Hello.
I just joined this forum, however, I have been reading it for about a year. I don't have an M2 yet, waiting on V4 availability on an assembled machine and an unanswered question which is not in the scope of this thread.
I have been using Cubify Invent for a year and really would like to be able to assemble separately designed parts. To do that I upgraded to Cubify Design.
This program does allow assemblies.
I would like to know if there are individuals on this forum that use this program as I have encountered a problem I would like to solve (I have tried to get in touch with Cubify Design support - no answer yet).
Also would like to know if it is considered inappropriate to use the forum prior to getting the M2.
Thanks for your time..........
Larry
Cubify Design
Re: Cubify Design
i think your fine posting larry. isnt the cubify design software actually geomagic or something like that? i thought there was someone here using that awhile back. dont remember who it was. maybe they will chime in.
Re: Cubify Design
Cubify Design is based on Geomagic if not Geomagic itself. The support group did get back to me on my problem. It seems that Design produced a flaw in the .stl export which caused my print to fail. They sent me a manually corrected .stl file that did print properly. At this point they are investigating the problem.
If they can't come up with a solution then I will have to select another design environment. Cubify Invent works just fine for me (my requirements are simple) but it does not support assemblies.
I did take a look at Solidworks and it is very much like Design (or Design is very much like Solidworks) however the Solidworks web site does not list prices and only has a request for quote option which tells me they are out of my price range.
I am planning on getting an M2 along with Simply3D as my next step in 3D printing. So, if something works better going into Simply3D that might be the way I go.
I did notice that Simplify3D has a repair option. That might be a way to continue to use Cubify Design if Simplify3D can repair the type of failure Design produces in the .stl file using an assembly.
Thanks for any comments.
Larry
If they can't come up with a solution then I will have to select another design environment. Cubify Invent works just fine for me (my requirements are simple) but it does not support assemblies.
I did take a look at Solidworks and it is very much like Design (or Design is very much like Solidworks) however the Solidworks web site does not list prices and only has a request for quote option which tells me they are out of my price range.
I am planning on getting an M2 along with Simply3D as my next step in 3D printing. So, if something works better going into Simply3D that might be the way I go.
I did notice that Simplify3D has a repair option. That might be a way to continue to use Cubify Design if Simplify3D can repair the type of failure Design produces in the .stl file using an assembly.
Thanks for any comments.
Larry
Re: Cubify Design
solidworks is extremely expensive. seems the price is different no matter who you talk to. i have never heard it being less than $4k and on a high end $10k. if you happen to be a military vet though they will give it to you for 20 bucks. you can run bas stl files through netfabb. dowload netfabb basic. its free and easy.
Re: Cubify Design
Fusion 360 is a powerful (and free, for hobbyist use) modeler in the vein of SolidWorks. I like it a lot, you should try it out. The other one that gets mentioned a lot, with several people on the forum using it, is Rhino.
S3D repair might work for you. If it doesn't, as Jim mentioned, netfabb basic will probably do the job. I don't like it because it has a plethora of buttons and you sort of muddle your way through it until you figure out what to do. Thankfully, netfabb also has an online repair service (https://netfabb.azurewebsites.net). You just upload your broken file and they will fix it for you.
S3D repair might work for you. If it doesn't, as Jim mentioned, netfabb basic will probably do the job. I don't like it because it has a plethora of buttons and you sort of muddle your way through it until you figure out what to do. Thankfully, netfabb also has an online repair service (https://netfabb.azurewebsites.net). You just upload your broken file and they will fix it for you.
Re: Cubify Design
Thanks for your comments.
I took a brief look at Fusion360. Looks like it might be OK, with a drop dead issue right from the start. It appears that the only way to use it is with an internet connection. Everything I tried to do wanted me to set up an Account on their website first. Call me paranoid if you like, but I only have one of my 9 computers hooked to the internet and it is not connect to my local network. All of my other work is done with physical isolation from any outside source. So Fusion360 doesn't work for me.
Rhino on the other hand does look very impressive. It is far more powerful than I need and cost about $1000. A bit steep for what I do, but I may pick it up in the future. I don't make any money from my hobby and getting Rhino, Simplify3D, and the M2 is just too much at one time.
Looking at these packages did give me the incentive to try a little harder to make Cubify Design ($200) work. Customer support is responsive and they gave me some ideas to try. Problem was with use of the Assembly function. The program would make the assembly, but when exported to .STL the part would have multiple shells defined which caused each part of the assembly to print butted up against each other, but it was not a unified part. The individual parts would break off with almost no effort.
I used MiniMagic and Netfabb (thanks for the reference) to analyze the files and that gave me a test bed to try different solutions.
I have found a user procedure which makes the Assembly feature work without having to use Netfabb to correct the .STL file.
I took a brief look at Fusion360. Looks like it might be OK, with a drop dead issue right from the start. It appears that the only way to use it is with an internet connection. Everything I tried to do wanted me to set up an Account on their website first. Call me paranoid if you like, but I only have one of my 9 computers hooked to the internet and it is not connect to my local network. All of my other work is done with physical isolation from any outside source. So Fusion360 doesn't work for me.
Rhino on the other hand does look very impressive. It is far more powerful than I need and cost about $1000. A bit steep for what I do, but I may pick it up in the future. I don't make any money from my hobby and getting Rhino, Simplify3D, and the M2 is just too much at one time.
Looking at these packages did give me the incentive to try a little harder to make Cubify Design ($200) work. Customer support is responsive and they gave me some ideas to try. Problem was with use of the Assembly function. The program would make the assembly, but when exported to .STL the part would have multiple shells defined which caused each part of the assembly to print butted up against each other, but it was not a unified part. The individual parts would break off with almost no effort.
I used MiniMagic and Netfabb (thanks for the reference) to analyze the files and that gave me a test bed to try different solutions.
I have found a user procedure which makes the Assembly feature work without having to use Netfabb to correct the .STL file.
Re: Cubify Design
I use Cubify Design. Haven't had any issues with it yet. What kind of problem did it cause with your assembly?
I haven't really designed anything super complicated with it yet, still learning to use it. I have done some assemblies using the boolean, those printed ok though. Curious what issue you had so that I can be on the lookout for it.
I haven't really designed anything super complicated with it yet, still learning to use it. I have done some assemblies using the boolean, those printed ok though. Curious what issue you had so that I can be on the lookout for it.
Re: Cubify Design
I'm new to Design (had it about a month). I've used Invent for about a year.
I wanted to start using the assembly feature so I upgraded to Design.
The first print I did with an assembled part worked fine (based on what I learned recently - it shouldn't have). Just luck I guess.
When you use the "Mate" constraint to move two faces together then it appears that you have one part, however, even though the two parts move together as if they were one, that's not the case. In order to make it one part you have to use the "Assembly Boolean" function to actually make it one unified part. The problem came in because of an assumption that I made concerning the operation of the "Assembly Boolean" function.
I assumed that when you did the "Assembly Boolean" function that you then had one unified part, but that is not the case (depending on a setting in the "Assembly Boolean" dialog box). If you are using the default settings that are established when you install Design, then you pick the two parts in your design to hook together and select "OK" in the dialog box then you actually have three parts in your assembly workspace. (If you rotate the part around it appears that there is only one item in the workspace after the "Assembly Boolean" operation. If you select a face and then move it you will see the two original parts and the assembled part). If you export this assembly not knowing that it is three instead of one part to an .STL file, you get a bad .STL file. Whether it prints properly or not depends on the orientation of the interface between the two parts.
Prior to gaining this knowledge I didn't have Netfabb to check out my .STL file, so the first clue that I had that there was a problem is when I printed my part. It printed Ok, but the junction between the two parts was very weak as the toolpath followed the original part outlines and did not print across the junction so the two parts broke apart with little pressure applied. An important fact about the design that made the print fail was that the interface between the two parts was perpendicular to the print bed. If it had been parallel to the print bed it would not have failed.
Back to the "Assembly Boolean" dialog box. In this dialog box there is a check box that says "Insert results into current assembly". Here is where my assumption (bit me in the ***). If this checkbox is checked (the default when you install Design) then the program ADDs the assembled part to the assembly, it does not replace the parts in the assembly workspace. So if it's checked you end up with three parts in the workspace occupying the same space and looks like there is only one.
There are two possible solutions. One is to uncheck the checkbox "Insert results into current assembly" which will cause the program to put the results in a separate file, or two delete the two original parts from the workspace. Both solutions export a valid .STL file and will pass a Netfabb analysis and most important ---- the part will print as a unified part with no break (and a toolpath that crosses the interface making a strong bond) at the interface of the two parts assembled.
More words than I have put to paper (well, I'm an old guy, what can I say? Typed in?) in a long time, so if it's confusing, let me know and I'll try again.
Larry
I wanted to start using the assembly feature so I upgraded to Design.
The first print I did with an assembled part worked fine (based on what I learned recently - it shouldn't have). Just luck I guess.
When you use the "Mate" constraint to move two faces together then it appears that you have one part, however, even though the two parts move together as if they were one, that's not the case. In order to make it one part you have to use the "Assembly Boolean" function to actually make it one unified part. The problem came in because of an assumption that I made concerning the operation of the "Assembly Boolean" function.
I assumed that when you did the "Assembly Boolean" function that you then had one unified part, but that is not the case (depending on a setting in the "Assembly Boolean" dialog box). If you are using the default settings that are established when you install Design, then you pick the two parts in your design to hook together and select "OK" in the dialog box then you actually have three parts in your assembly workspace. (If you rotate the part around it appears that there is only one item in the workspace after the "Assembly Boolean" operation. If you select a face and then move it you will see the two original parts and the assembled part). If you export this assembly not knowing that it is three instead of one part to an .STL file, you get a bad .STL file. Whether it prints properly or not depends on the orientation of the interface between the two parts.
Prior to gaining this knowledge I didn't have Netfabb to check out my .STL file, so the first clue that I had that there was a problem is when I printed my part. It printed Ok, but the junction between the two parts was very weak as the toolpath followed the original part outlines and did not print across the junction so the two parts broke apart with little pressure applied. An important fact about the design that made the print fail was that the interface between the two parts was perpendicular to the print bed. If it had been parallel to the print bed it would not have failed.
Back to the "Assembly Boolean" dialog box. In this dialog box there is a check box that says "Insert results into current assembly". Here is where my assumption (bit me in the ***). If this checkbox is checked (the default when you install Design) then the program ADDs the assembled part to the assembly, it does not replace the parts in the assembly workspace. So if it's checked you end up with three parts in the workspace occupying the same space and looks like there is only one.
There are two possible solutions. One is to uncheck the checkbox "Insert results into current assembly" which will cause the program to put the results in a separate file, or two delete the two original parts from the workspace. Both solutions export a valid .STL file and will pass a Netfabb analysis and most important ---- the part will print as a unified part with no break (and a toolpath that crosses the interface making a strong bond) at the interface of the two parts assembled.
More words than I have put to paper (well, I'm an old guy, what can I say? Typed in?) in a long time, so if it's confusing, let me know and I'll try again.
Larry
Re: Cubify Design
Autodesk Inventor has some excellent assembly design tools and is free for students, educators, and mentors.
http://www.autodesk.com/education/free- ... ofessional
...they are on the honor system about the student bit.
http://www.autodesk.com/education/free- ... ofessional
...they are on the honor system about the student bit.
Re: Cubify Design
Hi Lem,
Thanks for the detailed reply. You are correct, that did happen to me the first time as well. As you mention, deleting the original part after creating the Boolean takes care of the issue. I don't think its a bug, maybe they are assuming you may need the original to do further merges to the Boolean piece. But they should offset it so that the Boolean doesn't end up directly on top of the original which makes it look like there is only one piece there.
Other than that bump I've been pretty happy with the software vs price for others out there. Only real gripe I have is that it will only export STL and limited to file types it will open. But for my purposes at the moment that is not a big issue. Will probably upgrade to the big brother when it starts to be a big issue.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You are correct, that did happen to me the first time as well. As you mention, deleting the original part after creating the Boolean takes care of the issue. I don't think its a bug, maybe they are assuming you may need the original to do further merges to the Boolean piece. But they should offset it so that the Boolean doesn't end up directly on top of the original which makes it look like there is only one piece there.
Other than that bump I've been pretty happy with the software vs price for others out there. Only real gripe I have is that it will only export STL and limited to file types it will open. But for my purposes at the moment that is not a big issue. Will probably upgrade to the big brother when it starts to be a big issue.