surface modeling

[Anonymous]

I never had cause to use surfacing until yesterday and I am stuck.

Can you not cut a surface with a surface ?

Can you mirror a surface or a thickened surface?

Can you cut a thickened surface with a thickened surface without leaving the
surface behind?

is inventor 6 any use as a solid modeller

Dave

[Anonymous]

I have the same problems Dave!

Inventor is a great solid modeller for simple parts but when it comes to
advanced solid modelling you have a problem. It just does not have the same
power as Solid Works etc.

Surface modelling is actually not part of inventor yet. The surface tools we
see in inventor are purely part of the solid modelling process! Inventor
does not even print surface models yet. Autodesk has still got quite a bit
of work to do I think.



Don't get me wrong guys, I love this package and I am a keen follower of
Autodesk. This is just my opinion obviously and if I am wrong about anything
said, please correct me anyone!



Regards

Pieter




"Dave Thompson" wrote in
message news:26F04601E4A19372C890C0E21F2F15D9@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I never had cause to use surfacing until yesterday and I am stuck.
>
> Can you not cut a surface with a surface ?
>
> Can you mirror a surface or a thickened surface?
>
> Can you cut a thickened surface with a thickened surface without leaving
the
> surface behind?
>
> is inventor 6 any use as a solid modeller
>
> Dave
>
>

[jorgen]

"..... I am a keen follower of Autodesk."

Sounds scary .

[Anonymous]

Excellent

It is good to know that the reasons behind totally destroying the kernel
used in 5.3

Was to create some surface modelling tools that are as much use as a
chocolate teapot

Come on boys I need to justify my purchase of inventor why destroy it
needlessly.

Dave T

[Anonymous]

What was destroyed? There are things I can accomplish that I couldn't in
IV5.x, but I haven't seen any kernel (can't blame the assembly browser on it)
related regressions.

Don't know if it's any help.....

> Can you not cut a surface with a surface ?
No, but you can intersect and extract the curve in a 3D Sketch.
-------
> Can you mirror a surface or a thickened surface?
No, but if the part is symmetrical you can derive to get the opposite.
-------
> Can you cut a thickened surface with a thickened
> surface without leaving the surface behind?
We're probably stuck with this one, as it's part of the history, though a
browser filter or auto-hide may be coming.
-------

Not arguing the points; everything you mention is on my "that would be good"
list, as well. Hope they are hard at work on it and, more importantly, making
progress. And, again, if you are aware of any regressions, by all means bring
them to someone's attention.

PS Sorry 'bout the email. I need to remove that button from the toolbar.

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

"Dave Thompson" wrote in
message news:FE1FC964BF6C0ADC36CC213F8084929D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Excellent

It is good to know that the reasons behind totally destroying the kernel
used in 5.3

Was to create some surface modelling tools that are as much use as a
chocolate teapot

Come on boys I need to justify my purchase of inventor why destroy it
needlessly.

Dave T

[Anonymous]

Why do inexperienced people keep perpetuating this myth that Inventor doesn?t do surfaces? I posted a couple of examples at customer files last week. One was called something like ?sculpted car body? and the other ?simple surface?. One thing beginners need to get over is that surfaces are infinitely thin mathematical representations that only exist on the computer. I assume at the end of the day you want something that exists in reality, unless you are only doing cartoons or something similar. I teach complex free-form solid surface modeling with MDT, Inventor and SolidWorks. I challenge you to give me a problem that can only be modeled in one or the other program. In my opinion they are essentially the same in terms of capability.
J.D.

[Anonymous]

It all depends on what "do" is.  If you mean
IV can create and manipulate "native" surfaces then you are correct, IV can "do"
surfaces.  If you mean work with imported surfaces then IV has limited
capability in that we have examples of files that work in competitive packages
and not in IV.

<I challenge
you to give me a problem that can only be modeled in one or the other program.
In my opinion they are essentially the same in terms of
capability.>

size=3> 

Okay. 
Please model for me the following:  The lower half of a mold to create a
donut with the axis of the donut tipped at a 30 degree angle.  It's not
really complex or free form, but really simple and
well-defined.

<Why do inexperienced people keep perpetuating this myth that Inventor
doesn?t do surfaces?>

IMHO it's not a myth and it's not just inexperienced people.

-Russ 

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day I want to be able to model what I envision, fit in an
assembly, detail it in drawing views, send to a machinist. Solids are not a
requisite for any of those; creating co-edges is optional. A set of
infinitely thin mathematical definitions is. They must meet varying
requirements, depending on the application. The tools to adequately define
those entities are a bit crude in all the packages mentioned. Good tools help
make up for some of our deficiencies.

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

"JDMATHER" wrote in message
news:f144365.4@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Why do inexperienced people keep perpetuating this myth that Inventor doesn?t
do surfaces? I posted a couple of examples at customer files last week. One
was called something like ?sculpted car body? and the other ?simple surface?.
One thing beginners need to get over is that surfaces are infinitely thin
mathematical representations that only exist on the computer. I assume at the
end of the day you want something that exists in reality, unless you are only
doing cartoons or something similar. I teach complex free-form solid surface
modeling with MDT, Inventor and SolidWorks. I challenge you to give me a
problem that can only be modeled in one or the other program. In my opinion
they are essentially the same in terms of capability.
J.D.

[Anonymous]

How many hours of training using Inventor surfaces did you get ?
How many hours of training using Solidworks surfaces did you get?

J.D.

[Anonymous]

0, 0

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

"JDMATHER" wrote in message
news:f144365.7@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
How many hours of training using Inventor surfaces did you get ?
How many hours of training using Solidworks surfaces did you get?
J.D.

[Anonymous]

Sorry J.D
 
But if something acts like a pig sounds like a pig
it usually is a pig.
 
I have been working in the industry for 15 years
and have been a daily user of mech desktop and inventor for the last
four.
 
When using 5.3 mid project we upgrade to 6 but only
after service pack one is released and the forum agrees its ready.
 
Everything immediately slows down all 9 licensed
users in the office experience the exact same.
 
Loading times are double.
memory usage up by 40%
Derived assemblies are even slower and use even
more memory.
Crashes increase ten fold.
New file management rules that lock all the bits
out every time it crashes.(but its ok you can steal them and anything anyone
else is working on at any time)
 
small changes to the usability (like rearranging
browser , etc)
 
I have used autocad LT, solid edge, Pro E, Mech
desktop 3,4,5,6 Inventor since version 4
 
My favourite package is inventor and up until
release 6 I would have conveyed this to anyone.
 
The weldments I like (wish we could keep those
dam symbols invisible)
 
The surfacing is extremely limited even in
comparison to solidworks. ( I have looked at your car and suggest you look at
the rhino cad site for inspiration.
 
AUTODESK The program is now slow and extremely
buggy please look at 5.3 and remove half the (edited) you put in and bring it out
ASAP!
 
 
 

"JDMATHER"
wrote in message news:f144365.4@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...Why
do inexperienced people keep perpetuating this myth that Inventor doesn?t (snip)

[Anonymous]

Russ,
Interesting problem. At first I didn't think it was worth my time. Took about half an hour to find a modeling solution that works in both Inventor and SolidWorks.
I'll have to try this one in MDT too.
J.D.

Okay. Please model for me the following: The lower half of a mold to create a donut with the axis of the donut tipped at a 30 degree angle. It's not really complex or free form, but really simple and well-defined.

[Anonymous]

Russ,
I checked it in MDT. My solution works identicaly in all three programs. It sure is painful to model in MDT now.
J.D.

[Anonymous]

Can u post the IV solution to CF?

Thanks,

-Russ

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

"JDMATHER" <jmather@pct.edu>
wrote in message
href="news:f144365.11@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f144365.11@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Russ,

I checked it in MDT. My solution works identicaly in all three programs.
It sure is painful to model in MDT now.
J.D.

[Anonymous]

I'd love to be able to do it in IV, but until someone leads me through it by
the hand I'm going to have to stick with my assumption that it cannot be
readily defined in IV (see CF "toroid cavity", exaggerated rotation) and its
possible that it cannot be modeled in IV (see CF "split failure").

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

"Russ Walker" wrote in message
news:E2693C22E537FD298ABF852CDFA4CE1F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Can u post the IV solution to CF?

Thanks,

-Russ
"JDMATHER" wrote in message
news:f144365.11@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Russ,
I checked it in MDT. My solution works identicaly in all three programs. It
sure is painful to model in MDT now.
J.D.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how it's possible either. That's why I asked for J.D. to post
his solution.
-Russ

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:CA45F2AEDE5D905C01A753012C8E300A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I'd love to be able to do it in IV, but until someone leads me through it
by
> the hand I'm going to have to stick with my assumption that it cannot be
> readily defined in IV (see CF "toroid cavity", exaggerated rotation) and
its
> possible that it cannot be modeled in IV (see CF "split failure").
>
> ========================