Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About tonyj

  • Rank
    Forum Junior

Personal Information

  • Location

My Software

  • Main CAD Product
    AutoCAD LT
  • Current Product Version
  • First AutoCAD Version
    AutoCAD 2010
  1. tonyj

    Advance Steel Model to Revit

    Hi RobDraw, Recreating is not an option. The client wants out model so he can insert it into his main model and he is using Revit. Thanks anyway.
  2. Hi all, It's been a while since I was on here but I have a bit of a problem and I think that somebody here might be able to help.Can somebody tell me how to convert an Advance Steel model into Revit. All of the connections need to be clearly seen in Revit. Thanks.
  3. I had a similar problem before and as far as I remember 'UCSORTHO' set to '1' fixed it.
  4. tonyj

    Remove imprint

    Thanks Sevdo2000. That's done the job, using ctrl and delete, and got me out of a bit of a jam.
  5. Hello all, Can somebody tell me how to remove an imprint of a line, that I put onto a solid earlier, can now be removed. Thanks.
  6. tonyj

    Windows 8

    Anybody got any advice about windows 8 for Autocad. The Company that I work for are getting me a new computer in the next couple of weeks and I believe this is going to be a Windows 8 machine. I have read somewhere that if you downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7 Microsoft will not support the downgrade. How true is this? and what is Windows 8 really like? Is it as bad as people are making out. Or just what is the story with Windows 8. (I have tried to search the Cad Tutor Forums for 'Windows 8' but had no luck in anything coming up). Thanks.
  7. Thanks lads, I will take on board what you both have said.
  8. JD, Unless somebody actually shows me how good inventor or pro-e is at achieving what it is I want to achieve in designing, why should I just take their word for it and invest a heap of time in learning it? I can do what I need to do in auto cad, I can't in pro-e! Somebody educate me. This horse is dead.
  9. Yes Tanner, putting the default setting to '0' would be a good idea, because I don't know of any material that requires a k-factor of .31 (JD Mather replied before your last reply, but I can't see it on my computer now.) I previously asked him to set his k-factor to .44 because that's what I was working to when I was doing the flat state in Autocad, ie for a particular steel, mild steel, so we would both have to be working to the same k-factor to get the same result. Maybe you are both right and I do need to be educated more in pro-e or inventor. But all I am hearing at the minute is hype about pro-e etc. Some of the top guys at our company, who don't know the first thing about any Cad program, are swearing about how good pro-e is, if that's now swallowing hype what is? I have been using auto cad since 2001 and before that I was a steel fabricator. I work for a company that uses pro-e and nobody at the company uses auto cad to any great extent except me. When I started there, about 2 years ago I was using auto cad and they sent me off for training in pro-e. When I got back I was using it, designing various products and I really tried to like it, but it was really painful. I just found it very restricting when trying to design something, it felt like having one hand tied behind my back. I am now back using auto cad. There are many things in auto cad that I find much better for designing than in pro-e, and one of these for example is interference testing. Auto cad is just brilliant for this, with pro-e, I stopped using interference testing because I found it pretty much useless. I have also found it much quicker to model in auto cad, and the drawings I can produce in auto cad are much better than the ones I was producing in pro-e. That's not to say that somebody else couldn't do a better job of their drawings in pro-e than I do of mine in auto cad. JD, I did have a positive attitude to learning pro-e, that's why I went to learn it, but like I said, 'it was really painful'.
  10. JD, Attached is a simple solid of a panel with its flat state. The flat state took 5 minutes to create. If I ask you to bring the solid model into inventor and make a flat state of it you will have no problem, as long as you use a k-factor of .44 it will be identical to my flat state. It is a simple panel with only two folds, but there are no limits to this only if I attach a complex part pro-e or inventor will fail to create the flat state. That said, you send me any part you like, however complicated, and I will create a flat state identical to what inventor creates. BTW the default setting of pro-e, having the k-factor set to .31, is a mistake by PTC. They should at least have this set to .5 by default. Like I said, a lot of people (young engineers) using pro-e don't know the first thing about sheet bending. I did have training in Wildfire 5.0 and from the very start I did not like it. Its fine if you know exactly what it is you want to create, ie. if you are copying something, but when you only have an idea of something that you are trying to create and you need to find ways to make it possible in reality pro-e is not the way to go. I say , 'if you wanted to draw/design something, Autocad is like having a fine pen and a piece of fine paper, pro-e is like having a slab of stone and a hammer and chisel.' SHEET PART TM 2000.dwg
  11. Stykface, I wouldn't call it user error I would call it software manufacturer error.
  12. JD, I'm on an android phone and its difficult to reply with quotes. Buy you are right in what in what you are saying, but the fact still remains that a high percentage of pro-e users are not familiar with sheet bending so why do PTC not have the k- factor set to .44 by default. I don't know of a material that requires a .31 k-factor, thats not to say that one does not exist. By doing this they are not helping themselves. Pro-e is a difficult program to learn, and the last thing on a studens mind when learning pro-e is k-factors. The challenge. I can not send you a model of a complex part because, pro-e or inventor will not br able to make it into a flatstate, unless its a simple part. The reason this is, for example if I have two hoppers joining each other at 45 on the plan and they are splayed out. I will have to cut the part in a certain way so that when its in the flatstate it will be square, as the plasma cuts square. Now there is no problem doing this, by changing the orientation on the fold ends etc. The problem is pro-e and I'm sure inventor also will not be able to convert it to a flatstate because it is not satisfying its criteria. So, I can't send you a complex part but I could send you a simple part, but who wants simple. So you post me a .sat file of a complex part done in inventor or pro-e and tell me what k- factor you used, to the highest degree of accuracy that you can set it to and I will send you back my flatstate with fold lines. Also there is know doubt that inventor or pro-e can do this much quicker, your talking abouts seconds. I used pro-e for over 12 months and thought it was an absolute disaster for trying to design things. The positive thing was modifying the model and having the drawings change with it. The text on my phone is hopping all over the place, I hope all the above makes sense.
  13. Just to be clear. You can adjust the k-factor in pro-e and the y-factor gets adjusted in relation to that. The main point is that, unless a person using pro-e has a decent understanding of sheet metal bending they will be using the wrong k-factor. So I would say that there is a high percentage of pro-e users out there doing drawings of metal parts that are not correct, and I can produce these more accurately in AutoCAD than them in pro-e. Stykface, I am doing this on a manual basis. I have done metal parts in pro-e (with the k-factor set correctly) made the flatstate and then imported the model into AutoCAD and made a separate flatstate in AutoCAD. The results are identical.
  14. I'll put it to you this way. I know three design engineers using pro-e and 100% of them are not not creating sheet metal parts correctly, who is to blame for that? I am creating sheet metal parts more accurately in autocad than they are in pro-e.
  15. Right. I work in autocad and when i'm creating mild steel sheet metal parts I use a k-factor of .44 We have three engineers in our company using pro-e. Now pro-e has got a y-factor (which is unique to pro-e) and the y-factor is : Y-factor=k-factor(pi/2) and by default the y-factor in pro-e is set to .5 and therefore leaves the k-factor set at about .3 Now anybody using pro-e that is not aware of this and working in mild steel is using the wrong k-factor. BTW the k-factor for mild steel should be .44 and I have tested this on our press and found it to be suitable to the machine. Most people using pro-e or inventor are grads, and you can tell them nothing.