|
Oh that sucks poo poo. I'll keep the thread updated if they announce any updates. The online licensing is hands down one of the best things they did for the software.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
the baffling thing about all this is that they surely can't actually need to squeeze non-commercial buyers for money, it seems obvious that big corporate clients who can shell out thousands of dollars for software are their bread and butter and overwhelmingly play by the rules. hobbyists having access seems fundamentally harmless to them, these people will never pay full price for it so why shake them down? i guess all the EAA-derived users aren't putting any cash in dassault's pocket, so i understand from that angle. but you have to at least give hobbyists an equivalent service if you're gonna push them to paid 3dx, like cmon
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
The only CAD software company with a heart is McNeel, and if Rhino had a parametric kernel workflow I would never use anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:the baffling thing about all this is that they surely can't actually need to squeeze non-commercial buyers for money, it seems obvious that big corporate clients who can shell out thousands of dollars for software are their bread and butter and overwhelmingly play by the rules. hobbyists having access seems fundamentally harmless to them, these people will never pay full price for it so why shake them down? This is true, and I don't think it's about money at all. It's about the clusterfuck that is the non-commercial programs and maintaining VAR relationships. I think the biggest thing is that they can't give away the software because of their relationship with VARs. Even the demo non-commercial licenses we have are paid for. I genuinely think it's because of the way serial numbers are handled in these educational programs. By moving to a named user license, they're able to bypass a bunch of garbage that puts the onus on makerspaces and other non-commercial entities when someone leaks that institution's serial number online. So you end up in this weird place where you can't technically give away a product because the VARs get angry, and without the VARs your whole business model falls apart. Why didn't they just give it a watermark and let everyone open maker files? I don't know. Maybe because $100/year isn't that bad. But it's definitely smelling like solutions by committee at every step so you end up with this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Out of curiosity has anyone ever had any Value Added by a Value Added Reseller
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
Yes but more on the CAM side than CAD, and more in training and networking events than actual SW help. My VAR does demos with some local machine tool and cutting tool companies where they do a free lunch and talk through machining techniques, have a presentation on new tools for the cutting tool guy, then demo the tool path and tool on a fancy new machine. However, the one time I had an actual issue (master cam ran a tool through part geometry in a HSM lift move and didn't flag it as a collision during validation) they didn't help at all. My CAM VAR is different from my CAD VAR and the CAD guys are useless, but tbh I haven't tried their learning materials or seminars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Out of curiosity has anyone ever had any Value Added by a Value Added Reseller At a previous job our Hawk Ridge tech support was great. Anything from install issues to sorting out the constant bugs SWx has they were on top of it and didn't care if I called twice a week. I switched jobs and the new companies VAR (also Hawk Ridge) is run by weasly sales people who barely know how to use their product and essentially lied to me about the existence of an included PDM system and tried to get my 20 person company to buy the full enterprise version instead. In short VARs are a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
This is a 'what program should I use I only want to learn one' question, but basically, which one of these danged things should I invest the time and money into? I run a very small (like me and sometimes another guy) woodworking business and have always done my drafting by hand but I need to get on the CAD bandwagon because I know eventually I'm going to need to get on the CNC bandwagon. I mostly do furniture, a lot of turned/lathe stuff, a lot of it is more curved/carved, not just cabinet boxes. I would like something that can make decent looking renderings to show clients, as well as normal dimensioned 3 view drawings and can also spit out a parts/cut list. I would also like it to not cost thousands of dollars. I also don't want to invest a bunch of time learning XYZ and then have it die in 5 years or whatever. I've messed about a bit with the free Fusion360 and it sort of mostly does what I need? It is not so great at generating cut lists or anything like that unless I remember to label and dimension every single part in the drawing. I could grumpily afford to pay for an actual license if most of the problems people have with it are with the personal use license. I was all excited about Solidworks until I read the last page of this thread and it seems like maybe that's not such a great route. Would Rhino do what I need, or is it going to be really clunky when I just need to draw some square cabinet boxes? I've played with Blender a bit and it was fun and relatively intuitive, but I didn't think it would translate well to 'dimensioned drawings.' What the heck is Revit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Oh boy that makes me wonder about the nodes of the company I've never met. E: I'm not Hawk Ridge, but it still makes me wonder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
On my last call with the VAR went OK. They correctly determined my windows profile had been corrupted. I got instantly angry during the screen share when the rep changed a bunch of my UI settings for SW and PDM Standard before he'd try fixing it. It then took 1.5 weeks for IT to finally delete my profile after reinstalling SW 3 times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
drat, did they not do a copy settings wizard to save your customizations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
It took 5 calls to mine for them to figure out that Windows' built in MAC randomizer was causing SW to think I had more than one machine on the license. The MAC randomizer which is on by default.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
I gotta say, lack of CAM is a real killer. I regret my purchase, but I've wasted $99 on worse. I have been enjoying using the modelling part of it just as much as I hoped, which makes it sting even more. If it was all garbage I'd just go right back to Fusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
I just dropped the $40 on an EAA membership a couple months ago, made one simple project box in SW, then told myself I'd do the tutorials later. Still haven't, and now I'm wondering why I should bother. I've had fusion 360 this entire time and as much as I hate autodesk, f360 fits my needs for free. $40 was a fair price imo for escaping their clutches but this whole maker program thing is too much
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Really putting the Dass in Dassault here. Dass = outhouse in swedish. At least there's still Solid Edge. No cloud fuckery. But no CAM, but I don't need CAM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
Is 'tell me how much force it will take to make this table tip-over' a think the simulations in Fusion 360 can do? I've gotten handy enough with it that I bought the paid subscription for work, but I keep getting some error whenever I try to solve the simulation I've created. It's something dumb with the program not installing Nastran that I'm sure is solvable, but after about 5 clean installs it still won't try to solve the simulation and I'd love to know if what I'm trying to do will even work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
Dunno about fusion, but what Nastran solvers are you going to use? Detecting if something tips sounds like it would have a strong chance of flipping out when it started moving. I think you can use the large displacement option on some solvers and stop even if it doesn't converge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
I do numerical modeling of borderline unstable systems for a living and I'm pretty sure whatever tool is built into F360 won't do that kind of thing easily. If you want to know what force is required to tip your thingy over then you only really need to know the weight of the thingy and the location of its center of mass, no stress analysis required. Slip it into a Statics 101 homework assignment if you know someone in school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Is 'tell me how much force it will take to make this table tip-over' a think the simulations in Fusion 360 can do? I've gotten handy enough with it that I bought the paid subscription for work, but I keep getting some error whenever I try to solve the simulation I've created. i know solidworks and not fusion, but center of gravity is one of the easiest and most handy simulation/analysis tools to implement, and it gets a relative read on what you want to determine, if not sth specific with units attached. i’ve gone out of my way to do a bit of FEA stuff just to say i’m familiar w that side of the software, but i legit make use of the less involved/difficult analysis tools like CoG, symmetry etc 10x as often also yeah, this is sth most people can reasonably take a crack at if they’re willing to live and/or relive the trauma of a static mechanics class, it’s worth doing if you’ve never crunched some beam loadings or whatever before. it really brings the interconnectedness and universality of the physical sciences home Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Aug 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I haven't done any physics since high school AP physics uh....15 years ago? Here's an end-on drawing of the table and base:  The table will weigh like 250lb all told, the center of mass is 18.75" up from the bottom along the centerline. How much downward force at one edge would it take to lift the opposite edge of the base? Basically, how many pounds of someone using the edge of the table to stand up/lean on is going to make it move and feel unsteady? Is there a generic formula/equation for this, or some way to run it in a simulation? By the calculation someone mentions here: https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=154454 I get a horizontal force of ~90lb tipping the table over, which is useful, but doesn't give a great picture of what force it will take to knock all the glasses on the table over. I'm gonna cross post this in the stupid questions thread I guess?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Thanks for the info. I haven't done any physics since high school AP physics uh....15 years ago? This iss almost exactly a question that I was asked in an interview almost 10 years ago and got wrong lol. Still got the job at least and it made me much more aware of how important fundamentals are. So what you're describing is a "statics" problem. The bottom edge of the base is a fulcrum that the table will rotate around if it gets into a tipping state. Keep in mind that if you're using the software to do a static analysis (nothing moves), and it gets into a state where things do move, it'll usually poo poo itself because the math assumes no motion. Anyway, here's a diagram of your situation, only showing the right hand side of the table because that's all that matters. Note that for the purposes of this calculation the heights of both the CoG and load don't matter because the CoG force is straight down (gravity) and I'm assuming the load on the table top is vertical as well:  I'm treating this as a torque balance problem, so the equation that describes that diagram is: [250lbs] * [10.8in] = [x lbs] * [12.2in] When the two side of the equation are balanced, "x" is force it takes to start tipping the base. x = (250/10.8) / (12.2) x = ~221 lbs So, at 221 lbs of force straight downwards on the edge of the table top, the base will begin to lift. If you kept applying this force or higher, the table would continue to rotate until it's CoG was no longer support by the base, at which point the whole thing would tip over. Its a little more complicated than that though because the lever arm lengths change depending on the angle of tip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:This iss almost exactly a question that I was asked in an interview almost 10 years ago and got wrong lol. Still got the job at least and it made me much more aware of how important fundamentals are. What are some good resources for learning this stuff? Once upon a time I went to school to be an engineer, but couldn’t manage the math. The stuff you did here seems really useful though and (maybe?) not too complicated, so I’d love to learn it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Its a little more complicated than that though because the lever arm lengths change depending on the angle of tip. I believe it's also a little more complicated than your analysis because the fulcrum is not in line with the center of gravity. When you push down on one side it's going to rotate around the nearest edge of the base, lifting the rest of the base off the floor, which will raise and rotate the entire object's CG. I don't recall how to solve that, though. Your analysis is probably close enough for a "how hard can you lean on the table" approximation though. e: oh yeah that's what you mean by the lever arm lengths changing, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
^ Yeah that's mostly what I meant. It still doesn't matter that the CoG is lifted, just that as it rotates around the fulcrum the horizontal distance (lever length) changes.Baronash posted:What are some good resources for learning this stuff? Once upon a time I went to school to be an engineer, but couldn’t manage the math. The stuff you did here seems really useful though and (maybe?) not too complicated, so I’d love to learn it. This is about the simplest "statics" problem I can think of but also one that comes up all the time (cranes, tables, buldings, etc.). What defines it as a statics problem is that A. nothing's moving, and B. nothing's deforming. This type of problem got beaten into me so many times in engineering school I just snap to this analysis the first time looking at it. The value of all that repetition is being able to identify what type of problem it is quickly, then solving it is just chunking through the fairly straightforward math. Turns out a shitload of practice helps lol. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to go about learning it outside of an academic setting. I did some quick googling but all the resources I found didn't look great and assume you know the basics or are in school already. Typically college courses about this sort of thing are called "Statics and Dynamics". Now that I've been in industry for awhile its frustrating that math is used as a filter for engineering school. I rarely if ever actually use the higher level math I had to learn so thoroughly, and the real value in all that effort is so that I know it exists and what it's used for. That way, when I see other people's solutions I have a pretty good idea of how they did it even if I don't remember anything about the specific type of math they used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:This iss almost exactly a question that I was asked in an interview almost 10 years ago and got wrong lol. Still got the job at least and it made me much more aware of how important fundamentals are. E: I just realized probably none of that matters because your drawing is only for half the table and whatever weight is out near the edge of the table on the side of your drawing is balanced by an equal amount of tabletop on the other side of the table and I guess that’s why COG works out and we can forget all that other stuff, lol E2: As a follow up question out of curiosity, would the height of the COG matter if the force were being applied horizontally at the edge of the table? Like if someone were trying to shove it over? Kaiser Schnitzel fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Aug 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:Thank you! That’s extremely helpful and simple. Does it matter that some of the weight of the top is out there towards the edge and not actually over the COG? Yep you got it re: where the weight is located. The CoG accounts for all of that at once, which is why its used so much in engineering. For your followup question, this is exactly the interview question I failed. Short answer is again no, the height doesn't matter.  Here's the free body diagram for this situation. The equation to describe it is: [CoG force] * [CoG horizontal distance] = [table top height] * [side force] Once again, this is just the force it takes to start it tipping. If you want to figure out what angle it'll tip over at, you need to do a stability analysis. This doesn't involve the forces, just the location of the CoG relative to its support. If the CoG isn't supported, the table isn't stable and will tip all the way over:  edit: To explain a little more, if the CoG was really high, you'll get into this unstable state at a smaller angle than if it were really low. This is pretty intuitive if you ever tried to tip something over. The tricky part of that analysis is realizing that its that initial force to start it tipping that really matters. oXDemosthenesXo fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Thanks that makes sense. Fulcrum is all that matters to get it moving, COG is what determines where it tips over once it starts moving. Please feel free to make a basics of engineering thread, lol. You explain all this really well!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
You just happen to catch me during my vacation day, and while I'm actively doing computer work for home projects. I'll keep answering these questions if you keep answering my woodworking questions  I used to be awful at explaining these things but after a decade of consulting work actively explaining this type of thing to non-engineering clients I slowly figured out how to make it understandable. The one group that always gets me is the ~~~designers~~~. They know just enough to be confident they understand, but not enough to recognize that their perpetual motion machine won't work. A basics of engineering thread would have a 50 page long OP lol, its such a potentially huge topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
did someone say CAD?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 01:27
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:The one group that always gets me is the ~~~designers~~~. They know just enough to be confident they understand, but not enough to recognize that their perpetual motion machine won't work. JUST WATCH THIS ONE YOUTUBE VIDEO IT TOTALLY WORKS GUYS YOU JUST HAVE TO GET THE MAGNETS POSITIONED IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
We do tip over analysis for each machine. It tests for ability to withstand a side force and ability to stay upright up to a 10deg tip. Side force is done just like above. The quick 10deg tip proof is an 20deg isosceles triangle between the worst case fulcrums and then visually confirming the center of mass is within the triangle. This requires most components have correct mass properties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Anyone got a CAM recommendation for turning? I'm running Fusion at the moment and it's OK, but curious what the next step is. No live tooling (yet). I'm assuming MasterCAM?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Anyone got a CAM recommendation for turning? I'm running Fusion at the moment and it's OK, but curious what the next step is. No live tooling (yet). Pretty much, in my experience. The option in SolidCAM/CAMWorks just isn't there yet in the development side of things (really counter-intuitive and does a horrible job simulating things last time I messed with it). Can't speak to the Fusion360 option but it might be the closest thing you'll get outside of MasterCAM. Especially since the CAM in Fusion360 is built off of the HSMWorks backbone and that was the best thing outside MasterCAM for a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Is there any way to use SW mold tools to automatically clean up/de-undercut a model, once you've done draft/undercut analyses? I'm making some molds of fairly intricate parts with 3D textures applied, and there are a million tiny undercuts in the design that are impractical to clean up by hand but are also very small and would be remedied acceptably by just filling the model in everywhere with a draft lower than X degrees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Hmm do you mean by editing the draft angle? You can do a draft analysis pretty easily, and the draft tool is good there. It might still be pretty manual, but if you can save a selection set of your impacted faces, you only have to do it once instead of reselecting every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Finally got a license and had the time to start learning a bit in Rhino. I knew I was spoiled by the Solidworks tutorials, but I didn't appreciate how spoiled. This was literally the third or fourth video suggested to me in the "getting started" section. https://vimeo.com/483173566 Step 1. Make a cylinder. Step 2. Make the rest of the mug and creamer set. Clearly the guy is using a bunch of keyboard shortcuts, but even stopping the video to pause every 5 seconds, and trying to read the command line history I have no idea how he's doing half of the things he's doing. And this is the official tutorials channel. Does anyone have a better set of tutorial videos they know of and could link? I'm even fine paying for access to them if they're good, but given the quality of what they're showing for free I'm not exactly inclined to spend anything on the official channel's tutorial series. Mostly interested in SubD / NURBS modeling at first, though I'm hoping to do some more technical kinematic simulations (medical/tissue mostly) later on if I can get past the basics. I've got a bunch of experience in Solidworks so if there are guides comparing the two in workflow/etc, that would be extra cool though my googling has failed to bring up anything promising so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
Subdivision modeling is new to Rhino. If you wanted to do that stuff you used to use a plugin called T-Splines, but Autodesk bought it recently and I'm pretty sure they're going to discontinue it at some point because lol Autodesk. I think McNeel saw the writing on the wall, and that's why they've built their own version of that modeling workflow, but it's still new and the tutorial base is not huge yet. So yeah, that guy you posted is skipping pretty fast through the beginning. It appears to be aimed more at people who already use Rhino and are just trying to learn the subD tools. I get what he's doing, but he's expecting you to already know things like using ctrl-shift-click to select a subobject, or what a creased edge is in a subD surface. This guy's tricycle tutorial is a better starting point, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4Wl8UrSxqU You can also look around for T-splines tutorials. The commands will have different names but there will be an equivalent in Rhino SubD, and the workflow will be basically identical. This iron was the classic tutorial back in the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkstRzfA2Ns Traditional NURBS surfacing is a whole different ball game. SubDs and pure NURBS produce similar kinds of geometry, but the way you work with them is totally different. For classic Rhino surfacing, I like the stuff on this guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsWpNdwxf0I3ffkedM505xA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF1BvkptT0E Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Sep 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
Thank you for both the explanation and additional links! That explains a good bit of my confusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Popped in a  email to the folks at Dassault, it's getting pushed along to their Product Manager for 3DX for Makers, so keep them fingats crossed something good comes of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:Is there any way to use SW mold tools to automatically clean up/de-undercut a model, once you've done draft/undercut analyses? I'm making some molds of fairly intricate parts with 3D textures applied, and there are a million tiny undercuts in the design that are impractical to clean up by hand but are also very small and would be remedied acceptably by just filling the model in everywhere with a draft lower than X degrees. I haven't don't it in a while but I think you can use draft analysis tool to save the split line where it goes from either positive/negative or crosses a specified draft angle, then use that line to extrude geometry to fill your negative or low draft spaces. I think you can extrude from the line with a draft angle, or you might have to create a ribbon surface and then extrude from surface or something to get it to work. This is my general approach to filling undercuts on models for moulding but it's been long enough I can't remember how much of it I did in SW vs Rhino vs MasterCAM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 20:48
|
|