Draft analysis

    
  Subscribe Topic

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 1 of 14

 Draft analysis
18-11-2006 03:55 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Anybody think that draft analysis should be included in the designer product as well as Mold and Die? Or is it just me?

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 2 of 14

18-11-2006 07:53 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hello Kevin

It is related to the perennial split between industrial designer and engineering designer. However, in my time I have received many models from engineers that have taken the industrial designer's example to heart and failed to include draft too Anyway, whichever design genre, if you are the product designer you should know what draft you have applied in your model. If you need analysis of imported model data, this falls into the mold and die module's realm - you will probably need to assess the split line and a host of other production considerations too. It is a question of where we draw the line commercially (no pun intended) - we believe that each VX product delivers much better value for money than our rivals and part of this is because you don't pay for tools that you would not normally require. If circumstances change, you can upgrade.

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 3 of 14

19-11-2006 01:47 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
I know the reasons but I don't agree. I'm an industrial designer and I'm sure if you speak to 99% of designers these days outside the USA they will agree they need to know about draft as they are the ones who end up having to do final surface modelling. I've had this argument before with USA based companies. They seem to assume the ID are all arty types where in reality most IDs outside the USA are technically trained and their job descriptions require final surfacing work. I just think VX are out on a limb in this respect as pretty much all the competitors (regardless of price) include draft analysis in base products.

Rank: 1

OldForumPost

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2012-1-14

Message 4 of 14

20-11-2006 10:00 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Totally with you on this Kevin. In the past 18 months I've been working on a chair with a die cast frame. The only way to check if the form was 'castable' was to model the shape, then try different draft planes until I found an angle which would allow the part to draft properly. It would've been impossible to do without draft checking. I used Rhino and Cobalt for this job, and both have draft checking as standard.

Owen

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 5 of 14

20-11-2006 10:51 . am   |   View his/her posts only


Hello Chaps

Hey, are you really making a fair comparison? Do the other products give you all the functionality, advanced geometry ability, ease of use, speed and upgradeability that VX does for your money? Many of our competitors are actually based in the USA, but as you know, I am based in the UK and my experience of UK Industrial Designer's work is it seems entirely different to yours Kevin

I shall request that the Corp consider including the functionality in the Designer Product. I released a VxDAL for precision draft analysis and this will be upgraded in the near future to work with v12 too - you might find it to be a handy tool.

Rank: 1

george

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-3-1

Message 6 of 14

20-11-2006 11:33 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Too bad the CAM falls short.

Rank: 1

ChrisWard2k2

Newbie

posts: 2

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 7 of 14

20-11-2006 05:00 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hello gjohn

VX's CAD/CAM same-kernel combination is unique in the MCAD industry, it's not just CAD + CAM, or CAM + CAD like our competitors, and we are proud that our solution is so powerful. There is no such thing as perfect software in the CAD-CAM world. Development in our industry is just so complex. Yet nothing really touches VX, we frequently beat other more expensive high-end software by delivering the practical functionality required by customers -of course fantastic value for money is in that equation too. VX has a worldwide customer base and I personally know many Europe-based VX customers whose businesses depend on their deployment of VX CAM in highly competitive markets. You could not pay ex-SolidWorks, ex-SolidEdge, ex-Vero, ex-Cimitron, ex-AnOther people to switch back to the products they were using before. Once "into" VX, the advantages are too great.

We take criticism of our product very seriously and customer enhancement requests have driven the development of the product to where it is today. The VX Forum is provided for VX customers to exchange information, share their VX know-how and general design and manufacturing knowledge. It's a good port of call for hints and tips from VX Corp and to hear the latest VX news.

At the end of the day, we are a business that depends on delivering good solutions to our customers, just as our customers themselves do, but we like to think of the extended VX community as a family too - you have a lot of nice people doing their best for you at VX Corp. I guess we can't please all of the people all of the time.




Rank: 1

OldForumPost

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2012-1-14

Message 8 of 14

21-11-2006 03:20 . am   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Chris,

There's no doubting VX's price to performance ratio - one of the main reasons I bought it! Since I've currently got a Mold & Die license (as I think Kevin has too), it not that I don't have access to the draft analysis, it's just that it seems strange that it's not included in the Designer package. It's a pretty small part of the tool set, but so important that I think it would make sense.


Owen

Rank: 1

Robert

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 9 of 14

21-11-2006 12:48 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Kevin,

Are you asking about the "Check for draft angle violations" or the "Check for undercut regions" or both?

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 10 of 14

22-11-2006 02:13 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Bob,

In an ideal world I would like to be able to click a draft analysis button, choose a pull direction and VX will preview a colour coded draft analysis with a colour coded split line, then add the split line curve to the part faces. A secondary feature would be able to (once the above has been done) to pick a point on the surface and have a text readout as to the draft angle at that point.

This would suffice for the designer product, and is pretty much what you get in most other competitive systems selling into the ID market.

For the Mold and Die you could enhance the draft tool by doing the above then letting the user create a more appropriate split surface, and then give the option to morph the surfaces so the split line moved from the old to the new desired split. This is functionality I think every mold maker would like and it is THE strongest sales point of Think3 to the mold design market, as this is exactly what GSM can do.

In fact thinking about it the above could really do with being in the Designer product as well. Think about it. Designer is about creation of part, Mold and Die is about creation of tool from the part. Modification of part to improve the tool should be in the designer package or perhaps a Designer Plus package?

The fact is most of the time the designer will generate the surfaces from a split line, but for those more organic forms we have to choose between getting a good surface quickly and relying on the software to figure out the best split line, or, to laboriously construct the surfaces froma defined split. As I said, being able to use the freeform surfaces to shape the part then ADJUST it by altering the generated split would be a huge benefit in the ID sector.


Rank: 1

Robert

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2011-11-22

Message 11 of 14

22-11-2006 05:05 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Awesome feedback, Kevin. (I loved the morphing idea... very cool)

Thanks, I'll talk it over with the Product Planning team.

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 329

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 12 of 14

22-11-2006 09:51 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Kevin,
I'll pass on the "to be or not to be"
However:.
Since applying parting lines can be via several dicrete (auto thru' fully manual) methods and is a history item, haven't you already achieved the ability to modify the object with the morph or parametric tools and see the resultant change on regen. Or simply leave the analysis view switched on whilst you make you mods. (Oh, that might require draft analysis).
I am not so sure leaving software to do 'intelligent' design to a new (more desirable) part line is a logicla step.. Isn't that the designers job anyway?
Just maybe there is a case for assisting the designer see the fraft issues he has created even if he can do no more than that.
Cheers

Rank: 1

Kevin

Newbie

posts: 0

Registered: 2004-4-26

Message 13 of 14

23-11-2006 09:23 . am   |   View his/her posts only
The way I look at it anything that lets me get exactly what I want is desirable. The way I build parts right now is one of two ways. Once I have established a general form I sketch out a desired parting line and build from there OR I quickly sketch out the surfaces to get the form I am after then let the software (VX, Cobalt whatever) calculate the actual parting line as it is based on a silohette curve based on the desired pull direction. The latter approach for organic forms is fastest but (and it is a big but) the parting lines generated can be complex and this can adversely affect tool cost, quality and visual appeal.

Frequently once you model a free form or even simple shape you can see the parting line you desire but the software generated one may be slightly off (for example, a flat planar split line might be best but the software generated one might be slightly wavy).

Currently the only option you have then is to remodel based on your desired split. This can be easy or very time consuming.

The only redeeming feature of ThinkDesign Global Shape Modelling was the ability to generate the split line then create your own and FORCE the part to adjust to the desired split line. The changes were usually very subtle and in any case were very controllable. You could also use GSM to add draft to a certain set of surfaces froma desired split line, by defining the start draft angle. Again very controllable.

It is not a case of letting the software design the part for you, it is more a case of making use of appropriate tools to speed up part modifications with full control.

If this can be done already in VX then maybe we can have a demo video to show how?

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Paul

Moderator

posts: 329

Registered: 2011-9-17

Message 14 of 14

23-11-2006 09:04 . pm   |   View his/her posts only
Hi Kevin,
gotcha. Your last suggestion re the demo is the best.
I'd be mighty interested in seeing how a VX guru might approach that too.
So VX-men, is this a fair call by Kevin?
I apprecaite the video itself could take a bit of time.

Cheers
See also
X