Hello Marco, Of course I agree with you. I should have said : "Under the assumption that the vendors implement the standard and strictly comply with it, [blabla]". I confess it's a strong assumption! But necessary for anyone believing in the STEP standard and its potential to save time and money. There's still a huge amount of work to be achieved, but let's keep optimistic.
All the best, Thomas 2010/10/11 M. Nawijn <naw...@gmail.com> > Hello Thomas, > > I must agree with you that in general STEP would be the preferred option > to exchange geometry. I have had this kind of discussion many times. There > are however some subtleties. One is that it the enriched semantics of STEP > is > of no use when the target application does not support it. This is > still the case with > many industry standard FEA programs for example. > > In the end it really depends on the quality of the exporters and > importers. We have > had examples of very complex CAD (single part) models that provided a > better quality > for meshing purposes when imported through IGES than through STEP. > > Kind regards, > > Marco > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Paviot <tpav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jens, > > By default, pythonOCC exports STEP files using the AP214 schema. After > you > > export the step file with Abaqus, the schema used is not the AP214 > anymore > > but the AP203 : when dealing with standard files import/export issues, > the > > problems may arise from the exporter and/or the importer, and it's not > > obvious to find out the responsible of the issue. Using the same STEP > schema > > for import/export ensures the semantics consistency of the exchange > process. > > Is there any option, in Abaqus, to use the AP214 instead of the AP203? > > If you use the latest pythonOCC release (0.4), you can't change the > default > > behavior (AP214) of the STEP exporter. However, the latest revision of > the > > svn trunk makes it possible (see this > > discussion: > http://www.mail-archive.com/pythonocc-users@gna.org/msg01462.html). > > At last, I'm not sure whether or not the exchanges based upon the IGES > > standard are still a good way to proceed. I would say 'no', since the > STEP > > scope is much wider than the IGES one (which is only intended to > geometry) > > and, as a consequence, more suitable for industrial processes. > > > > Regards, > > Thomas > > > > 2010/10/11 Jens Cornelis <jens.corne...@iwm.fraunhofer.de> > >> > >> Hi Jelle, hi Thomas, > >> > >> btw: exporting the same shape to a IGES file and imorting in Abaqus > >> works fine. Abaqus imports it as a solid, just as expected. The issue is > >> only when exporting to STEP (the preferred file format.) > >> > >> Maybe this information is somehow interesting for you? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> JC > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pythonocc-users mailing list > >> Pythonocc-users@gna.org > >> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pythonocc-users mailing list > > Pythonocc-users@gna.org > > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pythonocc-users mailing list > Pythonocc-users@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users >
_______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
