[CODOG]

I use UG NX3. But I also use Maxsurf, Rhino, Acad and pencils. Parameterised 3-D modelling was a revelation to me, once I'd climbed the learning slope. As far as final production design output is concerned, two years into NX3 the only limitations I've personally come across are the ability to interogate a hulls hydrodynamics quickly (fine tuning displacement and LCB is an example, as Maxsurf or Woolfson is still invaluable here) and the rather frustrating issue of co-existing with other companies (equipment suppliers for example) software.
As for conceptual or initial design work, I doggedly cling on to my sketching and hand-drafting ability....even though top-end computerised 'sketching' software has been available for some considerable time, the 'imagination-to-paper interfaced via human hands' aspect of creating and designing is something that I feel should never be lost.

[archnav.de]

Originally Posted by CODOG

....the rather frustrating issue of co-existing with other companies (equipment suppliers for example) software.

That's also for us the most important point for the long run. As mentioned already if you have the models in the three formats Parasolid (.x_t), ACIS (.sat) and STEP (.stp) available you can act with them in most CAD-Systems like native files. For the Rhino people: You should work normally via Step, except for the export towards AutoCAD. Use here Acis 4.0.

For UGS the in and output should be .x_t, because the system is based on Parasolid, further on beside that, you should produce a .stp (AP214) file. On the internet there is an tool available to translate files between .x_t, .stp and .sat up to 5MB http://www.steptools.com/translate

Form sub suppliers we would prefer .pdf catalogs with integrated CAD and other documents. Try these two examples.


http://www.archnav.de/Sauer_Marine_c...sors_Test2.PDF


and


http://www.archnav.de/MaK_Al271240_s...ir_diagram.pdf


Cheers


Bernd

[tartanski]

This really looks like the future, is this the case that the suppliers are finally taking thier CAD responsibility into thier own hands or is this put together by your self as a demonstrator?

[archnav.de]

Dear Davit,

Up to now it is a demonstration. But we would like to press the sub suppliers into that direction.

-Using .pdf catalogs, with embedded documents and CAD-files. It is also possible to do it in a hierarchical way. Look at the diagram example.

-Check and translate the models via an internet tool like
http://www.steptools.com/translate.

- Put all necessary documents into one .zip file.


It would be great if CATIA, UGS or SolidWorks could develop this first appoach into a complete PLM solution with automatic generation of the different documents and handling via internet.



Overall the sub suppliers will only go into that direction, if the end users are asking for this kind of documents.


Cheers


Bernd

[CODOG]

Re suppliers design info...
We have had some odd ones.
We requested a 3-D model of a generator sound shield...the manufacturer sent us a model of the complete, entire generator. The file was larger than that of the entire yacht it was to be fitted in.
This is promising we thought, lets ask the engine manufacturer for similar info...we got a 3-D rectangular box in return, although it was in a rather nice shade of green.
I'm quite used to the odd small components coming in with dodgy .iges info too, like a surface-drive leg that stretched to infinity and beyond.
On a more positive note, this situation is improving all the time, and from our point of view the 3-D design info currently available is already invaluable.

[archnav.de]

Originally Posted by CODOG

The file was larger than that of the entire yacht it was to be fitted in.

In UGS is it possible to produce automatically only the outer surface from a complete production model. Reintjes send us such a gearbox. The file size was reduced from 2000MB to 3MB. .iges is comfortable for surfaces but not for solids. Normally the 3D-equipment model should be a solid. MAN (engine supplier) is dealing with a software , which reduces the heavy production model into a simple 3D-solid CAD model needed by yards and designers.


Cheers

Bernd

[CODOG]

Parametric design (by which I mean a design constrained by, and containing parameters that can be modified and edited) comes into its own when the design software updates the entire design instantly, as a whole.

This can be spectacularly effective even on the most complex of designs. (Talking UG again, sorry) If modelled in the right sequence, and with a lot of foresight, its easy to change (for example) deadrise angles, chine beam, headroom whatever, and then fully update the entire model at the press of a button. Even more spectacular when expressions are used, although its almost heartbreaking to see your latest high-lift hull design reduced to thousands of cells in a spread-sheet

So far so good....the downside is the level of competance a designer needs to achieve this. Do designers spend sleepless nights and lose their hair attempting to become profficient at this level of modelling, or do they relinquish some of their design input, passing a basic idea over to expert modellers who dont know their ass from an Arneson ? I've done both, and its tough. Frustration at both levels...spending modelling time that should be used for pure designing, vs the continual 'over the shoulder' monitoring of the modellers who misinterpret your original vision and thought processes.

In my case, the prime motive for Parameterised 3-D design being introduced into the office is to feed the 5-axis machine that machines our hull and superstructure mould tooling (GRP product). Secondary benefits are obvious and have already been mentioned by others in earlier posts. Above a certain hull length though, our mould tooling is hand built and as such the design could be hand-drawn complete with a table of offsets. As much as I miss all that however, I'm staying with 3-D. Its the future, and yes, a 30" Apple flat screen helps a lot.

[MaxResolution]

Originally Posted by rlackey

I agree that 2D drawings are very necessary, but I find it easier to generate accurate 2D drawings from a 3D model than the other way around.

I also find the ability to calculate static and dynamic stability, centre of gravity, centre of bouyancy, wetted surface area, drag coefficients, hydrodynamics and so forth on the fly to a very high accuracy from a 3D model to be incredibly useful in making small or even major changes to a hull design quickly, then observing the changes in data to get it closer and closer to meeting the required design criteria.

...I would argue would be incredibly time consuming in 2D, then having to make a whole lot manual calculations to determine if it [any change decision] is [worthwile], only to model in 3D when it's all done.

Rich

You couldn't be any more correct than this statement in logic. We want zero -computer- interference as we allow our creative juices to go about emotive problem solving! I got a 21" Viewsonic Graphics monitor thinking size would help, but now I have to sit further back to avoid vertigo. (Not to mention an advanced case of tunnel-vision.)

I am completely stumped at the moment because I don't do AutoCad. And, I've enjoyed watching architects develop these skills since '81. Of course, simple planar building design can be done on some very simple software, regardless of the advantages of the associated database calculations via AutoDesk, etc.

At this time I am trying to design something that I can only equate to a combination of a swiss watch, and the belly of a whale. God does not seem to be so easily amused. The only way I know to get there is to use a pencil, and to think orthographically, but with a distant vanishing-point on the horizontal plane. Next I transfer the arrangements into 2D, and again, back to 3D with full perspective. All complelling, none of it very valuable in today's robotic Mfg. scheme.

So, teach your kids in AutoCad, and restrict their TV viewing to include plenty of computer games. Otherwise, they may grow up to be just another frustrated illustrator like me.

[KCook]

Hey, I feel your pain MaxResolution.

What got in my way with the modeling programs is that they demand you use a constructive approach. Make a lot of little parts and stick them together. From a conceptual angle it would be far more intuitive to start with a lump and whittle it here and there into the needed complex shape. But so far I have not heard of a modeling program that is happy with such an approach.

old dog Kelly

[MaxResolution]

Yeah, I got that same program. So far, I made a colony of space shelters and a really bad single engine Cessna, then I put it in the 'utilities' folder after a whiplash fly-around. I went back to Freehand, and then to free hand with a scanner. Ostensibly, it's no problem doing component division and free form curves in real Cad, so there is an immediate benefit, especially in making measurable & traceable scale model parts.

On a positive note, have you done the virtual tour of the Herreschof museum? Man is it fun. They have so many hull shapes in one room it took me about a week to traverse every angle. I really got side tracked by that historic chart table. This led ne to explore some great woodworker's shops, but even the most acclaimed one of all hardly seems up to the task of focusing on the curvilinear needs on boats. They all cop out, mostly doing single plane laminated face panels and such. Sure, these laminators are into rocket science compared to the door shops, but I hardly see a ray of hope for the average needs of yachting customers.

Given a million dollars, I suppose some sellers get their money's worth by going to these traditional (housing) interior designers, who can outfit her with Chippendale for the photos, and unload it to some Vegas hot-shot with new money. Does anyone ever ask: "Is that slender bronze Modiglianni sculpture really appropriate on a boat?"

[jmr]

According to my experience at several yards that build mega yachts, I can say a combination between Tribon and CAD-Systems like Unigraphics are well done on the field. The concepts were done in Ungiraphics. In Tribon they do the steelworks of the hull and some difficult parts of the ship in Unigraphics. Pipeworks can be done in Unigraphics or PDMS (AVEVA). Partdatabase can be actualized in Unigraphics.
For Pipeworks in Unigraphics we can get from Tribon SOLID Model of the steel in Parasolids.

You can do ALOT ship surfacing in Unigraphics even with better performance than Rhino. I even would prefer this, because I can limit the number of FACES on the hull and dictate the density of for example Finite Element Mesh inside Unigraphics NX NAstran. Yes, Unigraphics has ALOT of module


cheers,


JMR

[jmr]

You can do it with Expressions or program the code your self with Visual Basic. For sailing yachts, this would be not that difficult ;-)

Originally Posted by CODOG

I use UG NX3. But I also use Maxsurf, Rhino, Acad and pencils. Parameterised 3-D modelling was a revelation to me, once I'd climbed the learning slope. As far as final production design output is concerned, two years into NX3 the only limitations I've personally come across are the ability to interogate a hulls hydrodynamics quickly (fine tuning displacement and LCB is an example, as Maxsurf or Woolfson is still invaluable here) and the rather frustrating issue of co-existing with other companies (equipment suppliers for example) software.
As for conceptual or initial design work, I doggedly cling on to my sketching and hand-drafting ability....even though top-end computerised 'sketching' software has been available for some considerable time, the 'imagination-to-paper interfaced via human hands' aspect of creating and designing is something that I feel should never be lost.

[archnav.de]

Originally Posted by jmr

The concepts were done in Ungiraphics. In Tribon they do the steelworks of the hull and some difficult parts of the ship in Unigraphics. Pipeworks can be done in Unigraphics or PDMS (AVEVA). ´
.....You can do ALOT ship surfacing in Unigraphics even with better performance than Rhino. I even would prefer this, because I can limit the number of FACES on the hull and dictate the density of for example Finite Element Mesh inside Unigraphics NX NAstran. Yes, Unigraphics has ALOT of module

You are right, the only point you are missing to tell is, that all the shipyards are doing the ship theory ( compartments, damage stability and so on) and the hull form with NAPA and that there is any concept missing to get an early classification 3D-steel model, which is normally -necessary for good coordination between steel and outfitting. Nordseewerke , who is also belonging to Thyssen but is not involved in Mega Yachts, tries to close the cap with NAPA-Steel . They also gamble with Tribon Bacic Design, but didn't succeed.

For equipment handling we developed a solution. The result was discussed with all relevant German shipyards and declared to be the optimum. Please try the following example.
http://www.archnav.de/HATLAPA_Commpr...9L14_rev2_.pdf

If you have connected .step files to your CAD-System you only need to double click the file and the equipment will be open within your CAD-system.


Cheers

Bernd