I modeled a shock absorber assembly for a college project. Making the coil
was a royal pain, but considering that I was thrilled with 3d wireframing
in
v11, it seemed reasonable. Fortunately I was able to finish the project
in
release 13 - what a difference that was.
Dave
"Matthew Taylor" <matthew.DONOTSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:l5KcnQ339_ISeruiXTWJiA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesaman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:3f26c59b$0$94000$45beb828@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Older non-parametric kernels do the same thing, except they aren't
> designed
> > to efficiently repeat and re-create the generation process. For
example,
> > the V12 AutoCAD 3D kernel (AME) did not allow you to edit definition
of
> the
> > solid, but each time you made a change (e.g. a hole) it calculated
> > everything again. It was really slow.
>
> At the time of R12, from what I remember Autodesk also sold a parametric
> addon tool - I can't remember what it was called though & I never saw it
in
> use. It was meant to be a lot more advanced han AME though (not hard
> really).
>
> Did anyone ever manage to do a model of any complexity in AME? I
remember
> trying it a few times for a project where I was modeling the church of
Agia
> Sofia in 3D. After I had done a few operations ie always came up with
some
> sort of error when I tried the next operation. After a few days of
trying
I
> decided to learn Microstation instead.
> To see why I gave up on AME, have a look at the views of the drawing at
> www.mtaylor.co.uk/agia
>
> Matthew
>
>
|
