-
1
- #1
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Rhinoceros to proengineer 6
- Thread starter fatgun
- Start date
-
1
- #2
proengineer
Mechanical
Dear FATGUN
Expot your Rhino file in IGES format and the import it into Pro/Engineer. You may have to redefine the imported feature and Heal the geometry in Pro/E. It works fine.
I have worked a little in Rhino. I want to explore the strong points of Rhino over other CAD softwares (Pro/E). Kindly guide me.
Amish Bhushan Goel
amg@hitechesoft.com
Expot your Rhino file in IGES format and the import it into Pro/Engineer. You may have to redefine the imported feature and Heal the geometry in Pro/E. It works fine.
I have worked a little in Rhino. I want to explore the strong points of Rhino over other CAD softwares (Pro/E). Kindly guide me.
Amish Bhushan Goel
amg@hitechesoft.com
-
4
- #3
Amish,
I have done a bit of investigating recently comparing the relative strengths of Rhino and Pro/E, as well as a number of other related pieces of software. I'll offer you what I've learned.
Rhino and it's related competitor Alias/Wavefront are Industrial Design software tools. They have strong surfacing capabilities and their strength lies in the ease with which you can generate and change surface profiles. These are the surfacing tools that lead to Hollywood animation effects. Changing a surface is as easy as grabbing a point and pulling it to deform the surface. These are not engineering software packages. They have no means of creating an engineering drawing or being used to perform FEA analysis, etc. Not sure about assembly features. Alias/Wavefront came first, it's the "Cadillac" of the industry and priced accordingly (Not unlike Pro/E?). Rhino came later, it's VERY cheap (free for demo software on the website) and is being marketed hard to ID students to try to break Alias's grip on the industry. It appears nearly as fully featured as Alias for a fraction of the price.
It appears that getting surface data from either package to Pro/E is similar. At best you can port a STEP or IGES file that results in a "Dumb" Pro/E surface. That is, one which can not be changed within Pro/E. If you spend much time using Pro/E as a surfacing tool I think you'll discover that surfaces created IN Pro/E are fairly easy to work with. Those created outside Pro/E and ported in are essentially one big feature that has only limited use. If you don't intend to change the surface once you've moved to Pro/E you're probably okay.
Hope this helps. I've got more info on other pieces of software that can be used when scanning (digitizing) physical models and trying to convert the data to surfaces if anyone is interested. (Geomagic, Metris, Paraform).
Bob Kerila, PE
I have done a bit of investigating recently comparing the relative strengths of Rhino and Pro/E, as well as a number of other related pieces of software. I'll offer you what I've learned.
Rhino and it's related competitor Alias/Wavefront are Industrial Design software tools. They have strong surfacing capabilities and their strength lies in the ease with which you can generate and change surface profiles. These are the surfacing tools that lead to Hollywood animation effects. Changing a surface is as easy as grabbing a point and pulling it to deform the surface. These are not engineering software packages. They have no means of creating an engineering drawing or being used to perform FEA analysis, etc. Not sure about assembly features. Alias/Wavefront came first, it's the "Cadillac" of the industry and priced accordingly (Not unlike Pro/E?). Rhino came later, it's VERY cheap (free for demo software on the website) and is being marketed hard to ID students to try to break Alias's grip on the industry. It appears nearly as fully featured as Alias for a fraction of the price.
It appears that getting surface data from either package to Pro/E is similar. At best you can port a STEP or IGES file that results in a "Dumb" Pro/E surface. That is, one which can not be changed within Pro/E. If you spend much time using Pro/E as a surfacing tool I think you'll discover that surfaces created IN Pro/E are fairly easy to work with. Those created outside Pro/E and ported in are essentially one big feature that has only limited use. If you don't intend to change the surface once you've moved to Pro/E you're probably okay.
Hope this helps. I've got more info on other pieces of software that can be used when scanning (digitizing) physical models and trying to convert the data to surfaces if anyone is interested. (Geomagic, Metris, Paraform).
Bob Kerila, PE
Hi,
I know I'm a "little" late to this thread, but I am interested in hearing more about Geo, Metris and Para. I'm looking into 3D laser scanning and want to know what's out there to process the scans into usable models.
What's your experience with these types of point cloud processing programs? Are there any others (know anything about Rapidform or Surfacer)?
Thanks in advance,
Tim
I know I'm a "little" late to this thread, but I am interested in hearing more about Geo, Metris and Para. I'm looking into 3D laser scanning and want to know what's out there to process the scans into usable models.
What's your experience with these types of point cloud processing programs? Are there any others (know anything about Rapidform or Surfacer)?
Thanks in advance,
Tim
Tim,
I don't have specific knowledge of those progams, but I have been exploring the usefullness of scanned point cloud data a lot recently. In every case where we've tried to scan a physical model and use the data to create an Engineering Solid we have followed a similar path.
We use the scanned data as a template only. We do not use the scan points or curves to create the engineering surfaces. In every case where we tried to do that the result was a very "rigid" Solid model. The scanned data comes into Pro/E as a single feature and cannot be manipulated. Trying to use Pro/E's point manipulation tools as an alternative is no better. Our greatest success (and the fastest results) have come by creating new curves that approximate the scanned data and measuring clearances to get as tight a fit as possible. When subsequent changes or surface tweaks are required it is much easier to do them.
Ask yourself what the end result is that you're looking for. I believe that there are VERY few examples that really require the detail supplied by scanning a physical model. Most applications only require (and are better served by) a model draw from scratch. Many tools are fast enough that you can draw a model that's close and then spend a few hundred dollars for a wax 3D Rapid Prototype, make some changes, repeat the RP, etc. and get to the end faster than the scanning route. Scanning picks up every ugly little surface glitch and the designer then spends an inordinate amount of time smoothing these back out of the model.
Good luck,
Bob Kerila, PE
I don't have specific knowledge of those progams, but I have been exploring the usefullness of scanned point cloud data a lot recently. In every case where we've tried to scan a physical model and use the data to create an Engineering Solid we have followed a similar path.
We use the scanned data as a template only. We do not use the scan points or curves to create the engineering surfaces. In every case where we tried to do that the result was a very "rigid" Solid model. The scanned data comes into Pro/E as a single feature and cannot be manipulated. Trying to use Pro/E's point manipulation tools as an alternative is no better. Our greatest success (and the fastest results) have come by creating new curves that approximate the scanned data and measuring clearances to get as tight a fit as possible. When subsequent changes or surface tweaks are required it is much easier to do them.
Ask yourself what the end result is that you're looking for. I believe that there are VERY few examples that really require the detail supplied by scanning a physical model. Most applications only require (and are better served by) a model draw from scratch. Many tools are fast enough that you can draw a model that's close and then spend a few hundred dollars for a wax 3D Rapid Prototype, make some changes, repeat the RP, etc. and get to the end faster than the scanning route. Scanning picks up every ugly little surface glitch and the designer then spends an inordinate amount of time smoothing these back out of the model.
Good luck,
Bob Kerila, PE
What is everyone's opion of Imageware for surfacing and reverse engineering from point coulds?
The thing I have noticed compared to Pro/E is that there is no way wo change the surfaces once made. They have to replaced. This is hard to adjust to.
Is there any differnce in the quality of the surfaces made by pro/E and somethign like Rhino or Imageware? (Bezier in Pro/e vs NURBS in Rhino, Imageware) ProEpro
The thing I have noticed compared to Pro/E is that there is no way wo change the surfaces once made. They have to replaced. This is hard to adjust to.
Is there any differnce in the quality of the surfaces made by pro/E and somethign like Rhino or Imageware? (Bezier in Pro/e vs NURBS in Rhino, Imageware) ProEpro
- Status
Similar threads
- Solved
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question