CAD problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CAD problems

    3.7 MR3

    Here's the scoop.
    I import a catia file (.CATpart) using version 4.2.
    This comes in fine so I save as a 3.7 program.
    All goes well except one side of this part (basically a plate about .200" thick with complex contours).
    The problem side will not allow me to probe the surface. (Using an auto-vector, or auto-plane) I click on the surface and the point shows up about 1.5 inches away from the surface I want. A point in space.
    I played around with the OpenGL settings and one of the changes shows the problem surface in space (not contacting the rest of the part, yea, up where the auto-vector was trying to put the point).

    So, is this a CAD problem, a problem with the original catia file?
    Or, is this a problem with the 4.2 to 3.7 translation?

    Any ideas would be appreciated.
    Lately, it occurs to me
    What a long, strange trip it's been.

    2017 R1 (Offline programming)

  • #2
    Update

    Update:

    I tried probing the problem surface using 4.2.... it works ok.

    Now what do I do?

    I HATE 4.2.

    We want to continue programing and running 3.7 MR3.

    I only use 4.2 for importing the latest Catia files since 3.7 will not bring them in (we have a DCT translator for Catia V5).

    Any ideas?
    Lately, it occurs to me
    What a long, strange trip it's been.

    2017 R1 (Offline programming)

    Comment


    • #3
      How about this. Create new program file in 4.2, import your CAD from CATIA. Go to EDIT find the FIX CAD VECTORS choice. Box select the entire CAD model(left click drag a square around the entire CAD model). Then choose fix all vectors. When done hit OK. Save as 3.7 program. Open in 3.7. Did that do it for you? I don't know that it will, but sounds like it might do something for you.

      Sorry forgot you were using the DCT. Probably won't do anything for you, but I'll leave the post anyways.
      Last edited by JamesMannes; 06-21-2007, 06:34 PM. Reason: DCT
      sigpic

      James Mannes

      Comment


      • #4
        No luck

        Originally posted by JamesMannes View Post
        How about this. Create new program file in 4.2, import your CAD from CATIA. Go to EDIT find the FIX CAD VECTORS choice. Box select the entire CAD model(left click drag a square around the entire CAD model). Then choose fix all vectors. When done hit OK. Save as 3.7 program. Open in 3.7. Did that do it for you? I don't know that it will, but sounds like it might do something for you.

        Sorry forgot you were using the DCT. Probably won't do anything for you, but I'll leave the post anyways.
        Thanks for the idea James, but no luck.
        One thing that is interesting is that the problem side has about 24 surfaces, 12 of these (one half) work just fine.
        Lately, it occurs to me
        What a long, strange trip it's been.

        2017 R1 (Offline programming)

        Comment


        • #5
          For this problem can you use an iges/step. Perhaps the geometry of the model is messed up and saving out as a iges/step may correct the problem?
          sigpic

          James Mannes

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JamesMannes View Post
            For this problem can you use an iges/step. Perhaps the geometry of the model is messed up and saving out as a iges/step may correct the problem?
            Yea, I can do that.
            But I was hoping there was a fix. I just got 4.2 and Catia working together and was able to save as 3.7 and I thought I was set for at least 3 months..... Now there is this.

            Wouldn't it be great if the folks at Wilcox would update 3.7 (or any earlier version) to import the latest Catia models?

            Why did we pay for the DCT module if it is only good for 6 months?

            5k is kinda spendy for 6 months worth of imports.
            Lately, it occurs to me
            What a long, strange trip it's been.

            2017 R1 (Offline programming)

            Comment


            • #7
              I have seen you post before that you don't like 4.2. What don't you like?

              I only ask because I use it everyday and I really don't have any more or less problems than I had with 3.7mr3(which isn't many).
              sigpic

              James Mannes

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JamesMannes View Post
                I have seen you post before that you don't like 4.2. What don't you like?

                I only ask because I use it everyday and I really don't have any more or less problems than I had with 3.7mr3(which isn't many).
                I might be able to answer that James

                4.2 is awkward

                it is not an easy change to work with 4.2
                it LOOKS different in most all areas (some is even better, like the edit window font colors, you can actually read it in 4.2)
                it has MORE SUB-MENUS to navigate
                some terms/name nomenclatures have been changed
                where you used to go to make simple edits, are no longer simple

                basically it is somehat like the difference of windows 3.1 vs windows XP
                it kinda looks the same, but it really isn't

                if you have time to play with it and re-learn where everything is, wonderful,
                but it my shop, I just don't get the time, so I am using 4.1 and once in awhile I open 4.2 to spend a few minutes on it.

                if 4.2 was what I had to start with...it would have made life easier, as it was I just moved from Apogee about 16 months ago and that was a huge leap, for the better, but my produtivity fell dramatically.

                revision changes in software are usually a good thing, fixed bugs, and improvements, but you can't just jump into 4.2 and start making programs.
                4.2 vs 4.1 is no minor change...it is a major revision

                these are just my opinions only and I can neither confirn nor deny any of it
                Which one gets ridden today? MPH vs MPG..tough choice, both are FUN
                sigpic

                Starrett RGDC 4028-24 :alien:
                Demon vintages 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 2009

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JamesMannes View Post
                  I have seen you post before that you don't like 4.2. What don't you like?

                  I only ask because I use it everyday and I really don't have any more or less problems than I had with 3.7mr3(which isn't many).
                  I could get around all the "look" changes and all of the method changes.
                  I actually like change.
                  The way that we report things here is quite dependant on having "Full Report Mode" available.
                  We add comments, edit nominals and tolerances in Full Report Mode.
                  I could learn to do this in Command mode.
                  But the biggest issue is that most of the parts we measure now are completely MBD based (Model Based Definition). We don't have drawings and most features are toleranced as profiles.
                  The way we measure profiles is with a group of vector points which are grouped into "sets" as Constructed Feature Sets. These are then toleranced with Surface Profile (Form and Location).
                  We then activate both Textual and Graphical analysis to report where the surfaces are (when they are out of tolerance).
                  Turning these analyses on and off from Full Report Mode is relatively easy.
                  Doing it with 4.x is muchly suckful. Leaving all of them "turned on" (watch it Craiger) creates extremely long reports. Some parts have over 2500 points measured.
                  We also use "Dimensional Info" labels to identify which points are out and how much they are out. This simplifies non-conformance reporting tremendously. Most of the stuff we are working on is still in development (787) and so consequently the processes are immature and we have a significant number of discrepancies.

                  Our customers have become accustomed to these reporting methods. Our CMM operators (generous description) are accustomed to this.

                  It is nice to be able to jump from Command Mode to Summary Mode to Full Report Mode with a minimum of hassel. Try jumping like this with "Report Window".
                  Lately, it occurs to me
                  What a long, strange trip it's been.

                  2017 R1 (Offline programming)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Gotcha, the group using 4.2 at our facility is rather small. After I have looked at the software and run it for a month or so then I turned them loose on it. No operators in my office, just programmers(well sort of). Thanks for the feeback.
                    sigpic

                    James Mannes

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X