AutoDesk Inventor 12

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

  • AutoDesk Inventor 12

    As many here know, I still use PC-DMIS V3.2063. I rarely am given CAD files. Probably have used 3 or 4 in the 6+ years we have had the machine. The current buzz here is that we are upgrading our CAD to AutoDesk Inventor 12. The plan is to start creating models that the CNC Dept., Tool Room, and I can use.
    The next question is, Do I upgrade my SMA at this point? I don't know what quality of the CAD models will be. I do know that if we upgrade PC-DMIS we are looking at a large chunk of change and a learning curve going into the new version.
    Also, how well do part programs convert up? I don't really want to rewrite the programs I have.

    I am interested in opinions from all.
    TYVMIA
    When in doubt, post code. A second set of eyes might see something you missed.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Originally posted by John Kingston View Post
    As many here know, I still use PC-DMIS V3.2063. I rarely am given CAD files. Probably have used 3 or 4 in the 6+ years we have had the machine. The current buzz here is that we are upgrading our CAD to AutoDesk Inventor 12. The plan is to start creating models that the CNC Dept., Tool Room, and I can use.
    The next question is, Do I upgrade my SMA at this point? I don't know what quality of the CAD models will be. I do know that if we upgrade PC-DMIS we are looking at a large chunk of change and a learning curve going into the new version.
    Also, how well do part programs convert up? I don't really want to rewrite the programs I have.

    I am interested in opinions from all.
    TYVMIA
    Well, most of the time, migrating programs sucks and that big of a jump will REALLY suck. V3.2063 DID give me SOME issues with IGES files, but a lot of that, I THINK, was due to teh cad operators and the cad system they used to create the IGES files. As for STEP files in that version, I don't know, but while step SEEMS to give a better translation, it does take longer to import and it appears to me to take longer to load the program (bigger cad file). UG IGES files suck (even still today, due to the short-cuts it appears that UG uses for it's own internal operations and give a crappy IGES file) while the STEP files are better. As for autodesk, I have no help for you there.

    If I were in your shoes, I would NOT spend any money on upgrading Pcdmis until you find out how well the data imports from your cad system, you do NOT want the headaches. Keep pluggin along in that (GREAAT!) version and hopefully you can 'train' the cad operators to:

    1) Make good data
    2) Make good export files
    3) Fix any issues you find that crop up until they can do ti all to give you a good file.

    If one format fails, try another. Ther are several that you can import, you should be able to get a list from your IMPORT function and try until you find one that works. The ONLY reason I stopped using V3.2063 was that I had IGES files come in (from the customer, no way to get a different format) and a flat surface with a square edge was NOT coming out that way in Pcdmis. I could look at the data in a cad software and it was flat and square, but that surface in Pcdmis gave flat when you took vector points away from the edge and up to within about 0.2mm of the edge, then they went straight to pot. Edge points were totally out of the question, they showed a surface vector almost 90 degree from what it should have been and the edge vector was the same. When I pulled that EXACT SAME file into V3.5, it was OK. So, there was something in the data that the V3.2063 iges translator didn't like. And, as I said, I could not check STEP or any other format in that version 'cause it was a customer supplied file and no one here wanted to ask for a different format, no one wanted to admit that what they sent was not as 'usable' as it could have been.
    sigpic
    Originally posted by AndersI
    I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by John Kingston View Post
      As many here know, I still use PC-DMIS V3.2063. I rarely am given CAD files. Probably have used 3 or 4 in the 6+ years we have had the machine. The current buzz here is that we are upgrading our CAD to AutoDesk Inventor 12. The plan is to start creating models that the CNC Dept., Tool Room, and I can use.
      The next question is, Do I upgrade my SMA at this point? I don't know what quality of the CAD models will be. I do know that if we upgrade PC-DMIS we are looking at a large chunk of change and a learning curve going into the new version.
      Also, how well do part programs convert up? I don't really want to rewrite the programs I have.

      I am interested in opinions from all.
      TYVMIA
      Just my 2 cents. But, part programs conversions are a nightmare. Some works - some don't work so well. If you get one that don't work so well then you will probably NEVER get it to work right without a rewrite.
      On the plus side, you can keep your current version and run all your old programs in that version while writing all new ones in the new version. THat is what I eventually did after two disasterous attempts at conversions (I converted ALL programs with the intent of never going back - big mistake).
      Bill Jarrells
      A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Matthew D. Hoedeman View Post
        Well, most of the time, migrating programs sucks and that big of a jump will REALLY suck. V3.2063 DID give me SOME issues with IGES files, but a lot of that, I THINK, was due to teh cad operators and the cad system they used to create the IGES files. As for STEP files in that version, I don't know, but while step SEEMS to give a better translation, it does take longer to import and it appears to me to take longer to load the program (bigger cad file). UG IGES files suck (even still today, due to the short-cuts it appears that UG uses for it's own internal operations and give a crappy IGES file) while the STEP files are better. As for autodesk, I have no help for you there.

        If I were in your shoes, I would NOT spend any money on upgrading Pcdmis until you find out how well the data imports from your cad system, you do NOT want the headaches. Keep pluggin along in that (GREAAT!) version and hopefully you can 'train' the cad operators to:

        1) Make good data
        2) Make good export files
        3) Fix any issues you find that crop up until they can do ti all to give you a good file.

        If one format fails, try another. Ther are several that you can import, you should be able to get a list from your IMPORT function and try until you find one that works. The ONLY reason I stopped using V3.2063 was that I had IGES files come in (from the customer, no way to get a different format) and a flat surface with a square edge was NOT coming out that way in Pcdmis. I could look at the data in a cad software and it was flat and square, but that surface in Pcdmis gave flat when you took vector points away from the edge and up to within about 0.2mm of the edge, then they went straight to pot. Edge points were totally out of the question, they showed a surface vector almost 90 degree from what it should have been and the edge vector was the same. When I pulled that EXACT SAME file into V3.5, it was OK. So, there was something in the data that the V3.2063 iges translator didn't like. And, as I said, I could not check STEP or any other format in that version 'cause it was a customer supplied file and no one here wanted to ask for a different format, no one wanted to admit that what they sent was not as 'usable' as it could have been.
        I would have to agree with what Matt said.
        sigpic

        James Mannes

        Comment


        • #5
          I use Inventor 8 and will be moving to Inventor 12 soon. Go with non-native files ie step or iges. Native files are really only good if you need the feature tree in my opinion but I may be wrong. No need for that in PCDMIS as far as I know but I am not a cad programmer. Does PCDMIS even give you a feature tree with native files? I upgraded from 3.2063 to 3.7 with no issues except minor stuff like settings (dimension header for one). No biggie though.
          <internet bumper sticker goes here>

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Wingman View Post
            Just my 2 cents. But, part programs conversions are a nightmare. Some works - some don't work so well. If you get one that don't work so well then you will probably NEVER get it to work right without a rewrite.
            On the plus side, you can keep your current version and run all your old programs in that version while writing all new ones in the new version. THat is what I eventually did after two disasterous attempts at conversions (I converted ALL programs with the intent of never going back - big mistake).
            I don't know squat about cad but... I think Wingman is onto something there. Keep your old version and old programs seperate from any 'upgraded' version of pc-dmis. If you do it right, you will be able to just open the old version and run the old programs for parts that have existing programs. New programs can be written and run in the new version.

            For what it is worth, when I first started in pc-dmis they had just upgraded from 3.2 something to 3.7mr1. I don't recall any issues with converting programs from one to the other.

            Also, please read my signature.

            Comment


            • #7
              I got the same version of DMIS you have and we use Inventor 2008. STEP files work well, I have trouble when they export the Inventor files as IGES. Usually I have them save the model as a .sat file and convert it to STEP with Transmagic software. STEP work well from Inventor though.
              Kevin

              Comment


              • #8
                Another bit to remember:
                V3.2063 uses PCDLRN.INI file in the windoze directory to set paths (programs and tips) and V3.5 and up use the registry. SO, you might be able to EASILY keep everything seperate for a 2-version install, IF you decide to upgrade.
                sigpic
                Originally posted by AndersI
                I've got one from September 2006 (bug ticket) which has finally been fixed in 2013.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If they are going to upgrade you take it. Take it and the new computer and run. Eventually you are going to get stuck in a corner with eveyone saying WELL? And if its someone else's $12,000.00 not making you feel like an AZZ, good 4 U!!


                  Don't worry, I'll be here to say I told you so.



                  G
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cumofo View Post
                    If they are going to upgrade you take it. Take it and the new computer and run. Eventually you are going to get stuck in a corner with eveyone saying WELL? And if its someone else's $12,000.00 not making you feel like an AZZ, good 4 U!!


                    Don't worry, I'll be here to say I told you so.



                    G
                    Well now Gabe makes a good point also. Take the upgrade, use the older DMIS until you get comfy with 4+ and then you do have it already. Nothing says you have to upgrade and use it.
                    sigpic

                    James Mannes

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for all the input. This gives me some ideas of what I will have to deal with. Right now I will probably hold off upgrading until I am given some CAD files and try them out in 3.2063. But I wanted to be able to explain my reasons for spending / not spending money.
                      When in doubt, post code. A second set of eyes might see something you missed.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey John, I have seen a demo from Hexagon where they run a Zeiss machine or an LK through a "printer-switch". One computer runs old UMESS for example, the other computer runs V4.2. You switch between them by means of the printer switch (you know, those A-B switches; you pick them up for less then $10).

                        Maybe an idea for you: keep your 3.2 setup on one computer. Don't migrate anything. Keep those programs "as-is". Buy a new computer with V4.2 on it and start to work on models. Run it through the switch as needed.

                        The good news: you are assured you can ALWAYS run your old stuff the way it is. No new migration issues. And you can now create new programs using models.

                        The bad news: you will have to buy a new version of PC-DMIS plus probably a new computer.


                        Just a thought.



                        Jan.
                        ***************************
                        PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
                        Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah the A/B switch is a cool idea, untill you get so used to the power of 4.2 you just go all the way.


                          G
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree. i think that soon you may actually start to like the newer version and migrate anyway.

                            But it is easy to justify, because you will have initially $0 migration cost/headaches. And if your are stumped by the new version, you can always quickly go back. No sweat.


                            Jan.
                            ***************************
                            PC-DMIS/NC 2010MR3; 15 December 2010; running on 18 machine tools.
                            Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 December 2010.

                            Comment

                            Related Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X