Comments

• sofien_73

  April 14

  Sorry, for this post, i've read the Mecway user guide for sure it can be done with the dynamic response analysis.
  
  Regards
• protontim

  May 2

  It would be nice to be able to add labels to the computed solutions so it can be easily seen what they refer to. See below.
  
  
• protontim

  May 3

  Another help would be to be able to import a step file with multiple bodies (assembly) and have each of those bodies created in the Mecway design tree. As it is I have to import many individual files each with only one body.
• protontim

  May 6

  Also the ability to handle laminates like carbon fiber layups. I know this might be a reach but it would be great to have.
• Victor

  May 7

  The next version (25) will probably have support for Alibre Design/Atom3D assemblies where each part becomes a separate component in Mecway. Not for general STEP files but I hope to find a way to achieve that because assemblies are quite important.
• prop_design

  May 7

  @protontim
  
  Mecway has had the capability to do composite layups for quite some time.
• Sergio

  May 7

  @Victor , Alibre assembly support will be a great advance. Will use native or step files created by the application?
• Victor

  May 7

  STEP
• polymathic

  May 9 edited May 9

  protontim: It would be nice to be able to add labels to the computed solutions so it can be easily seen what they refer to. See below.
  
  +1 to this!
• Victor

  May 9

  I prefer if feature requests go in Github https://github.com/victorkemp/Mecway/issues so they don't get lost and other people can upvote them (thumbs up reaction).
  
• German

  May 15

  I found that if you change the size of the table window, the message "More info" does not change its position, so it can be aout of view.
  
  
  
  
  
• German

  May 15

  Victor, you should put the link to Github somewere visible in the frum or website because whern we have a feature suggestion we don't remember the Github link.
• prop_design

  May 15

  Honestly, I'm not a fan of github and don't want to create an account there just to suggest stuff. It would be better to do it some other way, in my opinion. A way that doesn't require us to create more accounts.
• Victor

  May 15

  Good points @German and @prop_design. Sometimes I copy requests onto Github myself.
  
  That's an embarrassing mistake with the more info label!
• sofien_73

  May 29

  Hi every one, I've finally launched my first dynamic response analysis with a seismic spectra (T(s) vs Acceleration (ms-²)).
  I have some trouble with beam release which it's not allowed with this kind of analysis but why is it not possible (maybe go back to constraint equation)?
  Maybe for the next version of MW.
  
  Another thing that could be better is having the possibility to extract maximum value of the outputs (beam forces and moment sorted by nodes).
  The outputs is allowable by time step which it's normal the idea is too output maximum value by nodes in the .csv file.
  
  One last thing is to have the possibility to disable some of the columns in my exemple I don't want to have the time step and the time in my csv file.
  
  Regards.
• FERNANDO

  October 30

  Automatic contact detection, please. would save a lot of time
• Sergio

  October 30

  Yes, for models by made several components takes a lot of time to create the TIE bc. Automatic contact detection would be great.
• MartinB

  November 2

  Graphics transparency would be useful. Instead of either wireframe or shaded, something in between would help, perhaps with a slider to adjust transparency. This can help with inspecting internal mesh or stress classification lines. I realise the cutting plane can be used to look inside the model, but its a bit fiddly. The two features could also work well in combination.
  Thanks again for a great product.
• MikeMcMullen

  November 2

  I agree the cutting plane is fiddley, especially with a large model.