Jump to content

Turning 'shaft' objects into the items that make up the object


Recommended Posts

I am getting deeper and deeper into depths of the machine design objects and I am finding a lot of inconsistencies. Case in point, when you take a 'shaft' item, which in my case was an M10 6 inch threaded rod with chamfers at each end and ungroup it so it becomes a Solid Subtraction, and enter the solid subtraction, once existing the solid subtraction it no longer looks the same. It has the sweep that were the threads extending out beyond the chamfered solid that was part of the subtraction. When I export the original 'shaft-3d' item as a dwg file it comes in on a co-workers PC with the threaded sweep going beyond the solid part of the other sweep with the chamfer on it. Is this because we are not suppose to edit these parametric items, such as "shaft 3d" ??

-Kev

Link to comment

Inconsistencies seems to be the name of the game at the moment with VW. i still haven't bought the 2008 upgrade and although i'm still running with a trial version, so far i'm not impressed enough to go with it. Seems like all the old discrepancies around in v11.5.1 are still haunting this new version.

Looks like the autocad "White Elephant" is rearing it's ugly head again. Too much bulk and not enough muscle & sinews. A few more grey cells might help as well. Less fancy "Novelties" and more real tools that "do what it says on the tin"! Like Edit.

What's the point of having an edit facility if you can't make use of it?

Sorry Kev, i don't have any useful suggestions, just gripes!

Edited by AndiACD
Link to comment

Tomu

I agree with the two users.

Just go to GENERAL DISCUSSIOn and I posted some file extractions that show inconsistencies. I am doiing a simple 3D (99% of work is 3D) and VW just make a mess of it- Tommorrow will be day 3 and I wonder if VW will finnish it. You can go to Ernest Coleman at NNA as he got the main problems with him from last year November and I still have the e-mails that 3D works is acknowledged as a problem and that the engineers is working on it.

Well it is 5 months down the lane and nothing but nothing is repaired and making VW just one large disgrace in terms of being a trustworthy and precision CAD.For them to take so long and still no problem solving - well I have no other option to believe that it is one heck of a mess at NNA.

No matter what you do in 3D - VW makes a mess of it.

VW have a good solid++ engine - why these problems ?

For the current is VW nothing more than a 2D Drawing Program and not a CAD in the true sense of the word. Problem is I have still the old stuff on VW that I want to complete in VW.

The base line is that VW love to compare themselves to AC - but AC 3D does work no matter what and with all these problems and by making things work it is better to use AC and spend a few hours longer and not 2 days with at least the outcome to be trusted.

Sorry about it - but I had so much hope in VW - it is just completely shattered.

Link to comment

Tom and all

Actually, I ended up just making my own threaded rod in 3d without using the parametric 'shaft-3d' tool. This technique is actually better and more accurate for two reasons. First, because in reality, based upon the 'thread standards' there are 'flatness' calcs for two areas, not just the outside part of the thread (P/8), but also the area on the shaft itself (P/4). The parametric fields do not offer a chance to input data here in the 'shaft-3d' dialogue box. So, sadly, it is like swimming 10 miles and drowning 3 feet from shore. Meaning it does most of the calculations but leaves out the ability to input the P/4 data from the thread standards. I am sure this contributes to the frustration that others here are expressing. Secondly, by just building your own sweeps to, in this case, make a threaded rod in 3d and then using the boolean add, subtract, and intersect solid functions in VW it seems to produce a more reliable 3d item.

Does seem odd that Nemetschek wont address these items, as I am pretty sure they must have ben aware of the shortcomings and that users would discover the flaws at some point. Perhaps they have their priorities and this just isn't one of them as expressed by several of the Machine users here.

They sort of threw you under the bus Tom......;-)

-Kev

Link to comment

clb and Kev's right, Tom.

i've always loved VW because i was(past tense, please note) able to accomplish things that previously were otherwise impossible or just plain hard work, but as time progresses i am unable to find a good enough reason to invest more money in an upgrade that simply "DOESN'T!"

If you(not you personally Tom, One) want profits you have to merit them, i DO want to Upgrade and would be happy to invest once again in VW but you have to make the ride a downhill run, not an uphill struggle. Some may delight in problem solving, to be honest i do to, but not every operation i attempt with software that is supposed to make things easier.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...