to identify your parts.  The MDT STEP export
treats blocks and block references as individual parts.  Entities that are
not in a block are placed together in a part. 

 

- Wayne

 

 



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

It's good to know that Catia assemblies often
import as expected.  This feedback combined with the feedback from
Dassault leads me to believe that the Catia operator is actually
creating the assembly as a single part or doing something to export
it as a single part.

 

Regarding MDT.  I was not involved with
the MDT STEP translator and I can't comment on why it was designed to create a
single part from the ACAD 3D Solids.  The issue has been raised with the
MDT team and they will consider how to address it.

 

- Wayne 


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

Wayne,

 

These were assemblies according to the Catia
operator. I remember because he genereated four different files, trying
different settings on export for me to see all the parts
individually. Eventually I imported into MDT and they all worked
there.

 

Mind you, I have recieved Catia data since
then that has imported correctly into IV6. This may have been
isolated to the handful off assemblies I experienced this with last
week.

 

Thanks for your help with this issue. What
about the MDT issue with regular 3D solids combining when going to IV6
through STEP? Is that something that will eventually get repaired or is that
not supposed to work since they are not intelligent MDT parts?

 

Thanks,

Andrew


size=2> 
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Message 53 of 53
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous
‎02-13-2003 01:32 AM
‎02-13-2003 01:32 AM

Thanks again, Wayne,  for your support on
this.

 

Andrew


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

I just got some feedback from the MDT team. 
You can create blocks in ACAD to identify your parts.  The MDT STEP
export treats blocks and block references as individual parts.  Entities
that are not in a block are placed together in a part. 

 

- Wayne

 

 



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

It's good to know that Catia assemblies often
import as expected.  This feedback combined with the feedback from
Dassault leads me to believe that the Catia operator is actually
creating the assembly as a single part or doing something to
export it as a single part.

 

Regarding MDT.  I was not involved
with the MDT STEP translator and I can't comment on why it was designed to
create a single part from the ACAD 3D Solids.  The issue has been
raised with the MDT team and they will consider how to address
it.

 

- Wayne 


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

Wayne,

 

These were assemblies according to the
Catia operator. I remember because he genereated four different
files, trying different settings on export for me to see
all the parts individually. Eventually I imported into MDT and they all
worked there.

 

Mind you, I have recieved Catia data since
then that has imported correctly into IV6. This may have been
isolated to the handful off assemblies I experienced this with last
week.

 

Thanks for your help with this issue. What
about the MDT issue with regular 3D solids combining when going to IV6
through STEP? Is that something that will eventually get repaired or is
that not supposed to work since they are not intelligent MDT
parts?

 

Thanks,

Andrew


size=2> 
Report
0 Likes
Reply
Reply

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report

Report a website issue