Does anyone know hot to export a fully parametric file into CATIA

I have a number of customers who require CATIA models that are fully
parametric and history based. The problem I'm running into is that my
translator can export a part or assembly into CATIA from SolidWorks but
they are single feature parts that are not parametric or feature based.
Is there any way short of buying CATIA I can do this?

 

There are some translators, but I don't believe any of them will rebuild
a Catia history, and even if they do, I wouldn't bet my job on it
working well.

This is the Holy Grail of CAD interoperability. It sounds like a
rebuild in Catia to me.

Good luck,

Matt

 

It's not a translator, but www.impactxoft.com can be had for about the
same price as SolidWorks. ImpactXoft uses the Catia V5 kernel and thus
saves as native Catia files.

 

haulin,

But with "NO" history. The kernal only deals with topology, and their
definitions. Methods for creating features are propriatery with all
modelers. This is what makes feature/history translation difficult.

Regards

Mark

 

But with "NO" history. The kernal only deals with topology, and their

Thank you. "Methods for defining / creating topology" might be a little
more precise?

Curiosity question: There are a few very pricey (a seat of Catia would be
less expensive) feature translators being advertised here and there. (I
was thinking that one or two support Solidworks?) Has anyone had any
exposure, real world experience, etc. with them? I wonder if one can get a
list of supported feature types; e.g. what source system features will be
translated to what target system features?

 

You would think there would be a simple one click translator with Catia
and SWX both coming from the same stable wouldn't you?

I'm sure it would give DS more selling flexibilty - you know buy X
seats of Catia for the Big boys and Y seats of SWX for the rest.

I think thats what happens with UG ans Solid Edge isn't it??


Kev

 

It's not actually possible to "rebuild history".
It has to be captured as it happens.

There are often millions + of ways to get to a
given historyless model. Which one captures
the design intent?

More of why jb's such a total joke if you recall his posts
on such matters <G>.

You would have to get Catia and do the work from
scratch IN Catia.

 

... It's not actually possible to "rebuild history".

Is that true or is the history stored in the native file database,
readable, possibly re-creatable, ...?

 

... I think thats what happens with UG ans Solid Edge isn't it??

I don't believe it's a bi-directional (or even unidirectional) feature -
enabled interoperability. I've gathered (no first hand experience) that
there is some ability to read various "attributes" in addition to the
topology. It would be interesting to know how extensive it is or is
intended to be in the future.

I believe the only way that you could get the sort of thing you are
envisioning is if one system is simply a subset of a more extensive system;
e.g. all SW or SE feature creation routines, database structures, etc. are
available in Catia or UG. Don't know, just speculation. It's kind of
interesting to speculate on; all three of the "high end" systems have a
"little brother" (though PTC's doesn't have much of a following at present)
....

 

If you are doing work for clients that use Catia and they require you
to give them parametric Catia files, then they should either:
1. Lend you a seat of Catia or
2. Pay you more for you to justify buying Catia yourself.
You may be able to use it to open up a lot more new business.

 

That's what was created as it was captured. In theory,
some of it might be translated to the format of a history
database for another system but what happens when
a construction method differs between the two systems?
There's no direct one to one mappiing as it could not
have been done that way on one of the two systems.

Example: One system only allows you to create evenly spaced
points on a curve but the other will allow you to select a location
based on the length along a curve and yet a third will use the
midpoint of the line as the "origin" of the line.
The user had a line and created geometry using it's midpoint ....
in the history file is this to a point created as 3 points on the
line, to it's midpoiint directly, to some distance along the line?
If things are altered, such as by elongating the line, and then
"regenerated" based on the history, you would get three
different results, right?

Parent ==> child but what's the relationship? Is it
supported on both systems & for all possible construction
methods?

 

http://www.impactxoft.com/products/demos/InteropIndex.asp
YES, with history! Go watch the above video. It will explain that the
entire history tree is preserved to and from ImpactXoft and Catia.

 

I will call them tomorrow to confirm...it's been a while since I did a
walk through with their application's engineer. I looked at the video
again and I did not see the part history specifically, only the
assembly tree. Sorry.

BTW, Dassault is an owner of ImpactXoft.

 

I don't think that many evolved from a common code base.

That's actually the case for all of them; independantly developed
aquisitions.

UGS is pushing the interop angle. Did find an article on their site that
describes some of the aspects; no "feature recognition", associative entity
referencing (SE extrude to NX face, NX face changes, SE extrusion updates
type stuff), a few more odds and ends (just did a quick scan thru the
article). No idea where it's going, but there are interesting
possibilities that come to mind.

 

Our Current Solidworks Var (Shounco Design Studios) has shown us two
different software packages that provide a full history conversion.
They also had an option to do a file at a time as a service instead of
having to fork out the money software. I think their website is
www.shounco.com

 

Mark,
I just got off the phone with ImpactXoft tech support and he said that
the ImpactXoft files when opened in Catia contain a fully editable
feature tree.
I'm not sure if he was a Dassault guy but he had a French accent!

 

Haulin,

Well that's a first. The programs must share more than just the kernal then.
One would almost have to be a subset of the other.

Regards

Mark

 

Mark,
You are right, it is much more than just sharing the kernel, I never
really thought of it that way. Since Dassault is a part owner of
ImpactXoft, it wouldn't surprise me if DS gave IX a major portion of
their Catia program. It seems that IX merely added a few extra modeling
functions and took out others.

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/CATIA/select/cadcamnet_catiav5.htm
The article mentions that IX's "Molded Part Design Workbench" is
included in Catia V5 R12. Now that's closer collaboration than I have
heard between Catia and SolidWorks!

 

http://www.acuityinc.com/Software/ImpactXoft/index.htm
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/30901
http://products.engineering.com/mechanical/software/p01393/prodover.htm

Some interesting looking stuff (though a lot of vague language without any
specifics inflames the ol' BS CAD jaundiced eye), but nowhere do I see the
words "feature" or "edit". In fact ...

"You can share model updates that encapsulate
design behaviors with interested project participants
who can then merge the updates into their working
model without recreating design rules and behaviors."

.... make it sound like native features are irrelevant to the process
(ala SE <> NX, Pro/D <> Pro/E)?

T'would be interesting to hear from someone that's used it in conjunction
with Catia.

(All I saw re price were indications of a Think3-ish rental scheme?)

 

"Included in" probably just means that it's an API program
and that Catia V5 (NOTE: NOT V4) is also active.
This probably applies to other things as well ... many
systems vendors will sell a "hidden" version to be used
underneath another single-purpose application at a
reasonable cost. It takes nothing away from their own
market and may add to it down the road -- about all that
can be done with it is that single purpose application.

Just look at banquercadcam & Etch-A-Sketch. Someone
may later purchase the FULL version of Etch-A-Sketch
instead of MagnaDoodle so as to be able to do more with
the lines (as it may not be interopearble with MagnaDoodle).