Re: "Automatic" Reverse Engineering Software

From: Jason Dickman (
Date: Thu Nov 04 1999 - 05:55:13 EET


We have also evaluated both Geomagic and Paraform. Both products are very
at "rapid-surfacing" as Bert put it, but there are some big differences
between the two.
Geomagic's approach (currently) is to automatically generate a patch layout
given the
polymesh and feature curves as input while Paraform allows the user to
control the topology
by manual constructing a curve/patch network. The automatic approach would
to be quicker although it was my experience that shuffling patches seemed to
be more labor
intensive that laying them out up front. The other problem (again, my
experience) with Geomagic
is the amount and location of patches the software creates. Typical patch
counts can range from 100 to 1000
while the same polymesh can be surface (with the same resolution) in
Paraform using only 10 to 50 patches.
Both control C0 and C1 tangency which guarantees (if modeled properly) a
watertight surface model
when importing into CAD/CAM. Both have decent poly editing tools although
Geomagic has a very good
"smart" decimator and shelling function. The shelling function is nice, as
it allows for the creation of a wall
thickness in the polygonal model rather than in CAD. Both are comparable in
price at $15k per seat but add
the points-to-polys and decimator functionality in Geomagic and it will cost

For additional information about our comparisons please contact me directly.

Jason Dickman
Hasbro, Inc.
RP/RE Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
+1 513,579,4752

-----Original Message-----
From: Bert van den Berg <>
To: Ian Unwin <>
Cc: RP Mailing List <>
Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: "Automatic" Reverse Engineering Software

>I'm also interested in this topic. To date I've seen a demo of Geomagic
>(quite impressive), and have used Paraform (from Paraform) a couple of
>Both program fit in the rapid-surfacing category.
>My initial sense is that Paraform gives you slightly more interactive
>the surfaces, at the cost of (??) more interaction. The fact that both
>require a polygonized model, but Geomagic can also offer the polygonizing
>via Wrap may make it a simpler program to use (for the moment). We use
>Innovmetric's Polyworks (inhouse) for creating Polygonal models. Both
>appear to have limited surface quality evaluation tools.
>I'd (also) be interested in hearing of others experience.
> bert
>Ian Unwin wrote:
>> I am considering the possible purchase of additional software to
>> an existing reverse engineering capability DERA Malvern. So far I have
>> found Raindrop Geomagic's Studio package ( - contact
>> been made and I will be examining its suitability in the next few weeks.
>> Can anyone help me find other alternatives?
>> Does anyone have experience of using this type of software?
>> What is the quality of surface models produced by this type of package?
>> Existing equipment/software currently used:
>> 3D Scanners Reversa 25H with RISCAN (
>> Imageware Surfacer 9.0 (
>> Alias Design Studio 9.0 (
>> Reasons for considering this type of package are:
>> Both Surfacer & Alias are excellent packages, however, due to limited
>> resources and other work commitments it is not possible to become fully
>> proficient users of these. Hence I am attempting to source "quick fix"
>> modelling methods to speed up the RE process. I am aware that it may be
>> necessary to further manipulate the surface model using one of the other
>> software packages before an RP model could be built.
>> Does anyone think I am wasting my time and perseverance with Surfacer is
>> only option!?
>> Regards
>> Ian Unwin
>> Defence Evaluation & Research Agency
>> CES (ES) Dept. Room C811/12
>> St Andrews Road
>> Gt Malvern
>> Worcester WR14 3PS
>> United Kingdom
>> Tel +44(0)1684 896731
>> Fax +44(0)1684 896331
>> Email
>> For more information about the rp-ml, see
>Bert van den Berg E-mail:
>Hymarc Ltd.
>35 Antares Drive Tel: (613) 727-1584
>Ottawa, Canada, K2E 8B1 Fax: (613) 727-0441

For more information about the rp-ml, see

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:53:18 EEST