SpaceClaim release 6 ideas

All, so we are planning Release 6 right now and all feedback is greatly appreciated. What I found the last time I asked this question is that we were able to handle many feature requests in the Service Packs of the current release -- and I hope to be able to do that this time as well.

If something is obviously broken, call or contact Technical Support so we can get a call # assigned to it -- but if you can think of something (however small) that would really make SpaceClaim perform well in your environment, I would like to know about it. Feel free to pile onto other people's requests, too.
F

Tags: 6, Release, behavior, enhancements, workflow

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on December 9, 2009 at 2:12am

Frank,

In this context, I'd like to discuss dealing with data from multiple sources. I think Spaceclaim is well suited for doinf that, still, the organisation of such data troubles me all the time, and I believe Spaceclaim could provide a bit of help here.

Let me explain:
Usually, I get data from my client in the beginning of a project. This is generally 'rough' data. I also get data from suppliers or I download data from their web sites. Then, I create my own models in between these, often copying part of the client data, modifying it. All the time, the client will send what they call updates.

One challenge now os to keep track of where the data comes from, what version it is, and what has already been done with it.

Usually I deal with this by creating external subcomponents that reflect the different nature of the data. I store these in subfolders within the project folder. Now things start to get messy when components are moved as design proceeds. It would be good, if this could somehow be integrated with the component tree. Why shouldn't the component tree be mapped directly on the directory or vice versa, as an option?

I'd really like to have a tool that supports organizing components and data in some way.

Best regards,
Martin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on December 9, 2009 at 5:04am

When creating a profile in Spaceclaim that is meant to be pulled into a solid later, I find it very difficult to make sure the sketch is watertight. The only way to find out is double clicking on a profile member and see what else gets highlighted. This will, however, only find curves between two gaps, but if you have only one gap, it does not find it, because the select chain goes one way or the other round the profile.
At times, it depends on which profile member you pick, if it highlights all or only a few aof the curves.
Even if it highlights all and you think the profile is watertight, it will not create a face to pull. After using the fill tool, it might still create a surface to be pulled.

This needs to be mor predictable. It would be good if there were tools or indicators to detect gaps, tangency (even when not active) or double curves.

Also splines could use a bit more control in sketches, especially at the end points. An additional handle to reliably create and maintain spline tangency would be good.

Regards,
Martin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tijs Driessen on December 11, 2009 at 3:13am

Hi,

I think Martin has some very good suggestions! Especially the spline handles would be great! Maintaining tangency can be a problem in SpaceClaim, not only with splines.

A set of tangent arcs and ellipses for instance. If you pull or move a fillet between two curved faces, it doesn't always maintain its tangency. It can be really annoying.

Regards,
Tijs

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Klaus Middendorf on January 14, 2010 at 7:59am

I second that last point! of Tijs

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Klaus Middendorf on January 14, 2010 at 8:00am

I also second martins last point...there should be additional means to ensure tangency.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on December 9, 2009 at 8:12am

Calculating the mass of an assembly is sometimes important. I just have such a project. I can display the mass of my assembly IF all components have been assigned a material. Should I forget ONE of them, will the whole mass calculation process not work, and I have no clue which part I forgot. Usually it is one ball in a ball bearing or the like.

It would be nice to have a tool that can tell me what parts have and what parts have no material assigned. It would be sufficient if all 'immaterial' parts are highlighted red when the mass calculation fails.

Also, it would be good, if we could assign a mass to a component rather than a density. Say I get a supplier part and I know from the specs sheet what it's mass is. Then, I could just enter this, and it would override the density x volume calculation.

Else, I'd need to create a material like "Material of typical industry standard computer" or "Material of typical electric motor assembly" with an average density of 5,3 g/cm^2 and model the motor with adequate precision to get it's mass right.

Regards,
Martin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by martin kopplow on December 9, 2009 at 9:50am

When working together with designers using other CAD systems, it can be important to exchange reference geometry such as axis and origins with the model data. They should be included in exports to Catia; IGES and the like, if visible at the time of export.

Today, I include lines drawn on the axis' and origins to achieve proper positioning of components.

Regards,
Martin

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on December 16, 2009 at 2:05am

Thank you for the opportunity to suggest our "desiderata".

Three ideas:

1) Possibility to see the STL mesh (stl imported geometry appears as "lightweight"

2) Better advanced rounds creation (conic rouns, better variable rounds, better transitions... something like "SWX ExpertFilling")

3) Possibility to control the accuracy of the geometry (I guess that more problems that I've found exporting STEP or IGES to ProE for FEM analysis with ProM would be solved)

4) Integration with other FEM solvers than Ansys (Comsol is great for "scientific computing" not for "mechanical computing", and the integration with Algor is just a "switch to" ... it would be very good an integration with FX/NEi Nastran by NEiSoftware)

5) I know that "We are servicing engineers, not CAD users" :) but I'd like to have a more "contraintable" 2D sketch and "smarter" 2D dimensioning (I'm a SC VAR in Italy and this has been asked for very often).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Lipari on December 16, 2009 at 1:51pm

I think Matteo makes several good points. Additional integration with other FEM solvers would be great.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matteo Pellizzoni on January 6, 2010 at 2:02am

Some other desiderata that came from my direct experience and customer experience:

6) I'm testing ADINA FEA solver: it would be very useful to integrate (technically and commercially speaking) it with SpaceClaim.

7) Many small companies (I'm a SC reseller) asked about a simple FEM application included in SC (I mean something like SimulationExpress in SWX, only linear analysis on single parts with simplified loads and constraints)

8) More powerful sheetmetal tools

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by christopher bartlett on January 6, 2010 at 9:31am

I agree with Matteo--a simplified FEA add on would be very useful. Advanced FEA/CFD analysis requires staff with specialized training. I would add the need for inverse kinematics--geometry--interferences and connected part motions only.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank D on February 17, 2010 at 10:10am

Christopher
In R5 SP1 we put in some kinematic solving. It is off by default, but you can turn it on in SC options>Advanced options.

You can drive a set of assembly-connected components, through a chain of connections, 4-bar linkages, rotary to linear, linear to rotary, etc. I look forward to seeing what models people try with it.

F