XANSYS Forum Index
    Register    

FAQ    Search    Memberlist    Usergroups    SmartFeedSmartFeed    Profile    Log in
Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    XANSYS Forum Index -> XANSYS
Author Message
aaron.caba
User


Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 157

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 6:32 am  Reply with quote

I have been using DM for many years and worked out how best to use it in my workflows. Now I'm considering looking at SpaceClaim to possibly replace DM. I have NOT had time to get a trial to test SC yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on SC vs. DM? My main uses for DM include:
* Defeaturing complex geometry.
* Slice and dice geometry for meshing.
* Build simple parameterized geometry for parametric studies

Has anyone on the board used/tried SC?

Aaron
_________________
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, Inc.
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
matt.sutton
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 7:31 am  Reply with quote

Hey Aaron,
So, there is no way coming from a Channel Partner that this isn't going to sound sales-ish, but truth be told, I'm hook on SpaceClaim for defeaturing in particular. If you've got to fill in holes, delete CAD fluff like the designers name embossed on a face, simplify and straighten up loose junk, remove fillets, blah-blah-blah, you are going to be an order of magnitude more productive in SpaceClaim rather than DM. (Probably 2 orders of magnitude more productive than MAPDL for geometry cleanup stuff) What is cool about it is that the paradigm is fundamentally more closely similar to what you would have done in MAPDL as opposed to DM, but it is so much faster, intuitive and robust than MAPDL. You just work on geometry, nothing else. So in MAPDL where in the past you might have deleted a volume, deleted a face, twiddled with some edges, rebuilt the face with new edges and rebuilt the solid from the group of faces; that's more or less exactly what SpaceClaim is doing, but automatically and at interactive speeds.
Now, the parametric stuff in SpaceClaim is a little bit of a work in progress now. When the paradigm is geometry editing, not feature editing, parameterizing things becomes a little more challenging to bake into the tool in logical and meaningful way. Slicing stuff is pretty easy, but again, where it really shines is in defeaturing. At least that is my experience.
Matt Sutton
www.padtinc.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:33 AM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I have been using DM for many years and worked out how best to use it in my workflows. Now I'm considering looking at SpaceClaim to possibly replace DM. I have NOT had time to get a trial to test SC yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on SC vs. DM? My main uses for DM include:
* Defeaturing complex geometry.
* Slice and dice geometry for meshing.
* Build simple parameterized geometry for parametric studies

Has anyone on the board used/tried SC?

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rod.scholl
User


Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 7:32 am  Reply with quote

I don't want to wade too deeply into a subject that can so greatly affect the ANSYS inc. revenue stream... but in a word, Spacelcaim (purchased by ANSYS inc. year ago) is better.

Here's a sneak peek of upcoming comic on the subject!

http://www.epsilonfea.com/fea-graphic-novel/

Rod



______________________________
 
Rod Scholl
Principal | Epsilon FEA, LLC
Tel: 952.405.9710
Rod.Scholl@EpsilonFEA.com
www.EpsilonFEA.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:33 AM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I have been using DM for many years and worked out how best to use it in my workflows. Now I'm considering looking at SpaceClaim to possibly replace DM. I have NOT had time to get a trial to test SC yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on SC vs. DM? My main uses for DM include:
* Defeaturing complex geometry.
* Slice and dice geometry for meshing.
* Build simple parameterized geometry for parametric studies

Has anyone on the board used/tried SC?

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joshua.hogg
User


Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 83
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 7:32 am  Reply with quote

Hi Aaron,

We started out with DM, and I trialed SpaceClaim to see if that would suit us better. It was overwhelmingly better (for us).

Design Modeler is more tightly integrated with Mechanical, so there are aspects that are better in DM (such as parameters, beams, etc.). These things can be done in SpaceClaim too, but they are a little clunky. For example, since SpaceClaim is not parametric by design, using parameters to control direct modeling actions can sometimes result in unpredictable behavior. As an example, I was once looking at what best orientation to place a circular hole pattern around a casting, so I used a parameter to control a rotational move. The reference used for the angular move would change between iterations, so I could not trust that the iteration matched the intended angle. For most cases, the parameter integration works fine, but there are some special cases.

As for disfeaturing and slicing geometry for meshing, SpaceClaim is unmatched. It is truly amazing what can be done, and how fast it can be done. It blows DM out of the water. I would suggest you request an eval license and play with it for a couple weeks. If you can get past the direct modeling philosophy change, I think you will notice a significant benefit.

Cheers
_________________
Joshua Hogg, PE, M.Sc.
FEA Engineer IV
NACCO Materials Handling Group
Portland, OR
http://www.nmhg.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
janet.wolf
User


Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 27
Location: Houston, TX

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 7:45 am  Reply with quote

Rod: That is just awesome! Is this a continuing series?

I've used both, and each has their appeal, depending on what I'm working on.
SpaceClaim is quite a bit faster at making modifications to geometry, and
the Undo function was a function I dearly loved having. They have the
unparalleled capability to create beams from solid geometry, which is truly
spectacular. However, I found I had trouble creating precision geometry at
times, and had to work extra hard at making some stuff line up; for example,
I was trying to create a weld volume around some complex geometry and I had
to redo it several times because the geometry didn't line up and the mesher
barfed on me.

Janet Wolf, PMP, PE
Trendsetter Vulcan Offshore
Janet.wolf@vulcanoffshore.com
Tel: 281-944-2824

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Rod Scholl
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:32 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I don't want to wade too deeply into a subject that can so greatly affect
the ANSYS inc. revenue stream... but in a word, Spacelcaim (purchased by
ANSYS inc. year ago) is better.

Here's a sneak peek of upcoming comic on the subject!

http://www.epsilonfea.com/fea-graphic-novel/

Rod



______________________________
 
Rod Scholl
Principal | Epsilon FEA, LLC
Tel: 952.405.9710
Rod.Scholl@EpsilonFEA.com
www.EpsilonFEA.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:33 AM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I have been using DM for many years and worked out how best to use it in my
workflows. Now I'm considering looking at SpaceClaim to possibly replace
DM. I have NOT had time to get a trial to test SC yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on SC vs. DM? My main uses for DM include:
* Defeaturing complex geometry.
* Slice and dice geometry for meshing.
* Build simple parameterized geometry for parametric studies

Has anyone on the board used/tried SC?

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rod.scholl
User


Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 8:04 am  Reply with quote

Hi Janet -- yeah this is number 9... when I get inspired on a subject, there's a guy from Brazil who draws them up based on my child like sketches!

Anyone can subscribe by dropping me an email (or a check bon on our contact page) -- there's an archive of the other 8 too... *I* think they're hilarious... but I suppose its bad form to laugh at one's own jokes :).

That is one of the limitations I've found in SC -- the precision is like a cad package instead of the 1e-16 that classic/DM support. Because of this (your below referenced barfing during mesh :) we sometimes have to rely on mesh based defeaturing, which I'm getting used to but it always makes me nervous... and that sometimes causes that error of 5-10 elements randomly grabbing nodes from half-way across the model. I guess that's a feature cuz ANSYS inc. won't call it an error ( I was told it wasn't a bug because the elements met the shape criteria even though they connect *completely unrelated bodies* in the model but that's another story... now we always go to wire frame mode to find the nearly invisible inexplicable slivers that can hide inside the model. But I digress...

So, anyway the geometry precision is a valid criticism but when it pops up, we leverage mesh-based defeaturing, and more recently the mesh connections, and it's never been too much of a bump in the road. But, ahh, ya gotta love the user experience... sometimes I'm req'd to work in DM and I just marvel that something can take 10 minutes in DM for what I coulda done in 20 seconds in SC...

Rod
______________________________
 
Rod Scholl
Principal | Epsilon FEA, LLC
Tel: 952.405.9710
Rod.Scholl@EpsilonFEA.com
www.EpsilonFEA.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Janet Wolf
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:45 AM
To: 'ANSYS User Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Rod: That is just awesome! Is this a continuing series?

I've used both, and each has their appeal, depending on what I'm working on.
SpaceClaim is quite a bit faster at making modifications to geometry, and the Undo function was a function I dearly loved having. They have the unparalleled capability to create beams from solid geometry, which is truly spectacular. However, I found I had trouble creating precision geometry at times, and had to work extra hard at making some stuff line up; for example, I was trying to create a weld volume around some complex geometry and I had to redo it several times because the geometry didn't line up and the mesher barfed on me.

Janet Wolf, PMP, PE
Trendsetter Vulcan Offshore
Janet.wolf@vulcanoffshore.com
Tel: 281-944-2824

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Rod Scholl
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 9:32 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I don't want to wade too deeply into a subject that can so greatly affect the ANSYS inc. revenue stream... but in a word, Spacelcaim (purchased by ANSYS inc. year ago) is better.

Here's a sneak peek of upcoming comic on the subject!

http://www.epsilonfea.com/fea-graphic-novel/

Rod



______________________________
 
Rod Scholl
Principal | Epsilon FEA, LLC
Tel: 952.405.9710
Rod.Scholl@EpsilonFEA.com
www.EpsilonFEA.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:33 AM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I have been using DM for many years and worked out how best to use it in my workflows. Now I'm considering looking at SpaceClaim to possibly replace DM. I have NOT had time to get a trial to test SC yet.

Does anyone have any thoughts on SC vs. DM? My main uses for DM include:
* Defeaturing complex geometry.
* Slice and dice geometry for meshing.
* Build simple parameterized geometry for parametric studies

Has anyone on the board used/tried SC?

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mike.krawczyk
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 8:33 am  Reply with quote

Aaron - The previous responders have covered the bases I believe, but I wanted to add that we were VERY early adopters of SC and have not looked back. We deal with many CAD packages, depending upon which client we are working with, and SC can handle them all. The defeaturing, midsurfacing, volume extraction, enclosure creation, etc. is stellar. I have not used DM, so I cannot compare the two, but SC handles everything we need as prep for analysis. The only caution that I would give is that we use layering in SC to "eliminate" parts that we do not want to import into ANSYS. If the layer is hidden in SC, the parts in that layer will not import into ANSYS. However, this is not true of the (non-ANSYS) CFD solution that we use (and perhaps for other analysis programs?). Just something to be careful of, so you don't blow up a simulation model when re-importing geometry by thinking that hidden layers will not import.

You have the number - Give me a call if you would like to discuss.

Mike Krawczyk
McCormick Stevenson Corp.
Clearwater, FL, USA
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aaron.caba
User


Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 157

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 12:37 pm  Reply with quote

Thanks all. The responses seem pretty unanimous that SC is better than DM. I'll see if I can give it a try.

Aaron
_________________
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, Inc.
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrew.kokemoor
User


Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2015 1:02 pm  Reply with quote

I guess I'll provide my lone dissent :p

I do CFD primarily, so things are different, but having a feature history is extremely useful for me. It lets me have template projects with an existing feature tree that I can bring solid assemblies into and just go down the list, attaching the features to the new geometry. Applying parametric operations to solid bodies before fill operations lets me do things that would be a lot trickier in SpaceClaim. (At least, they look tricky. I haven't spent a ton of time with it, so maybe it's amazing for my workflow too, and I just haven't figured it out yet, but it doesn't look to me like the easy way to do things.)

Also, if anybody is comparing defeaturing between SC and DM that doesn't know about the Face Delete feature in DM, there's no way that'll be anywhere near a fair fight. Face Delete is a pretty impressive tool, and is responsible for at least 90% of my defeaturing.

Andrew Kokemoor
HydraForce Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of aaron.caba
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:37 PM
To: xansys@xansys.org
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Thanks all. The responses seem pretty unanimous that SC is better than DM. I'll see if I can give it a try.

Aaron

------------------------
Aaron C. Caba, Ph.D.
Sr. Member Technical Staff
Nuvotronics, LLC
7586 Old Peppers Ferry Loop
Radford, VA 24141
http://nuvotronics.com/






+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrew.kelly
User


Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 243
Location: Columbus, OH

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:11 am  Reply with quote

Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I'm a big fan of DM. Models are static structural parts and assemblies. Mostly 3D, but occasionally 2D. Meshes are always patch-conforming (small faces need small elements, otherwise they wouldn't be there).

Creo has an age-old habit of splitting revolved surfaces into two 180 deg surfaces. Body Operation --> Simplify fixes that in one operation.

Plus 1 vote for Face Delete. Defeaturing is a snap. I tell my colleagues to always bring their CAD geometry through DM. Even though they don't think of it right away, they will usually find an excessively dense mesh in an area that won't meaningfully affect the results.

Point Load? There are many occasions where I need a vertex exactly "here".

Multi-body part? Several users use that trick to have shared nodes between 2 bodies.

PADT published a nice article on how to extract 2D geometry from a 3D model in 4(?) operations. I've used that trick several times.

Face imprint is very common. I read another post that suggested precision and parametric reliability with SCDM isn't very good. If the imprint isn't exactly "here" and able to follow the geometry, that would be a problem.

Call me a skeptic. Although DM does have its shortcomings, someone would have to show productivity gains by switching, without losing any of the capabilities we depend on.
_________________
Andrew C. Kelly, P.E.
Honeywell Sensing & Productivity Solutions
andrew.kelly@honeywell.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
james.johnson
User


Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:19 am  Reply with quote

Now I've heard it all! :)

James Johnson
(Proud user of Ansys Classic)
Parker Hannifin Corporation

Quote:
From: "andrew.kelly" <andrew.kelly@honeywell.com>

Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I'm a big fan of DM. [snip]


+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eric.nickel
User


Joined: 28 May 2015
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:08 pm  Reply with quote

I would echo all the comments about Spaceclaim being great for defeaturing. Very fast, and great keyboard shortcuts.

However, one downside that hasn't been mentioned is that spaceclaim isn't associative with your original CAD geometry. For example, if you import an assembly into ANSYS through DM and then later on you modify that assembly in CAD and update it in ANSYS, DM will normally keep things associative so that your contacts and boundary conditions don't fall off. However, spaceclaim isn't associative to the CAD files so this wouldn't work with spaceclaim. You would have to either make modifications in Spaceclaim, or else update from CAD and lose any contacts & boundary conditions that you've specified. Depending on your workflow this may or may not be an issue, but it should be understood.
_________________
Eric Nickel
Macdon Industries
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
guowei.li
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:01 pm  Reply with quote

I haven't used SC though have gone a tutorial session. I'm in general ok with DM but there is one issue: its response is slow. This is when you right click on an item, hold it, wait for response and wonder if something wrong. After working like this for a day on a large assembly, you will get a syndrome of tennis arm.

Guowei Li
www.westport.com

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james.johnson
User


Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:38 am  Reply with quote

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe
via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was
ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite
sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joshua.hogg
User


Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 83
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:32 am  Reply with quote

MAPDL is based on a pretty old geometry engine. I think that was a big part of the Workbench direction, being moved to a parasolid based geometry engine. As a consequence, I have found MAPDL has difficulty importing geometry with difficult features that were made in more recent CAD environments.

As others have eluded to, SpaceClaim has a lower tolerance for precision, so it is common that edges don't always line up perfectly as they appear. I think MAPDL may struggle with this. That said you could save geometry from SC as a STEP or IGES and open it in MAPDL.

A better approach in my opinion would be to handle meshing and geometry through SC and Workbench, then read the mesh into MAPDL with appropriate named selections. The workflow for this is pretty streamlined.

MAPDL handles nodes and elements beautifully; geometry not so much.
_________________
Joshua Hogg, PE, M.Sc.
FEA Engineer IV
NACCO Materials Handling Group
Portland, OR
http://www.nmhg.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james.johnson
User


Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 7:46 am  Reply with quote

Joshua,

Thanks for your advice, especially regarding SpaceClaim's lower
tolerances.

I've heard others mention meshing in Workbench and then moving to MAPDL.
Maybe I'll have a go at that soon.

James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation

Quote:
From: "joshua.hogg" <joshua.hogg@nmhg.com>

MAPDL is based on a pretty old geometry engine. I think that was a
big part of the Workbench direction, being moved to a parasolid
based geometry engine. As a consequence, I have found MAPDL has
difficulty importing geometry with difficult features that were made
in more recent CAD environments.

As others have eluded to, SpaceClaim has a lower tolerance for
precision, so it is common that edges don't always line up perfectly
as they appear. I think MAPDL may struggle with this. That said you
could save geometry from SC as a STEP or IGES and open it in MAPDL.

A better approach in my opinion would be to handle meshing and
geometry through SC and Workbench, then read the mesh into MAPDL
with appropriate named selections. The workflow for this is pretty
streamlined.

MAPDL handles nodes and elements beautifully; geometry not so much.



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ian.prentice
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 115

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:06 am  Reply with quote

I have not done this, but I thought DM could create an .anf file which would read directly into Classic, skipping the DM-STEP-CATIA-ANSYS steps and probably being much more robust.....

Ian
GEAE


-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Liddle
User


Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 1274
Location: Chesterfield, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:03 pm  Reply with quote

On 05/06/2015 15:32, joshua.hogg wrote:
Quote:
MAPDL is based on a pretty old geometry engine.
More to the point it was a never a particularly good geometry engine.
I remember John Swanson telling me in the bar after a conference that
choosing XOX was the worst mistake he made in his time in charge of ANSYS.

--
Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services,
Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK.
www.tynecomp.co.uk

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
_________________
Martin Liddle, Tynemouth Computer Services,
Chesterfield, UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rolf.johannes
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:44 pm  Reply with quote

We do use DM to create geometry input for MAPDL mainly for the reason that CAD geometry fails frequently to import properly to MAPDL directly. Form our experience, in a process chain of generating geometry in DM, transferring it to CAD and then to MAPDL I would suspect the source of problems to be the CAD system.
We have been trying out 4 different CAD systems and IGES transfer had a success rate of 25%, STEP being a little bit better at 50%, DM to MAPDL imports correctly close to 100%, at least in our cases. This is all with default settings. Tweaking the settings changes the numbers a bit but the general picture doesn't change.

Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Rolf Johannes
Berechnung / Forschung & Entwicklung
Calculation / Research & Development

EagleBurgmann Germany GmbH & Co. KG
Äußere Sauerlacher Str. 6-10, 82515 Wolfratshausen / Germany Tel. +49 8171 23 1829, Fax +49 8171 23 1130 Rolf.Johannes@de.eagleburgmann.com
www.eagleburgmann.com

Registergericht: München HRA 83942. Komplementär-GmbH: EagleBurgmann Germany Verwaltungs-GmbH, Registergericht München HRB 151901.
Geschäftsführer der Komplementär-GmbH: Dr. Stefan Sacré (CEO), Michael Stomberg (COO), Jochen Strasser (CFO), Ust.-Ident-Nr. DE 230276848

Please consider the environment before printing this email

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Im Auftrag von jajohnson@parker.com
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Juni 2015 14:39
An: ANSYS User Discussion List
Betreff: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe
via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was
ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite
sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jim.patterson
User


Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Location: Canton, OH

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:09 am  Reply with quote

Good info here.

Is anybody using DM or SpaceClaim for midsurfacing? Any comments on capability?

Thanks,

Jim


James J. Patterson, PhD.
Principal Vehicle Systems Engineer
Trailer Commercial Vehicle Systems
2070 Industrial Place S.E.  Canton, OH 44707  
ph. 330 489 0095  |   fax 330 489 1961
jpatterson@hendrickson-intl.com
www.hendrickson-intl.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - The contents of this message and the attachments are confidential and are for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately delete it without reading it and without further distribution or disclosure.  Any further distribution of this message to others is subject to this Confidentiality Notice and/or any confidentiality agreement or non-disclosure agreement in effect that covers the information contained in the message and any attachments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Johannes, Rolf
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2:43 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

We do use DM to create geometry input for MAPDL mainly for the reason that CAD geometry fails frequently to import properly to MAPDL directly. Form our experience, in a process chain of generating geometry in DM, transferring it to CAD and then to MAPDL I would suspect the source of problems to be the CAD system.
We have been trying out 4 different CAD systems and IGES transfer had a success rate of 25%, STEP being a little bit better at 50%, DM to MAPDL imports correctly close to 100%, at least in our cases. This is all with default settings. Tweaking the settings changes the numbers a bit but the general picture doesn't change.

Kind regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Rolf Johannes
Berechnung / Forschung & Entwicklung
Calculation / Research & Development

EagleBurgmann Germany GmbH & Co. KG
Äußere Sauerlacher Str. 6-10, 82515 Wolfratshausen / Germany Tel. +49 8171 23 1829, Fax +49 8171 23 1130 Rolf.Johannes@de.eagleburgmann.com
www.eagleburgmann.com

Registergericht: München HRA 83942. Komplementär-GmbH: EagleBurgmann Germany Verwaltungs-GmbH, Registergericht München HRB 151901.
Geschäftsführer der Komplementär-GmbH: Dr. Stefan Sacré (CEO), Michael Stomberg (COO), Jochen Strasser (CFO), Ust.-Ident-Nr. DE 230276848

Please consider the environment before printing this email

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Im Auftrag von jajohnson@parker.com
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Juni 2015 14:39
An: ANSYS User Discussion List
Betreff: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
_________________
Thanks,

Jim

-------------------------------------------------------
James J. Patterson
Principal Vehicle Systems Engineer
Hendrickson
Trailer Suspension Systems
2070 Industrial Place SE
Canton, OH 44707
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joshua.hogg
User


Joined: 12 Dec 2011
Posts: 83
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:11 pm  Reply with quote

I think we have sufficiently beat this topic to death.

We use SC extensively for mid-surfacing. This is an area I think it excels in.

There have been occasions with complicated tube junction with funky curvature where the precision becomes an issue. Meaning it takes a while to get surface edges to line up correctly, but we can usually struggle through it and for the vast majority of our work, its not an issue.

Mid-surfacing chassis is something that literally took 1-2 weeks in Classic and now we can do in 30 min.
_________________
Joshua Hogg, PE, M.Sc.
FEA Engineer IV
NACCO Materials Handling Group
Portland, OR
http://www.nmhg.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rod.latham
User


Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:04 am  Reply with quote

I use DM and SC to midsirface and admittedly need to get a little more
familiar with the latter.

However, DM used manually is especially good at making up the midplane
gaps between surfaces post mid-planing and has saved many hours
over doing this operation in our NX CAD system. You just need to remember
to make a join at the midplane mating interfaces after.

So DM has been a real productivity improvement for such functionality over
CAD - the court is till out for me on SC regarding midplaning as I have
had mixed results.
I guess the driver to use this product more will be the speed at which I
can change geometric features directly - it is impressive in this respect.

Regards,
Roderick Latham CEng MIMechE | Principal Engineer - BHL Structures | BHL
Business Unit | ( 01889 593577 | Fax: 01889 590595 | *: rod.latham@jcb.com

JC Bamford Excavators Ltd
BHL Business Unit
Lakeside Works
Rocester, Nr Uttoxeter, Staffs
ST14 5JP

_____________________________________________________________
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.
Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP
Registered No. 561597 England
_______________________________________________________________

The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the
addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or
distribute this communication in any form but should immediately
contact the Sender.
The information, images, documents and views expressed in this
Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of
companies ("JCB") and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make
any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by
means of Email.

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bram.weisman
User


Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 181
Location: Houston, TX

PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:46 am  Reply with quote

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors
Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe
via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was
ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite
sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
_________________
Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Principal Engineer/Analyst – Mechanical Design

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Atlantia
Website: http://www.sbmatlantia.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Atlantia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tiago.lira
User


Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 10
Location: Ipojuca, Pernambuco, Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:24 am  Reply with quote

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole. Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape
Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
robert.dillworth
User


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:30 am  Reply with quote

Several years ago, I had been given a large model of a bus-like vehicle from a client. I don't remember the number of parts in the assembly, but it was huge. DM choked on it, SC brought it in. I didn't need to dump the parts out for FEM'ing; I only needed to interrogate the model, which I did easily in SC. I would imagine that the tool is only more capable now, some years later.

LPI, Inc.
Robert Dillworth, P.E.
Principal Engineer
304 Hudson Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10013

Ph.: (212) 233-2737
Fax: (212) 406-1417

CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message
you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Tiago José Medeiros de Araujo Lira
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:24 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole. Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
_________________
Robert Dillworth, P.E.
Senior Stress Analyst
Lucius Pitkin, Inc.
304 Hudson St.
New York, NY 10013-1015
(212) 233-2737 ext. 23 (phone)
(212) 406-1417 (fax)
rdillworth@lpiny.com
www.lpiny.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rod.scholl
User


Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:33 am  Reply with quote

I second that -- The speed of SC for large assemblies is impressive!

______________________________
 
Rod Scholl
Principal | Epsilon FEA, LLC
Tel: 952.405.9710
Rod.Scholl@EpsilonFEA.com
www.EpsilonFEA.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Robert Dillworth
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:32 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Several years ago, I had been given a large model of a bus-like vehicle from a client. I don't remember the number of parts in the assembly, but it was huge. DM choked on it, SC brought it in. I didn't need to dump the parts out for FEM'ing; I only needed to interrogate the model, which I did easily in SC. I would imagine that the tool is only more capable now, some years later.

LPI, Inc.
Robert Dillworth, P.E.
Principal Engineer
304 Hudson Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10013

Ph.: (212) 233-2737
Fax: (212) 406-1417

CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Tiago José Medeiros de Araujo Lira
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:24 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole. Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phil.erisman
User


Joined: 24 Jan 2012
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:20 am  Reply with quote

I've never had quite that many parts in a single assembly but with SpaceClaim you can break your model into subassemblies which are in separate files. That way you can open and work with only the parts you need without loading the entire model all the time. Also helps if something gets corrupted so you don't lose the whole model.

Phil Erisman
Engineering Analysis
John Deere

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Tiago José Medeiros de Araujo Lira
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:24 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole. Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
janet.wolf
User


Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 27
Location: Houston, TX

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:52 am  Reply with quote

I used this method when I was building a model of an offshore floating
structure. Definitely in the size range mentioned, and without this method,
I wouldn't have been able to create the model; as it was, it took an hour to
open the master model.

Janet Wolf, PMP, PE
Trendsetter Vulcan Offshore
Janet.wolf@vulcanoffshore.com
Tel: 281-944-2824

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Erisman Philip
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:21 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I've never had quite that many parts in a single assembly but with
SpaceClaim you can break your model into subassemblies which are in separate
files. That way you can open and work with only the parts you need without
loading the entire model all the time. Also helps if something gets
corrupted so you don't lose the whole model.

Phil Erisman
Engineering Analysis
John Deere

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Tiago José
Medeiros de Araujo Lira
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:24 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with
SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience
with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole.
Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the
assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP
(Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to
directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and
Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of
it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of
jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe
via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was
ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing
a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas
a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não
seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a
utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui
contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de
responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões,
pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul
S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is
intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this
in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access,
copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this
message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas,
opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tiago.lira
User


Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 10
Location: Ipojuca, Pernambuco, Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:10 am  Reply with quote

Ok, thanks for the feedback everybody.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer

Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape
Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000


-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Janet Wolf
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 17 de junho de 2015 12:52
Para: 'ANSYS User Discussion List'
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I used this method when I was building a model of an offshore floating structure. Definitely in the size range mentioned, and without this method, I wouldn't have been able to create the model; as it was, it took an hour to open the master model.

Janet Wolf, PMP, PE
Trendsetter Vulcan Offshore
Janet.wolf@vulcanoffshore.com
Tel: 281-944-2824

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Erisman Philip
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:21 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

I've never had quite that many parts in a single assembly but with SpaceClaim you can break your model into subassemblies which are in separate files. That way you can open and work with only the parts you need without loading the entire model all the time. Also helps if something gets corrupted so you don't lose the whole model.

Phil Erisman
Engineering Analysis
John Deere

-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of Tiago José Medeiros de Araujo Lira
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 8:24 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: [Xansys] RES: Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Hey all,

Sorry for bumping this topic, but does anyone have experience with SpaceClaim and large assemblies (5000+)? How does it fare? My experience with DM has been terrible, sometimes more than 8h to generate a repair hole.
Extend surfaces is simply impossible. I had experience with SC but the assemblies were much smaller.

Atenciosamente,
Best regards,

Tiago José Medeiros de Araújo Lira
Engenheiro Mecânico
Mechanical Engineer
Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S/A
Fone (Phone): +55 81 3311-7810
www.estaleiroatlanticosul.com.br
Ilha de Tatuoca, s/n - Complexo Portuário de Suape Ipojuca-PE, Brasil, CEP (Zip Code) 55590-000

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] Em nome de Weisman, Bram Enviada em: quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2015 11:46
Para: ANSYS User Discussion List
Assunto: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Recent versions of SpaceClaim Direct Modeler (SCDM) have the option to directly write to ANF. I believe this was introduced at R16.0 (SCDM 2015).


Best regards,

Bram Weisman, P.E.
Technology Advisor - Tech Champions and Tech Advisors Proposals and Technology Development

Meshin' around with ANSYS since 1998.

SBM Offshore USA, Inc.
Website: www.sbmoffshore.com


This message is not supplied on behalf of SBM Offshore USA, Inc or any of it's affiliates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xansys [mailto:xansys-bounces@xansys.org] On Behalf Of jajohnson@parker.com
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 7:39 AM
To: ANSYS User Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Xansys] Design Modeler vs. SpaceClaim

Is anyone using SpaceClaim to prepare geometry for Ansys Classic (MAPDL)?
I once played around with fixing geometry in DM, exporting to CATIA (maybe via STEP?), then importing into MAPDL. The resulting MAPDL geometry was ugly with, for example, lines not meeting at their endpoints despite sharing a keypoint.

Anyone know if SpaceClaim might be a better match for Classic?

Thanks,
James Johnson
Parker Hannifin Corporation



+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Antes de imprimir pense em seu compromisso com o Meio Ambiente.

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Esta mensagem, incluindo anexos, contém informações confidenciais destinadas a indivíduos e propósitos específicos e é protegida por lei. Caso você não seja o destinatário, apague esta mensagem. É terminantemente proibida a utilização, acesso, cópia ou divulgação não autorizada das informações aqui contidas. Todos os dados da mensagem, incluindo os anexos, são de responsabilidade de seu autor, não representando ideias, opiniões, pensamentos ou qualquer forma de posicionamento do Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.

The information herein contained is confidential, is law protected and is intended only for business use of the addressee. If you have received this in error, immediately delete it. It's forbidden the unathorized use, access, copy or disclose of the information contained herein. The content of this message is of responsibility of the author, and does not represent ideas, opinions, thoughts or any kind of statement of Estaleiro Atlântico Sul S.A.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| XANSYS web - www.xansys.org/forum |
| The Online Community for users of ANSYS, Inc. Software |
| Hosted by PADT - www.padtinc.com |
| Send administrative requests to xansys-mod@tynecomp.co.uk |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Post generated using Mail2Forum (http://www.mail2forum.com)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    XANSYS Forum Index -> XANSYS
All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

sleek template created by Andrew Charron