Pressure Vessel Analysis

Comment

Comment by William Tiu on August 26, 2010 at 1:30am

I tend to use SpaceClaim for creating solids especially since it has an implicit parametric capabilities without having the baggage of a CSG tree that other CAD software currently use. On the otherhand, Rhino has unrivalled surfacing capabilities (among its many other repertiore) for creating say the bonnet of a car or an aircraft wing which I then turn into solids.
There is complete interoperability between the two. There is a button in Rhino that allows models to be passed from SpaceClaim to Rhino and vice versa. I did not use it for this video because there appears to be a small issue with the latest version of SpaceClaim that meant that the solid model that I used did not import properly. So I saved the model as a STEP file in SpaceClaim and imported that into Rhino.
So in answer to point no. 2, yes there is complete interoperability between the two (normally) and yes Rhino can read any SpaceClaim Solids (be it through this import button or through a STEP file).
In the next video I will show this interoperability(using a slightly older version of SpaceClaim) facility and also how I use the best features from each to achieve a the required solid model.

Comment by Vadim Shapiro on August 25, 2010 at 6:43pm

That full integration is very impressive ... though somewhat ironic, because Rhino is basically used to run Scan&Solve. So this brings up two questions (I only know SpaceClaim by reputation): (1) presumably you prefer SpaceClaim for shape creation; why? and (2) so is there a complete interoperability between Rhino and SpaceClaim? Can Rhino read any SpaceClaim solid?