iges和step格局的差异(国外英文资料).docVIP

iges和step格式的区别(国外英文资料) The success rate of IGES is only 69% (the conversion from UG to CATIA is a problem); For nine exchanges from CATIA to UG, the success rate of STEP was 99 percent, while the success rate of IGES was only 66 percent. The conversion of the UG to Pro/ENGINEER makes the file bigger a problem, but the file using the STEP transformation is much smaller than the file using IGES conversion. From Pro/ENGINEER to UG 12 swaps, the success rate of STEP is 100%, and the success rate of IGES is only 98% (the size of the file is not a problem). The automotive industry action group (AIAG), which is in charge of surface and wireframing data, is responsible for the earlier IGES/STEP comparison test. The test involves the UG, Pro/E, CATIA and CADDS5 CAD system of the latest commercial version, AIAG using the number of file size, surface (face), the number of surface and surface area as a test basis. They conducted a total of 61 data exchange tests, with the surface area of 37 of them measurable. In about 60% of instances, STEP provides a better exchange mechanism; There are 8% of instances, STEP and IGES provide the same result; With 32 percent of the instances, IGES is better than STEP change. On average, the files that IGES are converted are much larger. In general, the steps that AIAG has tested are better than the corresponding IGES implementation. The comparison test, pioneered by GMs STEP transformation center and AIAG, shows that the STEP functionality of the online and surface areas is strong and matches and exceeds the functionality of IGES. Companies that use STEP for data exchange can, Control different product versions and manage the changes made Information about the cross-industry and cross-product lifecycle Exchange entity model and assembly structure Better use the Shared database Integrate product geometry with product structure From the early IGES implementation and application, STEP has learned a lot of lessons that STEP is becoming a enabler