Nupas Cadmaric and FORAN

[Nofy]

Hello,
i'm looking for some links with information about this two systems. Something else then official site of this systems.
I'll be very plesed if someone can help me.
THX a lot

[pro_user]

How do you want to use these systems? I can tell many interesting about Foran.

[Nofy]

i'm interested in moduls with i can project engine room and all pipelines. What are the capacities of this programs?

[pro_user]

Foram has the modules for engine room modeling, piping and etc. But it's very havy to use. You need a lot of computers resourses, additional software like Oracle and additionally it's take a lot of time to learn. For my opinion - Cadmatic better.

[Nofy]

Are you able to point advantages and disadventages of this systems??

[pro_user]

I know Foran and I am quite dissapointed. Cadmatic looks much more professional.

[Nofy]

But there must be something goog in Foran What, in Your opinion, is worth of mention in Foran (about piping etc)??

[Nofy]

You have mentioned that Foran is hard to use - what do You mean?? interface ?? or what?
THX for all Your answers.

[CGN]

Nofy have you looked at shipconstructor, they have a module for piping, maybe can be a good option, if this is what you are looking for

http://www.shipconstructor.com/pdf_p...e_Section2.pdf

[pro_user]

You have mentioned that Foran is hard to use - what do You mean?? interface ?? or what?

Yes. It's not really Windows interface. All menus are very special because Foran is able to work on Unix platform. Logic of the interface is very special. Usually you have to buy training. To learn it without training practically impossible due to poor documentation. I agree with CGN - it' is good idea to look at Shipconstructor.

[Nofy]

THX for Yours posts. Shipconstructor looks very nice :-) So know I now more things about FORAN and Shipconstructor so it's time for Nupas Cadmatic. It's looks very nice and i wonder if there is enyone who can write something about it. Or give some links.
Once more thx for Yours posts.

[archnav.de]

For the long run I wouldn’t use either Foran, Nupas-Cadmatic or Tribon-Equipment or any other shipbuilding specific software for machinery and outfitting. Shipbuilding is an assembly industry and you will need (and they will offer) 3D-models from sub suppliers. The suppliers are working with Unigraphics, Catia, ProE, SolidWorks, Inventor etc. Import and export of the solids is the most essential part. Shipbuilding software normally has their origin in 2D (just to serve the cutting machines) and has poor geometrical kernel. The international standard kernels are Parasolid or ACIS. Unigraphics and SolidWorks are Prarasolid based, Inventor, Mechanical_Desktop, AutoCAD and a lot of small CAD-Systems are based on ACIS. The standard exchange formats are Parasolid (.x_t), ACIS (.sat) or STEP (.stp). These formats could be served in the best way up to now by SolidWorks. The reason is simpel SolidWorks is based on Parasolid but Dassault also owns the ACIS kernel. The absolutely high end software is Unigraphics. Blohm+Voss and Lürssen is starting to use this software.

To import 3D-models into Cadmatic you have to go the following way: Acis ( version 4.0 not higher) AutoCAD .dwg then Cadmatic. For Foran there should be a STEP import but we never have seen any results.

[Nofy]

My conclusion is, that from all that systems ShipConstructor looks the best. It's also cheaper then others i think.
Foran is hard to use, Cadmatic has problems with importing/exporting 3D models.
None of this problems, or others big, in Shipconstructor IMO.

[german]

hi... as a nupas user i can tell you that:
foran is waaaay harder to use (too much steps inbetween your idea and the pipe on the definitive place)
shipconstructor is in my opinion a lighter nupas with the advantage of its interaction between the maxsurf family (based on the demo i used a couple times)
nupas is easy to use, easy to maintain although i think is not cheap at all. we use together with bending machines and other stuff and it is a very good tool for design. it is extremly graphical. by the way, we havent had any problem exporting or importing 3d models, with the exception of a main engine equipment model that was way too detailed and a frame rate killer for the system.
cheers
german

[Andrew Mason]

Originally Posted by archnav.de

For the long run I wouldn’t use either Foran, Nupas-Cadmatic or Tribon-Equipment or any other shipbuilding specific software for machinery and outfitting. Shipbuilding is an assembly industry and you will need (and they will offer) 3D-models from sub suppliers. The suppliers are working with Unigraphics, Catia, ProE, SolidWorks, Inventor etc. Import and export of the solids is the most essential part. Shipbuilding software normally has their origin in 2D (just to serve the cutting machines) and has poor geometrical kernel. The international standard kernels are Parasolid or ACIS. Unigraphics and SolidWorks are Prarasolid based, Inventor, Mechanical_Desktop, AutoCAD and a lot of small CAD-Systems are based on ACIS. The standard exchange formats are Parasolid (.x_t), ACIS (.sat) or STEP (.stp).

This is one of the reasons that Shipconstructor is such an attractive system. It is based on Autocad and the ACIS kernel and so is completely compatible with solids defined in Mechanical Desktop or Inventor, or any other programs that can supply an ACIS file.