This week I had the privelege of being able to visit with Dan. I got
to put my hands on a slightly battered world class battle-bot and toss
around some thoughts on assembly techniques. Then we went out to see
his latest projects in the garage and he showed me a very special
project. I don't know if I should mention it but he has come up with a
new 3D modeling system. He has single handedly cut through a major
performance barrier and gotten to the point where you can make a
standard 2D drawing and convert it directly into 3D. Believe me this
is much more powerful than SW 2D - 3D system. Best of all the user
interface is radically different because it actually has an extremely
realistic 3D display and provides both tactile and audible feedback.
As soon as I get my digital pictures developed I'll post them on
SWcad@googlegroups.com.

TOP

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:17:58 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>He has single handedly cut through a major
>performance barrier and gotten to the point where you can make a
>standard 2D drawing and convert it directly into 3D.

  In the general case this is not possible, even for simple 
wireframe geometry.

  Consider a square block with four counterbored thru holes
of the same diameters & differing counterbore depths 
placed in "regular" 2X2 array. You can select counterbore
depths in such a way that you cannot tell what the depth 
of each & every one is just from the 3 views.
  And this is just a simple case.
-- 
Cliff

As a rule I don't respond to Cliff, but I'll make an exception here.
This system will read a hole chart if one exists, or will read hole
callouts if they are made and is also capable of incorporating section
views. There was no limitation mentioned of 3 views.

TOP

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:41:24 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>As a rule I don't respond to Cliff, but I'll make an exception here.
>This system will read a hole chart if one exists, or will read hole
>callouts if they are made and is also capable of incorporating section
>views. There was no limitation mentioned of 3 views.

  "standard 2D drawing"
  Naturally, if you want to specify everything possible in other ways ....
but why not just use 3D models in the first place?
-- 
Cliff

It has that capability too. But going 2D first allows the drawing to
get going parallel to building the 3D model for fast tracking.

TOP

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:35:08 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>It has that capability too. 

  Be nice & quote what you are responding to <g>.
  The simple example I provided was just that: a very 
simple example to show the effect. It gets much worse
in more compex cases.

>But going 2D first allows the drawing to
>get going parallel to building the 3D model for fast tracking.

  <GAK>
  2D "drawings" are a things to be produced to annotate 3D models.
  The "drawings" are almost free then as a byproduct. "Drawings"
are associative to the 3D math models. Not the converse.
  Any other method increases the time, the total work involved,
errors, possible lacks of associativity, etc.

>TOP
-- 
Cliff

The digipics are up on SWCAD. Seeing is believing.

TOP

The digipics are up on SWCAD. You can see why this modeler isn't going
to be a hit with the laptop crowd. I believe it takes a 2 to 3kw power
supply just to run.

TOP

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:03:55 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>The digipics are up on SWCAD. Seeing is believing.
>
>TOP

  What is this about?
  Even <guess who> is (very slowly) learning how to quote 
when posting from Google.
-- 
Cliff

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:11:04 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>The digipics are up on SWCAD. You can see why this modeler isn't going
>to be a hit with the laptop crowd. I believe it takes a 2 to 3kw power
>supply just to run.
>
>TOP

  What is this about?
-- 
Cliff