Skip to main content
H
hhinterberger1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 7, 2015
Question

Resilient Modeling Strategy (RMS)

  • May 7, 2015
  • 3 replies
  • 3639 views

Hi,

since I haven't found this topic here, and I got the impression that this is something worth pursuing:

Resilient Modeling Strategy is a CAD neutral technique to create robust history based solid models by managing the sequence of their feature tree. This results in a collection of best practice methods that are used to verify the quality of a model. - from http://resilientmodeling.com/

Disclaimer: I am just an interested user, not affiliated with the aforementioned website in any way.

I would like to hear from more experienced users what they think about RMS.

Regards,

Hugo


This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

3 replies

D
dschenken1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 7, 2015

Parametric CAD modeling is a form of interactive graphical software development. People think they are creating models, but they are really creating software for an interpreter that produces 2D and 3D results. There is no universal robust modeling, just good software development practices.

The main one - don't build critical items from intermediate results when the intermediate results aren't critical. Another question today was about reusing names that had been applied to an intermediate result that was altered and the names are difficult to delete from those intermediate results.

I have to say resilientmodeling has the least impressive website I've ever seen that didn't say 404 Error at the top. Maybe this is better Saratech - Introduction to the Resilient Modeling Strategy

Here's a review of the topic from a different package view Review of Resilient Modeling - Siemens PLM Community and it links to a favorite diatribe The failed promise of parametric CAD part 1: From the beginning. It's just a sales pitch for Yares' buddy, Richard Gebhard

D
DeanLong1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 8, 2015

So this could be considered the Esperanto for the CAD world, then?


D
dschenken1-Visitor
1-Visitor
May 8, 2015

Not so much Esperanto, which matches Model Based Documentation. In looking at the video, it's more like a style guide for users. Overall not that bad a modeling strategy and in keeping with my own typical habits of model creation, though I don't go to the extreme of suppressing features to make sure they don't reference each other; experience lets me avoid that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=691&v=YU_lTS1vIx4 As suggested, I do go to the trouble of renaming features for what they do, rather than what they are and grouping them according to function. Not touched on in the video is what to do about assemblies.

17:45 is the funniest bit, and so true - Holy Grail Best Practices, based on former experiences with unqualified Admins skipping critical areas and pushing fools errands. For example, on CADDS IV, one Admin (former school teacher) insisted that text be on one layer and all other drawing entities be on another, so the drafters would be able to get the plots made with the correct pens. The 'problem?' A single mapkey (tablet pick, really) could put all the text onto one layer and everything else on the other as prep for plotting, so why make all the engineers, many low time users, responsible for a nitpicking detail that a single mapkey could sort out 100% just before plotting, a job done by high time drafters?

O/T Same thing happened with the rechargeable mice in the big conference room - main secretary emailed all 300 people in the building about people not putting the mice back on the chargers. However only a few people would ever use the mice, so maybe 270 people had to put in time to read the message (30 seconds each = 2 man hours lost, ~$200 based on overhead rate) and of the 30 likely targets, 15 would forget (8 man minutes lost) and it does not reach those who join the company later or are outside presenters, and so would be entirely ineffective for them. They could buy new mice for about $50 that would use regular AAs that last for ~ 1 year under the typical conference room use and can be immediately remediated if the battery dies, unlike the rechargeable ones, or she could stop in the conference room on her way out at the end of each day and make sure. Instead the 'answer' was to misplace responsibility and minimize compliance while wasting the company $200. A lot of Holy Grail rules end up like that, while ignoring the important things.

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement