Hello
I reply to my own original post to add a new possibility I have found.
I have been invited to a Webinar by a company called Coretechnology. They seem to have exactly what I am looking for. They have a product called "Simplifier":
http://www.coretechnologie.de/Simplifier_3D_Evolution_PRODUCT_SUITE
I extract from their web:
------------
ENVELOPES FOR KNOWHOW PROTECTION
Save your intellectual property when sharing 3D models. Within seconds, the Simplifier creates exact solid envelopes of the original geometries, thus providing your partners with only the information they really need.
This unique technology is for the protection of your intellectual property and also to generate "light" models for digital mock ups and the digital factory. The result of the simplification is a perfect solid of the bounding geometry that can be handled perfectly in any target system. Simplified models are convertible in any B-Rep or tessellated format available for 3D_Evolution©.
The simplification process can be executed either interactively or fully automated in batch mode. Details to be preserved during simplification can be selected by the user.
------------
Have any of you used this software? Or other software from this company?
Do you know of other simiilar software from other company?
Best regards
Daniel Garcia
In Reply to Daniel Garcia:
Hello all
I ask for advice to the users of the forum on the need I have been asked to investigate about.
My company manufactures loader cranes (cranes on trucks). The people who sell our cranes typically sell them with a truck, so they need the dimensions of both crane and truck. They would like 3D models from us (STEP, IGES...). We would like to give them something detailed enough for them to work but not the real part.
Simplified representations, shrinkwrap, copy geom... all seem to simplify but in the end you get the exact geometry we prefer not to give.
I have been thinking about creating an independent part mimicking the real geometry of each of the main parts of our product, assemble them and export that. Then we would be able to control exactly which geometry we want to include and which we don't want to.
I see advantages and disadvantages to this:
Cons:
We have to work extra to make this part.
If we modify the original we must remember to modify the part.
Sometimes we want to be more exact than other times. It seems we would need to have more than one "replacement part" for each assembly. Could we solve this with family tables?
We have to train the users to deal with this situation (some users could be in another office in another country).
Pros:
We could use the more detailed version of these parts in the drawings where we need "background components" (components that do not belong to the bill of materials but are there for viewing purposes). There are 3 good things about this:
The less important: upper assemblies and drawings would be lighter.
Sometimes we make modifications or completely replace one of the components by another, losing references of upper assemblies. If the original assembly has been used as background component of a lot of upper level assemblies then it is a lot of work to update all of them (upper assemblies can have thousands of components), and anyway it is a background component, so many times we decide not to update it. Sometimes it does not matter but sometimes it does, so it is easy to end up with incorrect data. If we use the corresponding light 3D part then we don't need to replace, we just rename and modify it. If we are careful there won't be references lost and the upper assemblies won't need modification.
These background components play bad with PDMLink. If we use the real assembly then PDMLink tries to get them into its bill of materials. If we used an equivalent background part then we could filter quite easily them in PDMLink (we would create WTParts for the real assemblies, we would not create them for the "replacement parts", that way the bill of materials of WTParts would be correct)
These "replacement parts", if made properly, could be used for design of new products, ProMECHANICA calculations, upper assemblies, etc.
What do you think of this idea? Is it crazy? Have you tried it and it didn't work or have you been successful doing something similar?
Best regards
Daniel Garcia
