History AND Direct?

notdirectedit

I assume I’m talking to all the smart kids in class. Just because you’re engineers and designers, well, all that math and science weeded out the rest, right? And of course I assume that as the smart kids in class, we all watch the Big Bang Theory, and can relate to the problems of nerds. Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, Raj, Amy and Bernadette each provides something for us to relate to. Sometimes in a “yeah, that happens to me all the time” sort of way, and sometimes in a “don’t you hate when that happens” way.

Read more on History AND Direct?…

Flexible Design Intent

0012

0012The first time I saw a demo like this, I flipped. This kind of history-independent power should really be turning some heads. Just to sum it up for you, what it happening in the video below is that you can make features dependent on existing geometry, and then use either the new or old geometry as driving features. No stupid tricks, this is just the way it works. To Solid Edge, it’s just geometry. There is no method to make it, no forced metaphors like baking a recipe, or writing a computer program. It’s just geometry. Think about changing sketches, and that’s the kind of flexibility you have with changing 3D parts in Solid Edge Synchronous Technology.

Read more on Flexible Design Intent…

Synchronous Assemblies Brief Demo

synchassemblies3

The whole thrust of this post is that in Solid Edge Synchronous Assemblies, you can design parts in the context of the assembly without creating any of the synchassembly1debilitating effects of references between parts. So you can make design intent go back and forth between parts, which you can’t do in your old CAD system because of “circular references”. You can make references to a part in one assembly, put it in another assembly, and make different references without the dreaded “multiple contexts” error. And you can rename or replace parts with similar parts without having anything going haywire on you.

Read more on Synchronous Assemblies Brief Demo…

Why Is one of the Biggest Selling Points of Feature-Based CAD also the Most Feared?

 

incontextDuring the years that I’ve worked with CAD, there was one thing that I found that just terrified a lot of users and even CAD managers: In-context design. It’s true that people fear what they don’t understand, and this falls into that category to some extent. The real root of the problem, though, is that people just don’t trust it. And this is one case in which understanding it may make you trust it even less. Like what’s really in a hot dog? It may or may not be appetizing as it is, but knowing what’s in it will certainly not make you feel better about it.

Read more on Why Is one of the Biggest Selling Points of Feature-Based CAD also the Most Feared?…

Blast from the Past: History and Sketching

[editor] With this article I reach back to consider some of the contradictions of sketching in a history-based system. If history isn’t necessary for sketches, why should it be needed for other constructions? Parts of this have been edited to fit with current realities, it was originally published 3 years ago.[editor]

Read more on Blast from the Past: History and Sketching…

Chew On This: Resilient Modeling

0009

I posted on Resilient Modeling less than a year ago, after Solid Edge University 2013. Dick Gebhard is the main guy behind this idea. He has constructed it such that it’s mainly CAD-neutral, but it turns out that it works best in Synchronous Technology. The concept does work well with history-based systems, in fact, its intended to make your history-based models more usable.

Read more on Chew On This: Resilient Modeling…

Blast from the Past: Can Parametrics Exist Without History?

0004

[editor]: This was a post written five years ago about the possibility of using familiar parametric design ideas with history-free models. Here I’m trying to get my head around the idea, and trying to introduce readers to the concept that maybe history-based modeling isn’t the only game in town.

Read more on Blast from the Past: Can Parametrics Exist Without History?…

Blast from the Past: Is Parametrics History

meshmodeler

[editor]: It’s interesting to go back and view points along the evolution of my conversion from history-based mogul to history-free supporter. When you read this, it’s important to remember that it was written in 2011.  At that time I was heavily involved in organic surface development using a tool that was in my opinion completely unsuited to that type of design. Still, companies contracted me to do the work. I think this type of tool is still needed in product development today, as evidenced by the spirited courting of Tsplines by multiple players.

Read more on Blast from the Past: Is Parametrics History…

On The EDGE © 2013 Frontier Theme