DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Graphics Exchange Specifications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Graphics Exchange Specifications Initial Graphics Exchange Specifications Drawings created with Computer-Aided Design Most companies find it difficult to enforce the use of (CAD) tools, which were introduced in the 1960s, a common set of CAD/CAM tools within their organiza- represented tremendous productivity gains over paper tion, much less across (multiple) supply chains and drawings, such as ease to revise and archive. CAD among joint venture partners. Because of the lack of any tools also opened new opportunities, such as enabling common set of tools, a common format for neutral file manufacturing instructions to be derived automatically exchange is needed. Using a neutral standard for and executed directly from the drawing. Nevertheless, as transferring information across systems drastically computer design and manufacturing tools proliferated to reduces the requirements for translators. The cost meet increasingly complex and diverse engineering benefits are suggested by the reduction in necessary needs, so did the formats that each tool used to capture translators shown in Fig. 1. It illustrates that by using a and store product data. While paper drawings can be neutral file exchange, the number of translators marked up by anyone with a pencil, a product model (for N systems) can be reduced from scaling as n (n–1) that cannot be interpreted by the necessary CAD tool to 2n. is useless. For organizations to share designs across In 1979, a series of events catalyzed the CAD vendor various CAD and Computer-Aided Manufacturing and user community to create the first national standard (CAM) tools, their data files must be formatted in a for CAD data exchange, which is documented in the manner that the tool can recognize. This requirement has report Initial Graphics Exchange Specification, Version become increasingly important in an age where large 1.0 [1]. CAD systems were less than ten years old, and manufacturers often form joint ventures to address a only a handful of products had any significant market business opportunity, and where partners in a supply penetration. Even at this early stage, users were over- chain are being called upon to deliver an increasingly whelmed by the inability to share data among these complex array of services. tools and with their own internally developed databases. Fig. 1. Illustration of the benefits of using a neutral file exchange. 246 In September 1979, frustration came to a head at the Boeing supplied the structure of its Computer Integrated two-day Air Force Integrated Computer-Aided Manu- Information Network (CIIN) database. Both GE and facturing (ICAM) Industry Days meeting [2]. On the Boeing contributed their existing translators. A core first day, a representative from General Electric team formed, including representatives from NBS (GE) challenged a panel of CAD vendors, which (Roger Nagel), Boeing (Walt Braithwaite), and GE (Phil included ComputerVision, Applicon, and Gerber, to Kennicott). Team members had worked closely with work together to enable an exchange mechanism. While each of the vendors on internal integration projects. This this need was intuitive from a user’s perspective, prior experience built the expertise and trust needed to this was a very threatening proposition to the CAD craft a solution in a very short time, and neither vendor vendors—who feared that sharing the structure of their felt it gave an unfair advantage to the other. databases publicly would be tantamount to giving away Soon after the ICAM Industry Days, NBS called an their competitive advantage. It would have been easy to open meeting at the National Academy of Sciences gloss over the challenge; after all, the major vendors all (October 10, 1979). Around 200 people attended to had at least token representation on the ANSI (American herald the birth of IGES. There was an atmosphere of National Standards Institute) committee responsible for extraordinary excitement, although not everyone was CAD standards. Instead, the ComputerVision represen- readily supportive. In addition, although it was hotly tative responded with a challenge of his own: if Boeing debated, the name was accepted eventually with the and General Electric (and perhaps others) would con- minor change from “Interim” to “Initial.” tribute the CAD translators they had already developed, After two critical reviews, the IGES team released its the vendors would share their database structures. first draft in 1980, containing geometry, graphical data, What led to this offer was just the right mix of and annotations. The IGES specification was brought to business motivation and intrigue. Large Navy contracts the ANSI Y14.26 committee for standardization. The were looming on the horizon, and no vendor wanted to first version of IGES was adopted as an ANSI standard, look unresponsive to customer requirements. Y14.26M-1981 [3]. In the evening after the panel, several interested IGES successfully met a critical need. The IGES parties gathered and asked themselves if a common publication [1] establishes information structures to be translator was really possible. The room had the right used for the digital representation and communication of mix of people and ideas at the right time. This included product definition data. The specification is concerned an Air Force, Navy, and NASA representative, each with the data required to describe and communicate the willing to fund $25,000 for such an effort. A National essential engineering characteristics of physical objects Bureau of Standards representative, after a call to his such as manufactured products. Such products are boss at home for approval, was willing to champion it as described in terms of their physical shape, dimensions, chair and coordinator. The IGES Organization was and information that further describe or explain the formed by NBS in the spring of 1980. With the funda- product. The processes that generate or utilize the mentals to a common translator decided, conversation product definition data typically include design, engi- turned to a name for this new translation project. A neering analysis, production planning, fabrication, minimalist approach was suggested: material handling, assembly, inspection, marketing, and field service. [4] I – Interim, to suggest that it would not replace The Initial Graphics Exchange Specification is the ANSI’s work U.S. national standard for the exchange of data between G – Graphics, not geometry, to acknowledge that dissimilar CAD systems. The IGES standard, now in its academics may come up with superior mathe- sixth revision, has been expanded to include most con- matical descriptions cepts used in major CAD systems. All major and E – Exchange, to suggest that it would not dictate how most minor non-PC-based CAD systems support some vendors must implement their internal databases version of the IGES standard. Some of the over 1000 PC-based CAD systems (including all of the major S – Specification, not to be as imposing as a standard. ones) include some IGES support. The panel reported on the second day, and the wheels This first edition of IGES [1] served as a landmark to were set in motion to create an “IGES.” Once the panel introduce a change in the way manufacturers thought admitted that a common translation mechanism was about capturing and sharing their information about possible, it was impossible to stop the momentum of the product data. As enhancements to the original version customers’ enthusiasm and expectations. Applicon and continued and IGES became an American National ComputerVision agreed to open up their internal data- Standard, the IGES Specification was routinely in the bases, GE offered its internal database structure, and top best sellers from the National Technical Information 247 Service (NTIS). Records show that through 1988 NTIS Memorial Award. The first author, Roger Nagel, was a sold 2055 copies of IGES 3.0, and through 1991 sold NBS staff member at the time and is now the Harvey 1295 copies of IGES 4.0. This U.S. national standard Wagner Professor of Manufacturing Systems Engineer- was also renowned internationally; it was adopted ing in the Electrical Engineering & Computer Science nationally by Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, Department at Lehigh University. He created Lehigh’s to name a few. IGES was the precursor and provided the Robotics Research Institute, established and directed the technical groundwork to the international standardiza- Manufacturing Systems Engineering Program, and tion effort known as STEP—Standard for the Exchange served as Executive Director of Lehigh’s Iacocca of Product model data. The national and international Institute for Competitiveness Research. While an impact on the development and deployment of product employee of NIST, Nagel was a key member of the data standards in manufacturing has provided economic scientific team developing the Factory Hierarchical benefits to many implementing companies using Control System in the Robotics Group. This work on product data standards for exchanging their data. hierarchical control systems, performed with James Examples of improvement brought about by the use Albus, Tony Barbera, and Gordon Vanderbrug, has been of IGES include [5]: the basis of hundreds of computer-based control systems for automation over the last 20 years. Nagel continues to • Electric Boat Corporation, along with the rest of serve as a technical advisor and consultant to NIST’s the SEAWOLF (the US Navy’s newest attack Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory. submarine) Team, pioneered the use
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pro/INTERFACE Help Topic Collection
    ® Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire™ 2.0 Pro/INTERFACE™ Help Topic Collection Parametric Technology Corporation Copyright © 2004 Parametric Technology Corporation. All Rights Reserved. User and training documentation from Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC) is subject to the copyright laws of the United States and other countries and is provided under a license agreement that restricts copying, disclosure, and use of such documentation. PTC hereby grants to the licensed user the right to make copies in printed form of this documentation if provided on software media, but only for internal/personal use and in accordance with the license agreement under which the applicable software is licensed. Any copy made shall include the PTC copyright notice and any other proprietary notice provided by PTC. This documentation may not be disclosed, transferred, modified, or reduced to any form, including electronic media, or transmitted or made publicly available by any means without the prior written consent of PTC and no authorization is granted to make copies for such purposes. Information described herein is furnished for general information only, is subject to change without notice, and should not be construed as a warranty or commitment by PTC. PTC assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear in this document. The software described in this document is provided under written license agreement, contains valuable trade secrets and proprietary information, and is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. It may not be copied or distributed in any form or medium, disclosed to third parties, or used in any manner not provided for in the software licenses agreement except with written prior approval from PTC.
    [Show full text]
  • CAD Data Exchange
    CCAADD DDaattaa EExxcchhaannggee 2255..335533 LLeeccttuurree SSeerriieess PPrrooff.. GGaarryy WWaanngg Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering The University of Manitoba 1 BBaacckkggrroouunndd Fundamental incompatibilities among entity representations Complexity of CAD/CAM systems CAD interoperability issues and problems cost automotive companies a combined $1 billion per year (Brunnermeier & Martin, 1999). 2 BBaacckkggrroouunndd (cont’d) Intra-company CAD interoperability Concurrent engineering and lean manufacturing philosophies focus on the reduction of manufacturing costs through the outsourcing of components (National Research Council, 2000). 3 IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn ttoo bbee EExxcchhaannggeedd Shape data: both geometric and topological information Non-shape data: graphics data Design data: mass property and finite element mesh data Manufacturing data: NC tool paths, tolerancing, process planning, tool design, and bill of materials (BOM). 4 IInntteerrooppeerraabbiilliittyy MMeetthhooddss Standardized CAD package Standardized Modeling Kernel Point-to-Point Translation: e.g. a Pro/ENGINEER model to a CATIA model. Neutral CAD Format: e.g. IGES (Shape-Based Format ) and STEP (Product Data-Based Format) Object-Linking Technology: Use Windows Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) technology to share model data 5 IInntteerrooppeerraabbiilliittyy MMeetthhooddss (Ibrahim Zeid, 1990) 6 CCAADD MMooddeelliinngg KKeerrnneellss Company/Application ACIS Parasolid Proprietary Autodesk/AutoCAD X CADKey Corp/CADKEY X Dassault Systems/CATIA v5 X IMS/TurboCAD X Parametric Technology Corp. / X Pro/ENGINEER SDRC / I-DEAS X SolidWorks Corp. / SolidWorks X Think3 / Thinkdesign X UGS / Unigraphics X Unigraphics / Solid Edge X Visionary Design System / IronCAD X X (Dr. David Kelly 2003) 7 CCAADD MMooddeelliinngg KKeerrnneellss (cond’t) Parent Subsidiary Modeling Product Company Kernel Parametric Granite v2 (B- Pro/ENGINEER Technology rep based) Corporation (PTC) (www.ptc.com) Dassault Proprietary CATIA v5 Systems SolidWorks Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures for the Nist Iges Validation Test Service
    Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES): J Procedures for the NIST IGES ^ Validation Test Service Jacki A. Schneider Lynne S. Rosenthal U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Computer Systems Laboratory Graphics Software Group Gaithersburg, MD 20899 NIST i i Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (iGES): Procedures for the NiST iGES Validation Test Service Jacki A. Schneider Lynne S. Rosenthal U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology Computer Systems Laboratory Graphics Software Group Gaithersburg, MD 20899 December 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Ronald H. Brown, Secretary TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY Arati Prabhakar, Director tf i I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 The IGES standard 1 1.3 Scope of validation 2 1.4 Definitions 4 2 General procedures 7 2.1 Validation by testing 7 2.1.1 Overview 7 2.1.2 Validation Test Software 7 2.1.3 Renewal of a Certificate of Validation 8 2.1.4 Validation Summary Report (VSR) 8 2.2 Registration 8 2.2.1 Overview 8 2.2.2 Eligibility for registration 9 2.3 Miscellaneous 10 2.3.1 Pricing 10 2.3.2 Cancellation 10 2.3.3 Disputed and withdrawn tests 10 2.3.4 Validated Products List (VPL) 10 2.3.5 Documentation 11 2.3.6 Publication 11 3 Preprocessor testing program 13 3.1 Objective 13 3.2 Testing steps 13 3.3 Pricing 17 3.4 Registration of environments 18 4 Postprocessor testing program 19 4.1 Objective 19 4.2 Testing steps 19 4.3 Pricing 22 4.4 Registration of environments 22 APPENDIX A 25 iii IV ABSTRACT In 1989, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted the Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) Version 4.0 as a national standard (ASME/ANSI Y14.26M - 1989, Digital Representation for Communication of Product Definition Data).
    [Show full text]
  • Heartwood Smartscopesm Asset Collection Guidelines
    Heartwood SmartScopeSM Asset Collection Guidelines Congratulations! You are joining the ranks of some visionary organizations by deploying 3D Interactive Training – the true gold standard in learning. Our successful SmartScopeSM guidelines enable our customers to collect the data critical for the estimating and development process. Guidelines • Guideline 1 – Assets for Scope Estimation of Training Course. a. Video or images of equipment b. A description of the procedure in the lesson/course. If estimating multiple lessons/courses, send 3-4 packages of assets for the average lesson/course. Choose one or more of the following: 1. Current course materials used in classroom 2. Video of procedure performed on the equipment 3. Technical manual (indicate which pages are relevant) 4. Storyboard of course/lesson or procedure • Guideline 2 – Assets for Development of Training Course. Typically these are more detailed; we can provide best practices on how to assemble the assets. a. Required: i. Video and/or images of equipment ii. Current course materials used in classroom iii. Technical manual (indicate which pages are relevant) b. Desired: i. 3D models or 2D drawings of equipment, see page 2 for a list of compatible formats ii. Video of procedure performed on the equipment iii. Storyboard of course/lesson or procedure This is not an exhaustive list for all training courses. A very unique training course may require more data and some additional assets may be ‘required or desired’ to save time and cost. Ask us about our SmartStartSM service to make the asset collection process easier for you. H E A R T W O O D 2121 South El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403-1859 PH: 888.781.0274 FAX: 877.536.4496 www.hwd3d.com Compatible file formats Preferred non-CAD format • Autodesk (*.fbx) • gw::OBJ-Importer (*.obj) Preferred CAD format • STEP (*.stp, *.step) • IGES (*.ige, *.iges, *.igs) Other compatible file formats • 3D Studio Mesh (*.3ds, *.prj) • Adobe Illustrator (*.ai) • Autodesk Packet File (*.apf) • ProEASM (*.asm) • Catia V5 (*.catpart, *.cgr, *.
    [Show full text]
  • Freecad a Manual.Pdf
    Table of Contents Introduction 1.1 Discovering FreeCAD 1.2 What is FreeCAD? 1.2.1 Installing 1.2.2 Installing on Windows 1.2.2.1 Installing on Linux 1.2.2.2 Installing on Mac OS 1.2.2.3 Uninstalling 1.2.2.4 Setting basic preferences 1.2.2.5 Installing additional content 1.2.2.6 The FreeCAD interface 1.2.3 Workbenches 1.2.3.1 The interface 1.2.3.2 Customizing the interface 1.2.3.3 Navigating in the 3D view 1.2.4 A word about the 3D space 1.2.4.1 The FreeCAD 3D view 1.2.4.2 Selecting objects 1.2.4.3 The FreeCAD document 1.2.5 Parametric objects 1.2.6 Import and export to other filetypes 1.2.7 Working with FreeCAD 1.3 All workbenches at a glance 1.3.1 Traditional modeling, the CSG way 1.3.2 Traditional 2D drafting 1.3.3 Modeling for product design 1.3.4 Preparing models for 3D printing 1.3.5 Exporting to slicers 1.3.5.1 Converting objects to meshes 1.3.5.2 Using Slic3r 1.3.5.3 2 Using the Cura addon 1.3.5.4 Generating G-code 1.3.5.5 Generating 2D drawings 1.3.6 BIM modeling 1.3.7 Using spreadsheets 1.3.8 Reading properties 1.3.8.1 Writing properties 1.3.8.2 Creating FEM analyses 1.3.9 Creating renderings 1.3.10 Python scripting 1.4 A gentle introduction 1.4.1 Writing Python code 1.4.1.1 Manipulating FreeCAD objects 1.4.1.2 Vectors and Placements 1.4.1.3 Creating and manipulating geometry 1.4.2 Creating parametric objects 1.4.3 Creating interface tools 1.4.4 The community 1.5 3 Introduction A FreeCAD manual Note: The manual has been moved to the official FreeCAD wiki which is now its new home.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on CAD/CAM Data Transfer in CIM Environment
    3 A Case Study on CAD/CAM data transfer in CIM Environment K. P. Mahadevan J.Mou M R. Henderson D. L. Shunk Department ofI&MSE Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287 US.A. Abstract This case study enumerates the steps involved in testing the data exchange among dissimilar CAD systems using a standard exchange mechanism and discusses the level of inter-operability that can be achieved to facilitate successful transfer of CAD data among three CAD software's namely ProlE version 17, I-DEAS Master series version 3.1 and AutoCAD release 13 in a CIM environment. First the Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) is used as the data exchange mechanism to test these software's using a standard test procedure. The same test procedure is then used to find out the effectiveness of the data exchange between ProlE and I­ DEAS using a different exchange standard called the Standard For Exchange Of Product Model Data (STEP). AutoCAD does not support STEP. Experimental results show that ProlE and I-DEAS have the capability to share complete CAD information but AutoCAD has some limitations in transferring information on surfaces and solids using IGES. By using the STEP translator, we are able to translate CAD data efficiently one way from ProlE to I-DEAS and vice versa but have some difficulty carrying out back and forth data transfer between tl1em. Computer Applications in Production and Engineering. F. Plonka and G. Oiling (Eds.) © 1997 IflP. Published by Chapman & Hall A case study on CAD/CAM data transfer in C/M environment 21 Keywords Computer Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM), Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Inter-operability, Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES), Standard For Exchange Of Product Model Data {STEP).
    [Show full text]
  • Supported File Formats CAD FORMATS
    Supported file formats CAD FORMATS With the Autodesk Netfabb CAD import function, you can convert original CAD data directly into 3D mesh files without the need for additional, expensive software tools. Powerful mesh analysis and repair scripts generate watertight files, closing holes, eliminate self-intersections and more; while mesh triangulation helps improve the resolution of your printed parts. CAD import is supported for Windows. CAD format Description Import Export 3DM Rhino ✓ CATPART CATIA V5 ✓ CGR FBX FBX (Autodesk Filmbox) ✓ G PTC Granite (Creo) ✓ IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specification ✓ IGS JT Jupiter File Format ✓ MODEL CATIA V4 ✓ NEU PRT Creo Parametric / ProE ✓ XPR SLDPRT Solidworks ✓ STEP Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data ✓ STP PRT NX (Siemens) ✓ SAT ACIS ✓ SKP SketchUp ✓ SMT Autodesk ShapeManager Format - ASM SMT ✓ SMB WIRE ALIAS ✓ X_B Parasolid ✓ X_T 3D FORMATS Netfabb supports the following 3D formats: Colors & Textures 3D format Description Import Export Import Export 3DS Autodesk 3D Modeling Format ✓ ✓ ✓ 3MF 3D Manufacturing Format ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ AMF Additive Manufacturing File ✓ ✓ BINVOX Binary Voxel Format ✓ ✓ GTS Gnu Tesselated Surfaces ✓ ✓ NCM Autodesk Netfabb Compressed Mesh ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ OBJ Wave Front OBJ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PLY Stanford Polygon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ STL Surface Tesselation Language ✓ ✓ STL (ASCII) Surface Tesselation Language ✓ ✓ STL (color) Surface Tesselation Language ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ VRML Virtual Reality Modeling Language ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ WRL X3D Extensible 3D-ASCII ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X3DB Extensible 3D-Binary ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ZPR Z-Print ✓ ✓ ✓
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Design and Manufacturing with Solidworks
    CHAPTER TWO INTEGRATING DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING WITH SOLIDWORKS: INTEGRATING WITH 3D CAD SOFTWARE CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER 1: RECAP INTEGRATING In the first of our series of eBooks on Integrating Design and Manufacturing with SOLIDWORKS®, we discussed the advantages offered by adopting an integrated WITH 3D CAD design and manufacturing solution, which can help companies make the transition from design to manufacturing a seamless one, with fewer errors due to translation problems and with less miscommunication between teams due to use of tools that SOFTWARE don’t speak a common language—all of which will translate to boosted productivity, reduced costs, and higher-quality products. In this eBook you’ll learn how SOLIDWORKS CAD can help you bridge the gaps created in the non-integrated approach to design and manufacturing. Integrating Design and Manufacturing with SOLIDWORKS® CHAPTER 2: INTEGRATING WITH 3D CAD SOFTWARE 2 SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD capabilities include: For all your modeling needs whether large or • 3D Solid Modeling turn ideas and concepts into virtual 3D models quickly and easily small, simple or complex. • Conceptual Design begin 3D designs quickly using imported images, simple sketches, or scanned 3D data, and then add more details as the design evolves Effective product design involves a wide range of tasks that demand flexibility in • Assembly Structure Planning: SOLIDWORKS Treehouse quickly lay out your your software. 3D solid modeling offers several advantages over traditional 2D design assembly structure and then export to SOLIDWORKS to automatically design, but you want 3D CAD tools that you can use every day while being powerful create your CAD files enough to handle all the aspects of your design process.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of 3D Data Content, File Formats and Viewers
    Technical Report: isda08-002 Image Spatial Data Analysis Group National Center for Supercomputing Applications 1205 W Clark, Urbana, IL 61801 An Overview of 3D Data Content, File Formats and Viewers Kenton McHenry and Peter Bajcsy National Center for Supercomputing Applications University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL {mchenry,pbajcsy}@ncsa.uiuc.edu October 31, 2008 Abstract This report presents an overview of 3D data content, 3D file formats and 3D viewers. It attempts to enumerate the past and current file formats used for storing 3D data and several software packages for viewing 3D data. The report also provides more specific details on a subset of file formats, as well as several pointers to existing 3D data sets. This overview serves as a foundation for understanding the information loss introduced by 3D file format conversions with many of the software packages designed for viewing and converting 3D data files. 1 Introduction 3D data represents information in several applications, such as medicine, structural engineering, the automobile industry, and architecture, the military, cultural heritage, and so on [6]. There is a gamut of problems related to 3D data acquisition, representation, storage, retrieval, comparison and rendering due to the lack of standard definitions of 3D data content, data structures in memory and file formats on disk, as well as rendering implementations. We performed an overview of 3D data content, file formats and viewers in order to build a foundation for understanding the information loss introduced by 3D file format conversions with many of the software packages designed for viewing and converting 3D files.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1. Visualization Software Features
    Table 1. Visualization Software Features INFORMATIX COMPANY ALIAS ALIAS AUTODESK AUTO•DES•SYS SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL Product ALIAS IMAGESTUDIO STUDIOTOOLS 11 AUTODESK VIZ 2005 FORM.Z 4.5 PIRANESI 3 E-mail [email protected] [email protected] Use website form [email protected] [email protected] Web site www.alias.com www.alias.com www.autodesk.com www.formz.com www.informatix.co.uk Price $3,999 Starts at $7,500 $1,995 $1,495 $750 Operating systems Supported Windows XP/2000 Professional Windows XP/2000 Professional, SGI IRIX Windows 2000/XP Windows 98/NT/XP/ME/2000, Macintosh 9/X Windows 98 and later, Macintosh OS X Reviewed Windows XP Professional SP1 Windows XP Professional SP1 Windows XP Professional SP1 Windows XP Professional SP1 Windows XP Professional SP1 Modeling None Yes Yes Solid and Surface N/A NURBS Imports NURBS models Yes Yes Yes N/A Refraction Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Reflection Yes Yes Yes Yes By painting with a generated texture Anti-aliasing Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Rendering methods Radiosity Yes, Final Gather No Yes, and global illumination/caustics Yes N/A* Ray-tracing Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A* Shade/render (Gouraud) Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A* Animations No† Yes Yes Walkthrough, Quicktime VR N/A Panoramas Yes Yes Yes Yes Can paint cubic panorams and create .MOV files Base file formats AIS Alias StudioTools .wire format MAX FMZ EPX, EPP (panoramas) Import file formats StudioTools (.WIRE), IGES, Maya IGES, STEP, DXF, PTC Granite, CATIA V4/V5, 3DS, AI, XML, DEM, DWG, DXF, .FBX, 3DGF, 3DMF, 3DS, Art*lantis, BMP, DWG EPX, EPP§; Vedute: converts DXF, 3DS; for plans UGS, VDAFS, VDAIS, JAMA-IS, DES, OBJ, EPS IGES, LS, .STL, VWRL, Inventor (installed) DXF, EPS, FACT, HPGL, IGES, AI, JPEG, Light- and elevations; JPG, PNG, TIF, raster formats AI, Inventor, ASCII Scape, Lightwave, TIF, MetaFo;e.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Feature-Based and Geometric CAD Data Exchange
    ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications (2004) G. Elber, N. Patrikalakis, P. Brunet (Editors) Integrated Feature-Based and Geometric CAD Data Exchange Steven Spitzy and Ari Rappoportz Abstract Data exchange between CAD systems is an extremely important solid modeling concept, fundamental for both the theory of the field and its practical applications. The two main data exchange (DE) paradigms are geometric and parametric DE. Geometric DE is the ordinary method, in which the boundary representation of the object is exchanged. Parametric (or feature-based) DE is a novel method where, given a parametric history (feature) graph in a source system, the goal is to construct a graph in the target system that results in similar geometry while preserving as much parametric information as possible. Each method has its uses and associated problems. In this paper, we introduce Geometry Per Feature (GPF), a method for integration of parametric and geometric data exchange at the single part (object) level. Features can be exchanged either parametrically or geometrically, according to user guidelines and system constraints. At the target system, the resulting model is represented using a history tree, regardless of the amount of original parametric features that have been rewritten as geometric ones. Using this method we maximize the exchange of overall parametric data and overcome one of the main stumbling blocks for feature-based data exchange. Categories and Subject Descriptors (according to ACM CCS): D.2.12 [Interoperability]: data mapping; I.3.5 [Computational Ge- ometry and Object Modeling]: Breps, CSG, solid, and object representations, geometric languages and systems; I.3.6 [Method- ology and Techniques]: graphics data structures and data types, languages, standards; 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 3D Viewers Roundup Product Reference Guide
    2005 3D Viewers Roundup Product Reference Guide June 2005 As product development becomes increasingly more globalized, more and more players— both inside and outside of design engineering departments—are involved in the product development process. For organizations both large and small, 3D viewing technology is taking on more importance as it enables collaboration within and without the company by letting users view, markup, and print 3D CAD files without the originating CAD software. But how do you know which 3D viewing solution is best for your organization? With the goal of helping our community members address this question, we bring you the 3D Viewers Roundup. The 2005 3D Viewers Roundup consists of feature articles contributed by industry experts and this Product Reference Guide, which lists specifications for products that provide a range of viewing, markup, and collaboration capabilities in CAD neutral and cross-CAD file formats. See the associated articles under Community Features, “A Higher Level View of Enterprise Data Assets” and “Product Visualization across the Extended Enterprise.” These articles provide differing perspectives on selecting and implementing 3D Viewer technologies for collaboration on product development throughout the organization and beyond. The data herein was compiled using submissions from the listed companies. Note that it is not an exhaustive list of companies, nor does it include all the products of each company. However, we have attempted to include all the major software solutions. ConnectPress Ltd. cannot guarantee the accuracy of this data; we suggest you contact specific companies for further information, particularly to confirm technical details regarding their products. Space does not permit us to list all file formats supported, nor all versions of 3D CAD supported.
    [Show full text]