surface modelling 2

[rachel123]

hi,
what is the good surfacing modelling software
it is said that pro-e is not so good for surface modelling.how far this is correct.

anybody respond

thanx

 

[TheTick]

I have managed to do some complex surface modelling in Pro/E, but it is far from the best tool for the job. Unigraphics has the best surface modelling capability that I have worked with. CATIA v4 is good but cumbersome (I have not seen v5).

 

[Proximo]

If you use the Interactive Surface Extension with Pro/E, you can create the most complicated surfacing shapes imaginable. ISDX allows you to create surfaces using NURBS, just like 3D Studio or Maya.

The Advanced Surfacing capabilites of Pro/E are good for just about any shape, but will not give you the flexability or options that you will find in the ISDX module.

"Statues have never been raised to critics, only those criticized."

 

[TheTick]

Pro/E lets you play "Doctor". UG lets you play "God".

 

[vkirchner]

If UG is a God, it must be a Demi God. We have UG, Catia, Ideas, ProE, Cadds5, Rhino, and Icem. We use Icem Surf for the class A surfacing, then place the surface back into UG, Catia, Ideas, Cadds5, or ProE using the direct translators available from Icem. Moving files between systems with Iges, Step, and other file formats do not always work within the specified tolerances for clean solids. Icem slo helps to clean up small variations in models, between face edges, trimmed curves, patch structures, and also simple conversions from Bezier to Nurbs, and in reverse. Good surfaces can be created in all Cad systems, but can you do it quickly enough to make any money at it, is another question.

 

[mjcole]

I don't know what you mean saying UG lets you play GOD. If you mean that you have to go in and change every single feature or non-feature points each time you change the length of a curve or sketch then yeah you'd sort of have to be a God to make sure your model updates parametrically.

Pro/E has very good surfacing capability and ISDX is very good also but lacks full dimensional control.

Michael

 

[Rocko]

The ISDX is no longer a PTC product but a offshoot independent company now. The module will also cost you big money. Also it will be interesting to see how long these two play together nicely and when a royalty battle will begin with ISDX getting the proverbial PTC cold shoulder.

 

[asmenut]

If you are going to be doing just surfaces, try Rhino. It is a surafacing magnet. It is used by Industrial Designers and out does all the CAD packages.

 

[TheTick]

Strictly a comparison between UG and Pro/E. Pro/E has almost no appreciable ability to modify imported non-parameterized surfaces and solids.

Pro/E requires that a parametric model be kept on "parametric life support" while it is being modified. UG allows one to completely tear a model "limb from limb", reattach those limbs, and breathe new life back into that solid without a complete restart.

UG has many tools for manipulating non-parameterized solids, including the ability to move and replace faces and resize and move holes. UG has the ability to change the degree of a B-surface definition and allows access to all underlying defining points and poles.

The parasolid kernel allows for edge tolerances to be controlled on a feature-by-feature basis.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.

 

[mjcole]

Well I guess you're right in that respect. UG lets you get away with a lot and fix improper geometry. Where as Pro/E is very strict about dealing with bad geometry or underconstrained features.

Michael