FeatureWorks can't recognize more than one feature at a time.

I am using FeatureWorks to build features in imported parts in SW2005
but I'm having trouble recognizing more than one feature at a time. I'm
using Interactive Recognition mode for various reasons. I can pick
multiple fillets that are the same radius and it recognizes them,
however when I try to recognize 2 chamfers that are the same size, it
fails. I must select them 1 at a time. The same goes for holes, even
though they are the same size, I must select them 1 at a time.
What's the trick? Am I missing something?
Reply to
dpodz
Loading thread data ...
I use 'Feature Works' too. What kind of parts are you trying to import? Maybe I can help.
Richard
Reply to
Richard Charney
It's a simple IGES plate with a chamfered slot, four counterbored holes and the four corners filleted. I'm really just checking out FeatureWorks but it's not doing what I expected it to do.
If I do the auto recognition I get everything seperate in the feature tree. I'd like the fillets to be in one feature, the chamfers in one feature and the holes to be one feature or a pattern. I thought using the interactive recognition mode would solve that problem for me but I can't seem to recognize more than one chamfer or hole at a time.
I realize that I can go back after the recognition process and delete the extra features and edit the definition of the fillets and chamfers to include those edges. Likewise I can create the hole pattern. On this simple part, the modifications are relatively simple, but on a larger more complicated part it won't be this simple.
It just seems to me like FeatureWorks should be able to recognize more than one feature at a time as it it does with fillets. What am I missing?
Thanks for your help.
Reply to
dpodz
Not exactly sure what's going on for you. Can you send me the file?
Richard
Reply to
Richard Charney
Does this VX really work like that? How can I try it out?
Richard
Reply to
Richard Charney
formatting link
a SolidWorks user for the past 7 years, I can honestly say that VX is a hidden gem.
Reply to
haulin79
Please, show us the designs you do?
..
Reply to
Paul Salvador
formatting link
This is from a few years back i.e. not proprietary. The new stuff I am working on cannot be released to the public yet.
Please see the above video, ALL the parts in the video shown were done in SolidWorks. This of course was a team effort.
Paul Salvador wrote:
Reply to
haulin79
I forgot to explicitly mention that we are switching to VX.
Reply to
haulin79
So, did you do the ID of the receiver inhouse (outer shape done with surfaces or solids, top-down/incontext/external references to the outer surface (all parts associative) or bottom up, non-associative?) or through the help of a outside design house (they did the outer shape)?
formatting link
BTW, I agree, SW is getting worse and worse per release and I understand why you would change to something else but I don't see how VX is going to solve your problems, that is another can of worms? And, I'm not trying to slame VX, I just don't see how VX is going to solve your problems,.. unless you are going to also use CAM? But, then again, frustration (which I understand) will do this? Otherwise, what are the top 2-3 reasons for changing to VX over SW?
Thanks.
Reply to
Paul Salvador
I agree, all software has worms. The best software for a particular application would have less of them in the primary modules of usage.
I guess after a few months of using VX, I'll be able to tell you if I have the desire to go back to SolidWorks.
As for the Medtronic receiver, I was not involved with that aspect of the design. My main job was engineering of the transponder pill and production fixtures.
Main reasons for switching to VX: 1. Surfacing 2. Robust Core and Cavity design
Reply to
haulin79
Well, am I wrong to assume the receiver is the most complex surface model and assembly or is the pill? It seems to me, the order of complexity would be the receiver, deployment mechanism and the pill? So, may I ask again, who designed the receiver and if not, will they also stop using SW and start using VX? Or, is the other people involved with designed the receiver no longer involved with your designs and everything will now be done internally?
Thanks.
Reply to
Paul Salvador
Well, am I wrong to assume the receiver is the most complex surface model and assembly or is the pill? It seems to me, the order of complexity would be the receiver, deployment mechanism and the pill? So, may I ask again, who designed the receiver and if not, will they also stop using SW and start using VX? Or, are the other people involved with designing the receiver (in SW) no longer involved with your designs and everything will now be done internally using VX?
And, is the need to make core/cavities because you will also be machining the designs internally using VX?
Thanks.
Reply to
Paul Salvador
Jon, will it also run under Mandrake Linux 10.1? That's what I'm currently using for an OS.
Reply to
Richard Charney
DHL just delivered my copy of VX yesterday. Being a long time Solidworks user, I'll let you all know if I regret switching to VX. It sould take me a couple of months to do a few real projects to make a firm conclusion.
Paul, The only portion of the Medtronic device that used surfaces is the receiver. Both the pill and deployment system used simple solids and fillets.
We will not be doing machining of core and cavities in-house. A few months back, I sat with a SolidWorks applications engineer for 2 hours and he was not able to shell a cavity successfully for a simple surfaced part for me. That's when I began to realize I may need to seriously search for another CAD package.
Reply to
haulin79
"haulin79" wrote in news:1112903279.827754.32420 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Reseller application engineers are trained to be able to run scripted demos without making mistakes, answer some popular tech support questions, and go through the examples in the training books. There really isn't anything preparing them to use or troubleshoot more advanced functionality. If you look at where the official SolidWorks training materials leave off, there is a whole lot of complex modeling territory which is simply not covered. Unless you happened on some one who had real world complex shapes/surfacing/mold development experience, I wouldn't expect much that isn't included in a demo or training script.
Resellers are all about grinding out mass produced "solutions". They usually don't get too involved with applications on the fringes. Not that mold design is fringe work, but it certainly has a lower $/effort ratio from their point of view.
My point is that I wouldn't necessarily base my judgment of what SolidWorks can do on what a reseller application engineer can do.
This is part of the reason for starting a new organization to help people with problems beyone where resellers are willing or able to go.
The website is still under development, but check it out and see if you could use any of the services offered.
formatting link

Dezignstuff
Reply to
Dezignstuff
Ok, but, may I ask again, who designed the receiver and if not, will they also stop using SW and start using VX? Or, are the other people involved with designing the receiver (in SW) no longer involved with your designs (external design group?) and everything will now be done internally using VX (because your company does not know how to do surfacing in SW)?
And, yeah, let us know how it goes?
Also, could you share the simple file which could not be shelled (was it a native SW file or import?) so we in the newsgroup can take a look (our I'll sign a nda if need be?)
..
Reply to
Paul Salvador
Well, your response may not clear to all of us? So I'll add,.. VX is non-modal and has CAM integration, that is the clear difference, imho. And, most older ex-CadKey, MDT and UG users will relate to this non-modal enviroment? For those users, with this mindset, methodology and workflow, I would say, VX is the way to go! What's nice is they offer, like some other hybrid modelers (like UG who finally got up to speed with parametrics and more defined workflows) , is they offer different modes for different workflows. But I'll personally state this, I was "never" forced with working with a workflow in Pro/e, I could always break the relationships and work with dumb data, and, SW is/has been very similar but still lacks (as standard, third party, one freebie is avialable) direct topology manipulation. How VX shows a difference here is they are able to work with dumb data and constraint the data on the fly. Where as, Pro/e and SW, in some cases curves and surfaces need some modification to access it as a local feature (a few more mouse clicks, not a big issue imho). But I say recently because more manipulation tools have reduced the steps to a few less mouse clicks or more direct on the fly association/manipulation.
How so, examples? The concept is not at all foreign to me but I understand the need if I were someone who needed more tools for manipulation and used CAM, but I don't. I think I helped clear some of this up by showing you the tools which are available for data import, repair and manipulation at cadchat? From what I see so far, even though I like VX (and did like it in the past) and I think it seems to fit your wants but it does not fit my needs from what I still see. I continue to see it more as a machinist tool. Their demo is getting better and the online demos and help is impressive, it should help them?
Not sure about the assemby capability, have not delved into yet. How you can make a subjective "blows away" or "better" statement is not clear. VX maybe coded perfectly but that does not translate into factual/relatable data for us to understand/compare. That is, you would want factual data if someone made statements that SW is better and blows away VX, no?
I don't know yet. I could guess/assume based on what I've seen so far that Pro/e and UG are still better but that is not fair, I don't have the data to show/compare. Again, VX strengths are with direct manipulation of imported data so I would guess/assume assembly modeling and drafting will not be their strong areas? SW, imho, sucks (very slow) at top-down and large assembly! But then again, one would think that VX Corp would/should be testing/comparing SW against VX to show how much better, no?
I have no idea but know what SE has claimed in the past (typical marketing, like most mcad companies, not always accurate and with no comparison data) From their mktg brochures and reading some info on it, it seems to be something a SE user will see as new but something other programs have had for quite some time. All the best to them, SE and UG seem to be complimenting eachother quite well.
(btw, I look forward to seeing your models from Bottle Bob's images and the other models you have done in VX!?)
..
Reply to
Paul Salvador
What does non-modal and modal mean? Thanks!
Reply to
haulin79
Ok, thanks anyway. But, I guess I'll have to go with using VariCAD. Since it's the only solid modeler that I've been able to find that will run under on Linux.
Don't worry guys, I'm still using Solidworks at work and love it. I just need something, like VariCAD, to use at home that runs on my Linux Laptop.
Richard
Richard,
I did a little more checking and MachineWorks now claims to support Unix environments.
formatting link
Perhaps a small company like VX feels it would be to expensive and to difficult to support both platforms especially because VX seems to be sold mainly to small and mid-size companies most of whom run Windows XP.
VX is *just beginning to learn how to market* and they seem to be making good progress. For years they just developed for one large client.
formatting link
"Founded in 1985, VX provides design-through-manufacturing solutions to help companies speed time-to-market, increase profitability and gain a sustainable, competitive advantage. Formed by a group of talented mechanical and software engineers headed by Mark Vorwaller, their vision was to develop highly functional, highly productive and extremely accurate software tools to serve the needs of both design engineers and manufacturers.
Originally known as Control Automation Inc. (CAI), the company entered into a four-year joint development agreement with NKK Corp. of Japan and introduced the industry's first hybrid solid/surface/wireframe CAD/CAM system in 1991. In 1994, the company became known as Varimetrix, deriving its name from "variational geometry" and "parametric technology" to reflect the two key components of VX's core technology. Also that year, a long-term partnership was formed with South Korean-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. to develop and produce an advanced CAD/CAM system for Samsung's internal product development.
The result was VX CAD/CAMT, an advanced, integrated CAD/CAM solution that delivered powerful and affordable, three-dimensional hybrid modeling capabilities to the desktop. In March 1999, VX CAD/CAM was released and made available commercially, featuring assembly-centric wireframe, surface and solid modeling with drafting, manufacturing and rendering built in. In April 2000, Shin Nippon Koki (SNK) of Osaka, Japan, invested $20 million in VX to sell, market and distribute its products globally. In 2001, Varimetrix was shortened to VX, with a new logo and brand, to further drive the sales and marketing of its enterprise-level products globally. VX CAD/CAMT
VX technology is built on an exclusive, high-performance engine, the VX kernel, that delivers sophisticated 3D hybrid modeling capabilities and provides interoperability with emerging process management and engineering tools. Some of the world's leading manufacturers already rely on VX CAD/CAM software to drive the design, engineering and manufacturing of their innovative products.
With the introduction of VX CAD/CAM, VX extends enterprise-level mechanical design and engineering capabilities to the desktop-at a fraction of the cost of comparable systems. VX's fully-integrated CAD/CAM environment provides an intuitive user interface, advanced 3D modeling and the open, powerful VX kernel, needed to rapidly develop high-quality products.
VX is privately held. In addition to Shin Nippon Koki (SNK, Osaka, Japan), a privately held, major machining systems supplier affiliated with Daiwa Can Co., Nissan Machine Co. and Nippon Steel Corp, VX's investor partners have included Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
With global headquarters in Palm Bay, Fla., VX maintains sales and marketing offices worldwide and can be accessed on the Web at
formatting link
"
jon
Reply to
Richard Charney

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.