A method and apparatus for file reconstruction between CAD systems

Abstract

The application discloses a CAD system interfile reconstruction method and device, comprising: when a first CAD system transmits a model to a second CAD system, obtaining a mapping table previously created between the first CAD system and the second CAD system; obtaining a to-be-transmitted file of the first CAD system; parsing the to-be-transmitted file to obtain model parsing data of the to-be-transmitted file; determining equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system according to the mapping table; and applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system. The method of the application effectively retains key parameterized information of a model through an intelligent mapping and reconstruction mechanism, enables a target CAD system to directly inherit parameter editing capability of a source model, significantly improves cross-system model reusability and design optimization efficiency, and avoids information discontinuity problems in a traditional transmission mode.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of computer technology, and in particular to a method and apparatus for file reconstruction between CAD systems. Background Technology

[0002] In the field of CAD, parametric modeling is a key method to improve model reusability and modification efficiency. However, when transferring models between different CAD systems, traditional neutral formats (such as STEP / IGES) only retain the model's geometric information, while losing data such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints, making it difficult for the target system to continue using the model for parametric editing and optimization design. Summary of the Invention

[0003] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a file reconstruction method, apparatus, device, and medium between CAD systems to solve the technical problems raised in the background art.

[0004] One or more embodiments of this specification employ the following technical solutions:

[0005] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a file reconstruction method between CAD systems, the method comprising:

[0006] When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained.

[0007] Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0008] The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0009] Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system;

[0010] The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0011] It should be noted that when traditional neutral formats (such as STEP / IGES) are transferred between different CAD systems, only geometric information is retained while parametric data such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints are lost. This results in the target system being unable to perform parameter editing and optimization design. This application utilizes a pre-created inter-system mapping table to first parse the parametric model data of the source CAD file, then map it to the equivalent implementation of the target system, and finally reconstruct it into an adaptation file. The method of this application effectively retains the key parametric information of the model (such as sketches, features, and constraints) through intelligent mapping and reconstruction mechanisms, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the parameter editing capabilities of the source model. This significantly improves cross-system model reusability and design optimization efficiency, and avoids the information gap problem of traditional transmission methods.

[0012] Furthermore, the mapping table includes mapping relationships for sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and mating relationships between the geometry of each part.

[0013] It should be noted that, based on the background information, traditional model transfer between CAD systems only retains geometric data while losing parametric information. The mapping table described above, by covering sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and the mapping relationship of geometric fits of various parts, ensures that key design elements in the source model (such as sketch logic, constraints, feature construction rules, and assembly relationships) can be systematically converted into equivalent implementations of the target system. Therefore, this application achieves lossless transfer of design intent by comprehensively mapping parametric design logic and structural relationships, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the complete editing capabilities and optimization potential of the source model, eliminating information gaps in cross-system collaboration, and significantly improving design iteration efficiency and model reuse value.

[0014] Furthermore, determining the equivalent implementation data of the model parsing data in the second CAD system based on the mapping table includes:

[0015] Based on the mapping relationship between the sketch primitive information and the sketch constraint information in the mapping table, the sketch is reconstructed into the sketch in the second CAD system.

[0016] Based on the mapping relationship of the parametric feature modeling in the mapping table, the model is reconstructed into a parametric feature model in the second CAD system;

[0017] Based on the mapping relationship of the assembly tree structure in the mapping table, and the mapping relationship of the fit between the geometry of each part, the assembly tree and fit constraints in the second CAD system are reconstructed.

[0018] It should be noted that traditional CAD model transfer methods (such as STEP / IGES) only retain geometric data while losing key parametric information such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints. This results in the target system being unable to directly inherit the editing capabilities of the source model. This application intelligently reconstructs the model's analytical data into equivalent sketches (based on sketch primitive information and constraint mapping), parametric feature models (based on feature modeling mapping), and assembly trees and mating constraints (based on assembly structure and part mating mapping) in the target CAD system using a mapping table. This ensures that the core design logic of the source model (such as sketch constraint dependencies, feature construction sequences, and assembly relationships) is completely reproduced in the target system. By accurately reconstructing parametric modeling components, this application retains the operability of the original design intent, enabling the target CAD system to seamlessly inherit the parametric editing capabilities of the source model. This significantly improves the efficiency of cross-system collaborative design iterations and model reuse potential, eliminating the model reconstruction burden caused by traditional methods.

[0019] Furthermore, before obtaining the pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the method further includes:

[0020] For the same type of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, establish a mapping relationship for the corresponding feature parameters;

[0021] For different types of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the different types of parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system are converted into the same type of parameters through combination matching, and the mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established.

[0022] For feature parameters of different types between the first CAD system and the second CAD system that cannot be combined and matched, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into preset result entities, and a mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established.

[0023] It should be noted that, based on the problem of parameterized information loss caused by traditional neutral format transmission in the background, the mapping table construction method systematically bridges the underlying logical differences between different CAD systems by handling the compatibility of feature parameters in a layered manner (direct mapping of the same type, matching and conversion of different types, and downgrading of unconvertible ones to preset entities). This application, through intelligent adaptation of parameter expression forms, maximizes the editability of the original design intent during cross-system transmission, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit parameter-driven capabilities based on the mapping results, significantly reducing the model reconstruction cost and collaboration gaps caused by system differences.

[0024] Furthermore, the step of converting the feature parameters of the first CAD system into preset result entities and establishing a mapping relationship for the corresponding feature parameters includes:

[0025] Marked as pending processing, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into the preset result entity to ensure the integrity of the model, and a mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established.

[0026] It should be noted that, based on the problem of design interruption caused by the loss of parameter information in traditional CAD model transmission, the proposed method marks feature parameters as pending processing and downgrades them to preset result entities (such as basic geometry) when they cannot be converted. At the same time, a mapping relationship is established to forcibly preserve the model structure and function. This application maintains the basic usability and geometric integrity of the model in the target CAD system by downgrading and reserving pending processing marks, enabling designers to continue to operate the entity model or subsequently repair the marked parts. This avoids model failure and interruption of collaborative processes caused by the complete loss of parameters, and improves the reliability and fault tolerance of cross-system design iteration.

[0027] Furthermore, before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, the method further includes:

[0028] During the parsing of the file to be transmitted, all constraint information is recorded, and conflict constraints are automatically detected and attempted to be resolved by adjusting redundant parameters.

[0029] It should be noted that, based on the problem in the background that parametric design fails in the target system due to constraint conflicts in traditional CAD model transmission, the method described above resolves conflicts by dynamically recording all constraints and automatically adjusting redundant parameters, thus preemptively eliminating constraint logic contradictions that may be caused by system differences. This application, through intelligent detection and adaptive conflict resolution mechanisms, actively maintains the inherent consistency of the parametric constraint system during model reconstruction, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the operable parametric model without manual intervention, significantly improving the model usability and design continuity of cross-system collaboration.

[0030] Furthermore, it automatically detects and attempts to resolve conflicting constraints by adjusting redundant parameters, including:

[0031] During the data parsing process, all constraint information is recorded. For each newly added constraint, it is compared with the stored constraints to detect whether there are constraint conflicts. The constraint conflicts include geometric constraint conflicts, topological constraint conflicts, and conflicts between multiple constraints.

[0032] If a constraint conflict exists, the conflict can be resolved by automatically deleting the conflict or by adjusting the parameters of the conflicting constraints to make them consistent.

[0033] It should be noted that, based on the pain point of parametric design failure in the target system due to constraint conflicts in traditional CAD model transmission, the proposed method detects and intelligently resolves three types of constraint conflicts (geometric, topological, and multi-constraint contradictions) in real time during the analysis phase. It ensures the consistency of the constraint system by automatically deleting or adjusting redundant parameters. By actively eliminating the inherent contradictions of the constraint system, this application enables the reconstructed model to directly possess logically self-consistent parameter-driven capabilities in the target CAD system. This allows designers to immediately perform editing and optimization based on the reconstructed file, avoiding the design process interruption and additional repair costs caused by constraint conflicts in traditional methods, and significantly improving the usability and reliability of cross-system collaboration.

[0034] Furthermore, before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, the method further includes:

[0035] Check whether the outline of the reconstructed sketch forms a closed outline;

[0036] During the parametric feature model reconstruction process, each reconstructed parametric feature model undergoes pre-defined geometric and topological validity checks; wherein,

[0037] The geometric validity check focuses on whether the geometric features in the parameterized feature model conform to the pre-defined geometric rules and constraints;

[0038] Topological validity checking focuses on whether the connection relationships between geometric features in the parameterized feature model meet the pre-defined requirements.

[0039] It should be noted that, based on the problem in the background that traditional CAD models cannot be edited or the model crashes in the target system due to geometric topology errors after transmission, the method described above actively verifies the closure of the sketch outline, the geometric rules of parametric features, and the topological connection relationships during the reconstruction stage. This is equivalent to implanting a self-checking mechanism into the reconstructed model, intercepting illegal structures in advance (such as open outlines causing stretching failure, surface curvature discontinuities, or broken inter-face connections). By intercepting structural defects in the reconstructed model in advance, this application ensures that the parametric model received by the target CAD system has inherent robustness, enabling designers to directly carry out uninterrupted design iterations. This completely avoids the paralysis of editing functions and the breakage of the collaboration chain caused by geometric topology errors, significantly improving the efficiency of cross-system model reuse and the reliability of the design process.

[0040] Furthermore, the first CAD system is SolidWorks, and the second CAD system is CrownCAD.

[0041] It should be noted that, based on the pain point of traditional neutral formats losing parametric design logic when transmitted across CAD systems, and considering the typical scenarios of SolidWorks and CrownCAD, the former, as a mainstream parametric design platform, carries a large number of design intentions, while the latter, as a domestic cloud-based CAD system, needs to be compatible with existing industrial models. The method described above achieves model reconstruction through a mapping table customized for the differences between the two systems. This application, by specifically adapting to the underlying logic differences between SolidWorks and CrownCAD, seamlessly transforms the design intentions of the source system into the native parametric structure of the target system, enabling domestic CrownCAD users to directly inherit the complete editing capabilities and optimization potential of SolidWorks models, significantly accelerating the cross-platform reuse and collaboration efficiency of design resources in the domestic industrial software ecosystem.

[0042] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems, comprising:

[0043] The mapping table acquisition unit acquires a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system when the first CAD system transfers the model to the second CAD system.

[0044] The file acquisition unit acquires the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0045] The parsing unit parses the file to be transmitted to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0046] The data determination unit determines the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system based on the mapping table;

[0047] The file reconstruction unit applies the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstruction file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0048] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems, comprising:

[0049] At least one processor; and,

[0050] A memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein,

[0051] The memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, which, when executed by the at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to:

[0052] When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained.

[0053] Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0054] The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0055] Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system;

[0056] The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0057] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a non-volatile computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a computer, can perform the following:

[0058] When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained.

[0059] Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0060] The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0061] Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system;

[0062] The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0063] The above-described at least one technical solution used in the embodiments of this specification can achieve the following beneficial effects:

[0064] Traditional neutral formats (such as STEP / IGES) retain only geometric information when transferring models between different CAD systems, losing parametric data such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints. This prevents the target system from performing parameter editing and optimization design. This application utilizes a pre-created inter-system mapping table to first parse the parametric model data of the source CAD file, then map it to the equivalent implementation in the target system, and finally reconstruct it into an adaptation file. Through intelligent mapping and reconstruction mechanisms, this application's method effectively preserves the key parametric information of the model (such as sketches, features, and constraints), enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the parameter editing capabilities of the source model. This significantly improves cross-system model reusability and design optimization efficiency, and avoids the information gap problem of traditional transmission methods. Attached Figure Description

[0065] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments or prior art of this specification, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments recorded in this specification. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort. In the drawings:

[0066] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a file reconstruction method between CAD systems provided in one or more embodiments of this specification;

[0067] Figure 2 A flowchart illustrating the parameterization conversion process provided for one or more embodiments of this specification;

[0068] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems provided in one or more embodiments of this specification;

[0069] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems provided for one or more embodiments of this specification. Detailed Implementation

[0070] This specification provides a method, apparatus, device, and medium for file reconstruction between CAD systems.

[0071] In the field of CAD, parametric modeling is a key way to improve model reusability and modification efficiency. However, when transferring models between different CAD systems (such as SolidWorks and CrownCAD), traditional neutral formats (such as STEP / IGES) only retain the model's geometric information, while losing data such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints, making it difficult for the target system to continue using the model for parametric editing and optimization design.

[0072] Therefore, how to extract complete parametric information from formats such as SolidWorks and reconstruct its structural features and modeling intent in CrownCAD is an engineering problem that urgently needs to be solved.

[0073] Existing CAD model conversion technologies generally suffer from the following shortcomings:

[0074] a) Limited to geometric data conversion, lacking parametric structure support: Most conversion methods based on neutral formats such as STEP and IGES only retain the model geometry and cannot transmit core modeling information such as sketches, dimensions, feature types, and construction order. As a result, the model received by the target system cannot be parametrically edited, reducing the efficiency of design reuse.

[0075] b) Insufficient feature recognition accuracy and inconsistent conversion results: Even if some tools support parameter conversion, their feature recognition capabilities are limited and cannot cover complex modeling semantics, such as multi-round Boolean operations, composite features, and modeling volumes driven by multiple sketches, resulting in inconsistencies between the converted model structure and the original design.

[0076] c) Missing assembly structure and assembly constraints: Traditional conversion methods cannot retain assembly hierarchy and assembly constraint relationships. They only import components as static geometry into the target system, resulting in the loss of product structure and its associated logic, making it difficult to use for subsequent assembly verification or motion simulation.

[0077] d) Unstable topological references and easy model failure: Due to the lack of a stable topological naming mechanism, reference information such as "selected face" and "selected edge" in the model often fails during the conversion process, resulting in reconstruction failure or inaccurate assembly, which affects the complete restoration of the design intent.

[0078] e) Poor fault tolerance and easy to be interrupted during the conversion process: Existing technologies usually adopt the "full feature successful conversion" strategy, which lacks fault tolerance for some failed features. Once an incompatible feature is encountered, the conversion process is interrupted. There is a lack of model structure preservation and user intervention mechanism.

[0079] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solutions in this specification, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this specification will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this specification, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of this specification, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort should fall within the scope of protection of this specification.

[0080] Figure 1 This diagram illustrates a file reconstruction method between CAD systems, provided for one or more embodiments of this specification. This process can be executed by a CAD-based file reconstruction system. Certain input parameters or intermediate results in the process can be manually adjusted to help improve accuracy.

[0081] The method flow steps of the embodiments in this specification are as follows:

[0082] S101, when the first CAD system transfers the model to the second CAD system, obtain the pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system.

[0083] In the embodiments of this specification, during the model transfer process from a first CAD system (such as SolidWorks) to a second CAD system (such as CrownCAD), a pre-generated inter-system mapping table is invoked. This mapping table is stored in a local or cloud database and contains bidirectional mapping rules for sketch primitives, constraint rules, feature modeling logic, assembly tree structure, and part mating relationships between the two CAD systems.

[0084] S102, Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system.

[0085] In the embodiments of this specification, the model source file to be transmitted (such as the .sldprt / .sldasm file of SolidWorks) is extracted from the design environment of the first CAD system, ensuring that the file is unencrypted and readable, and verifying its version compatibility.

[0086] S103, parse the file to be transmitted to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted.

[0087] In the embodiments described in this specification, the file to be transmitted is read by a parsing engine, its data structure is deconstructed layer by layer, and the following key parameterized information is extracted:

[0088] Sketch layer: Identifies sketch reference planes, primitives (line segments / arcs, etc.) and constraints (geometric / dimensional constraints);

[0089] Feature layer: parses feature types (stretching / rotation, etc.), parameters (depth / angle, etc.), and parent-child dependencies;

[0090] Assembly layer: Restores the assembly tree hierarchy, part poses, and mating constraints (concentricity / coincidence, etc.).

[0091] Output structured model parsing data (such as JSON or a dedicated intermediate format).

[0092] S104, Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system.

[0093] In the embodiments of this specification, a model parsing data can be converted into an equivalent implementation scheme for the target CAD system (CrownCAD) based on a mapping table:

[0094] Sketch mapping: Converts SolidWorks sketch elements and constraints into element types and constraint rules supported by CrownCAD;

[0095] Feature mapping: Maps SolidWorks features (such as "Extrude Cut") to equivalent feature operations in CrownCAD (such as "Negative Extrude").

[0096] Assembly mapping: Adapts the SolidWorks assembly tree structure and mating relationships to the assembly logic and constraint types of CrownCAD.

[0097] S105, the model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstruction file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0098] In the embodiments described in this specification, model parsing data can be bound to equivalent data as follows:

[0099] Reorganize the sketches, features, and assembly data according to the target system specifications;

[0100] The parameterized logic after injection mapping (such as feature size association and assembly constraint relationship);

[0101] The output is a reconstructed file in the native format of the second CAD system (such as the .crown file of CrownCAD), ensuring that it can be opened directly and retains the parameter editing function.

[0102] It should be noted that when traditional neutral formats (such as STEP / IGES) are transferred between different CAD systems, only geometric information is retained while parametric data such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints are lost. This results in the target system being unable to perform parameter editing and optimization design. This application utilizes a pre-created inter-system mapping table to first parse the parametric model data of the source CAD file, then map it to the equivalent implementation of the target system, and finally reconstruct it into an adaptation file. The method of this application effectively retains the key parametric information of the model (such as sketches, features, and constraints) through intelligent mapping and reconstruction mechanisms, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the parameter editing capabilities of the source model. This significantly improves cross-system model reusability and design optimization efficiency, and avoids the information gap problem of traditional transmission methods.

[0103] Furthermore, the mapping table includes mapping relationships for sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and mating relationships between the geometry of each part.

[0104] It should be noted that, based on the background information, traditional model transfer between CAD systems only retains geometric data while losing parametric information. The mapping table described above, by covering sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and the mapping relationship of geometric fits of various parts, ensures that key design elements in the source model (such as sketch logic, constraints, feature construction rules, and assembly relationships) can be systematically converted into equivalent implementations of the target system. Therefore, this application achieves lossless transfer of design intent by comprehensively mapping parametric design logic and structural relationships, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the complete editing capabilities and optimization potential of the source model, eliminating information gaps in cross-system collaboration, and significantly improving design iteration efficiency and model reuse value.

[0105] Furthermore, determining the equivalent implementation data of the model parsing data in the second CAD system based on the mapping table includes:

[0106] Based on the mapping relationship between the sketch primitive information and the sketch constraint information in the mapping table, the sketch is reconstructed into the sketch in the second CAD system.

[0107] Based on the mapping relationship of the parametric feature modeling in the mapping table, the model is reconstructed into a parametric feature model in the second CAD system;

[0108] Based on the mapping relationship of the assembly tree structure in the mapping table, and the mapping relationship of the fit between the geometry of each part, the assembly tree and fit constraints in the second CAD system are reconstructed.

[0109] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0110] For sketch primitive mapping, equivalence relationships between basic primitives in a first CAD system (such as SolidWorks) and a second CAD system (such as CrownCAD) can be defined (e.g., straight line → straight line, spline curve → fitted polyline); for sketch constraint mapping, conversion rules for constraint logic can be established (e.g., SolidWorks' "horizontal constraint" is mapped to CrownCAD's "parallel to X-axis constraint"); for feature modeling mapping, feature operation semantics can be associated (e.g., SolidWorks' "rib feature" is mapped to CrownCAD's "extruded thin-wall feature"); for assembly tree mapping, assembly hierarchy structure rules can be aligned (e.g., sub-assembly → nested component); for mating mapping between part geometries, mating types can be converted (e.g., SolidWorks' "width mating" is mapped to CrownCAD's "symmetry plane constraint").

[0111] In addition, this application includes reconstructing sketches, reconstructing parametric feature models, and reconstructing assembly trees and mate constraints when generating equivalent implementation data.

[0112] For reconstructing sketches, you can input sketch primitives and constraint information from the model analysis data. During the process, based on the sketch primitive mapping relationship, equivalent primitives are created in the second CAD system (CrownCAD). Based on the sketch constraint mapping relationship, constraint rules supported by the target system are applied to the newly created primitives. Finally, a parametric sketch conforming to the specifications of the second CAD system is output.

[0113] For reconstructing parametric feature models, the feature types and parameters in the model parsing data can be input. During the process, the parametric feature modeling mapping relationship can be called to convert the feature operations of the first CAD system (such as SolidWorks' "loft cut") into equivalent operations of the second CAD system (CrownCAD) (such as "surface trimming solid"). The parameter-driven logic of the original features (such as the loft contour dimension correlation) is inherited. Finally, the feature model tree that retains the parameter editing capability is output.

[0114] To reconstruct the assembly tree and mate constraints, the assembly level and part mate relationships in the model's analytical data can be input. During the process, the equivalent assembly level can be reproduced in the second CAD system (CrownCAD) based on the assembly tree structure mapping relationship (e.g., converting SolidWorks' "Flexible Subassembly" into CrownCAD's "Driven Component Group"). The part mate mapping relationship is applied to convert the mate type of the source system (e.g., SolidWorks' "Gear Mating") into the constraint form supported by the target system (e.g., CrownCAD's "Rotary Kinematic Pair"). Finally, a complete assembly that retains assembly linkage is output.

[0115] It should be noted that traditional CAD model transfer methods (such as STEP / IGES) only retain geometric data while losing key parametric information such as sketches, features, and assembly constraints. This results in the target system being unable to directly inherit the editing capabilities of the source model. This application intelligently reconstructs the model's analytical data into equivalent sketches (based on sketch primitive information and constraint mapping), parametric feature models (based on feature modeling mapping), and assembly trees and mating constraints (based on assembly structure and part mating mapping) in the target CAD system using a mapping table. This ensures that the core design logic of the source model (such as sketch constraint dependencies, feature construction sequences, and assembly relationships) is completely reproduced in the target system. By accurately reconstructing parametric modeling components, this application retains the operability of the original design intent, enabling the target CAD system to seamlessly inherit the parametric editing capabilities of the source model. This significantly improves the efficiency of cross-system collaborative design iterations and model reuse potential, eliminating the model reconstruction burden caused by traditional methods.

[0116] Furthermore, before obtaining the pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, for feature parameters of the same type between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, a mapping relationship for corresponding feature parameters is established; for feature parameters of different types between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the different types of parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system are converted into the same type of parameters through combination matching, and a mapping relationship for corresponding feature parameters is established; for feature parameters of different types between the first CAD system and the second CAD system that cannot be combined and matched, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into the preset result entity, and a mapping relationship for corresponding feature parameters is established.

[0117] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0118] For the same type of feature parameter mapping, identify feature parameters in the first CAD system (such as SolidWorks) and the second CAD system (such as CrownCAD) that have the same semantics and data type (e.g., the "depth value" of the extrusion feature and the "radius value" of the fillet feature); directly establish a one-to-one association between parameter name and driving logic in the mapping table (e.g., map SolidWorks' Depth=20mm to CrownCAD's extrusion length=20mm).

[0119] For matching different types of feature parameter combinations, the differences in parameter types between the source system (SolidWorks) and the target system (CrownCAD) can be analyzed (e.g., SolidWorks' "taper angle" has no direct corresponding parameter in CrownCAD); the behavior of source parameters can be simulated by combining multiple parameters of the target system (e.g., decomposing "taper angle" into two parameters, "starting diameter" and "ending diameter," in CrownCAD, and establishing a calculation relationship: ending diameter = starting diameter + 2 × depth × tan(taper angle)); and the combination logic and parameter association rules can be recorded in the mapping table.

[0120] For feature parameters that cannot be matched, the downgrading process can be determined by identifying parameter types that cannot be matched through combination (e.g., SolidWorks' unique "wrapping feature" has no equivalent operation in CrownCAD); the feature is downgraded to a geometric entity by calling preset rules: extracting the geometric surfaces / volumes generated by the feature (such as the surface texture formed by the wrapping feature); converting it into geometric elements of the target system (CrownCAD) (such as NURBS surfaces or meshes); marking the feature as "entity to be processed" in the mapping table, and retaining the reference relationship between the original parameter name and the downgraded entity (e.g., wrapping feature → [surface entity ID]).

[0121] It should be noted that, based on the problem of parameterized information loss caused by traditional neutral format transmission in the background, the mapping table construction method systematically bridges the underlying logical differences between different CAD systems by handling the compatibility of feature parameters in a layered manner (direct mapping of the same type, matching and conversion of different types, and downgrading of unconvertible ones to preset entities). This application, through intelligent adaptation of parameter expression forms, maximizes the editability of the original design intent during cross-system transmission, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit parameter-driven capabilities based on the mapping results, significantly reducing the model reconstruction cost and collaboration gaps caused by system differences.

[0122] Furthermore, when converting the feature parameters of the first CAD system into the preset result entity and establishing the mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters, it can be marked as pending processing. Converting the feature parameters of the first CAD system into the preset result entity ensures the integrity of the model and establishes the mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters.

[0123] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0124] For marking features to be processed, when a specific feature parameter (such as the "covering feature" parameter) in the first CAD system (such as SolidWorks) has no equivalent implementation in the second CAD system (such as CrownCAD) and cannot be combined and matched, the feature can be marked as "to be processed" in the mapping table; record the original parameter name, parameter value and the feature ID to which it belongs (such as feature ID_123: covering angle = 30° [to be processed]).

[0125] For conversion to a preset result entity, the geometric result generated by the feature in the first CAD system (such as a surface formed by a wrapping feature) can be extracted; the geometry can be converted into a basic entity compatible with the target system (CrownCAD): surface → NURBS surface entity; complex structure → discretized mesh entity; the entity can be inserted into the reconstructed model, preserving its original spatial pose and topological connection relationship.

[0126] To establish a mapping relationship, a degraded record can be created in the mapping table: associate the original feature ID with the unique identifier of the generated entity (e.g., feature ID_123 → entity ID_456); store the original parameter values ​​(e.g., wrap angle = 30°) as metadata; add comments to the reconstructed file: display the entity to be processed marker in the target system (CrownCAD) (e.g., the entity attribute panel prompts "Original feature: wrap [to be edited]").

[0127] It should be noted that, based on the problem of design interruption caused by the loss of parameter information in traditional CAD model transmission, the proposed method marks feature parameters as pending processing and downgrades them to preset result entities (such as basic geometry) when they cannot be converted. At the same time, a mapping relationship is established to forcibly preserve the model structure and function. This application maintains the basic usability and geometric integrity of the model in the target CAD system by downgrading and reserving pending processing marks, enabling designers to continue to operate the entity model or subsequently repair the marked parts. This avoids model failure and interruption of collaborative processes caused by the complete loss of parameters, and improves the reliability and fault tolerance of cross-system design iteration.

[0128] Furthermore, before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, all constraint information can be recorded during the parsing of the file to be transmitted, and conflict constraints can be automatically detected and attempted to be resolved by adjusting redundant parameters.

[0129] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0130] For full-process constraint recording, all constraint information can be scanned and stored synchronously when parsing the file to be transferred from the first CAD system (such as SolidWorks), specifically including:

[0131] Sketch layer: geometric constraints (perpendicular / tangential, etc.), dimensional constraints (length / angle values);

[0132] Feature layer: parameter dependencies (e.g., extrusion depth references sketch dimensions);

[0133] Assembly layer: Part mating relationships (concentricity / distance constraints, etc.).

[0134] During the process, a dynamic constraint library can be built and indexed by hierarchical relationship (such as sketch ID_constraint ID, assembly ID_mate ID).

[0135] For real-time conflict detection, each new constraint is logically compared with related constraints at the same level in the constraint library when it is parsed (e.g., a newly added "parallel constraint" and an existing "perpendicular constraint" act on the same set of sketch lines); the types of conflicts detected (according to user-defined rules) can specifically include:

[0136] Geometric conflicts: For example, two lines are labeled as both parallel and perpendicular;

[0137] Topological conflicts: such as the distance constraint between a hole feature and its boundary exceeding the entity's range;

[0138] Multiple constraint conflicts: such as the distance coordination between three parts forming an overdefined closed loop.

[0139] For automatic conflict resolution, if a conflict is detected, parameter adjustment priority can be prioritized to locate redundant parameters (such as duplicate dimensions or low-priority constraints); parameter values ​​can be adjusted according to preset strategies (e.g., deleting minor dimensions in overdefined dimension chains, or resetting the offset of concentric mates to zero). Simultaneously, a mandatory deletion of the minimum constraint can be performed when parameters cannot be automatically reconciled (e.g., topological conflicts causing missing surfaces), deleting conflicting constraints (e.g., removing hole distance constraints that extend beyond the solid boundary). Furthermore, a resolution operation log can be recorded (e.g., "Conflict ID: Deleted Hole Distance Constraint").

[0140] It should be noted that, based on the problem in the background that parametric design fails in the target system due to constraint conflicts in traditional CAD model transmission, the method described above resolves conflicts by dynamically recording all constraints and automatically adjusting redundant parameters, thus preemptively eliminating constraint logic contradictions that may be caused by system differences. This application, through intelligent detection and adaptive conflict resolution mechanisms, actively maintains the inherent consistency of the parametric constraint system during model reconstruction, enabling the target CAD system to directly inherit the operable parametric model without manual intervention, significantly improving the model usability and design continuity of cross-system collaboration.

[0141] Furthermore, when automatically detecting and attempting to resolve conflicting constraints by adjusting redundant parameters, all constraint information is recorded during data parsing. For each newly added constraint, it is compared with the stored constraints to detect whether there are constraint conflicts. The constraint conflicts include geometric constraint conflicts, topological constraint conflicts, and conflicts between multiple constraints. If the constraint conflicts exist, the conflicting constraints are resolved by automatically deleting the constraint conflicts or adjusting the parameters of the constraint conflicts to make them consistent.

[0142] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0143] During the parsing of the files to be transmitted from the first CAD system, the system creates a dynamic constraint library to store all constraint information. During implementation: 1) Sketch constraints (geometric and dimensional constraints), feature parameter dependencies, and assembly fit constraints are extracted layer by layer; 2) A unique identifier is established for each constraint, and its associated objects (such as sketch ID, feature ID, etc.) are recorded; 3) Constraint data is organized hierarchically to form a constraint relationship network that can be quickly retrieved.

[0144] Upon parsing a new constraint, the detection process is initiated immediately: 1) Automatically associate the affected object based on the constraint type (e.g., associating a new sketch constraint with its corresponding sketch ID); 2) Retrieve all existing constraints in the constraint library that are associated with the same object; 3) Perform three types of conflict detection: geometric conflicts (e.g., perpendicular and parallel constraints acting on the same pair of lines simultaneously), topological conflicts (e.g., hole features exceeding solid boundaries), and multiple constraint conflicts (e.g., overdefined dimension chains). The detection rules are based on a preset constraint logic compatibility table.

[0145] When a conflict is detected, it is handled according to priority: 1) Parameter adjustment priority: Identify redundant parameters (such as secondary dimensions in overdefined dimensions) and eliminate conflicts by resetting parameters (such as adjusting conflicting size constraints to calculated values); 2) Forced deletion of the lowest priority constraint: For conflicting constraints that cannot be adjusted (such as unmet fits caused by topology errors), the lowest priority constraint is automatically deleted; 3) All resolution operations are recorded in the resolution log and the constraint library status is updated synchronously.

[0146] It should be noted that, based on the pain point of parametric design failure in the target system due to constraint conflicts in traditional CAD model transmission, the proposed method detects and intelligently resolves three types of constraint conflicts (geometric, topological, and multi-constraint contradictions) in real time during the analysis phase. It ensures the consistency of the constraint system by automatically deleting or adjusting redundant parameters. By actively eliminating the inherent contradictions of the constraint system, this application enables the reconstructed model to directly possess logically self-consistent parameter-driven capabilities in the target CAD system. This allows designers to immediately perform editing and optimization based on the reconstructed file, avoiding the design process interruption and additional repair costs caused by constraint conflicts in traditional methods, and significantly improving the usability and reliability of cross-system collaboration.

[0147] Furthermore, before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, it can be checked whether the outline of the reconstructed sketch forms a closed outline; during the reconstruction of the parametric feature model, pre-set geometric validity checks and topological validity checks are performed on each reconstructed parametric feature model; wherein, the geometric validity check focuses on whether the geometric features in the parametric feature model conform to pre-set geometric rules and constraints; the topological validity check focuses on whether the connection relationship between the geometric features in the parametric feature model conforms to pre-set requirements.

[0148] It should be noted that the above content can be implemented through the following specific implementation schemes:

[0149] After completing the sketch reconstruction based on the mapping table and before performing feature reconstruction, implement sketch contour closure verification: 1) Automatically identify all contour segments in each reconstructed sketch; 2) Detect whether the contour forms a strict closed loop (connected end to end without gaps); 3) Provide automatic processing for unclosed contours: attempt to connect the endpoints of line segments with a spacing smaller than the tolerance, or mark them as abnormal sketches that need to be manually repaired.

[0150] During the parametric feature model reconstruction process, geometric rule verification is performed on each generated feature: 1) Check whether the geometric feature conforms to the preset rules (e.g., whether the stretching depth of the stretching feature is greater than zero; whether the radius of the fillet feature is less than the length of the adjacent side); 2) Verify whether the parameter constraints meet the geometric feasibility (e.g., whether the wall thickness of the thin-wall feature is less than the minimum thickness of the solid); 3) Automatically trigger parameter adjustment for illegal features (e.g., reset the fillet radius of the over-limit feature to the maximum allowable value) or mark it as an invalid feature.

[0151] After feature reconstruction is completed, perform topological connectivity checks: 1) Verify the connectivity between geometric features (e.g., whether adjacent faces share edges; whether there are invalid intersections between entities); 2) Check the integrity of the topological structure (e.g., whether the shell is a closed volume; whether the faces and edges form a continuous manifold); 3) Automatically repair topological errors (e.g., fill the gaps between small facets) or decompose them into multiple valid bodies and mark them.

[0152] It should be noted that, based on the problem in the background that traditional CAD models cannot be edited or the model crashes in the target system due to geometric topology errors after transmission, the method described above actively verifies the closure of the sketch outline, the geometric rules of parametric features, and the topological connection relationships during the reconstruction stage. This is equivalent to implanting a self-checking mechanism into the reconstructed model, intercepting illegal structures in advance (such as open outlines causing stretching failure, surface curvature discontinuities, or broken inter-face connections). By intercepting structural defects in the reconstructed model in advance, this application ensures that the parametric model received by the target CAD system has inherent robustness, enabling designers to directly carry out uninterrupted design iterations. This completely avoids the paralysis of editing functions and the breakage of the collaboration chain caused by geometric topology errors, significantly improving the efficiency of cross-system model reuse and the reliability of the design process.

[0153] It should be noted that the method provided by this invention, based on the independently developed SolidWorks parsing tool and CrownCAD modeling engine, comprehensively solves the above-mentioned problems:

[0154] a) Through structured extraction and feature classification, the modeling logic and parameters of the source model are fully extracted;

[0155] b) Reconstruct the target model feature by feature using feature-parameter mapping rules, while maintaining the modeling order;

[0156] c) Retain and transform the assembly structure and constraints to achieve structural-level visualization;

[0157] d) Establish a topology naming and reference chain mechanism to ensure the stable maintenance of parameter-driven relationships;

[0158] e) Introduce a fault-tolerant reconstruction strategy to retain the topology and alternative hints when encountering unsupported features, so as to maximize the integrity and usability of the model.

[0159] The specific embodiments of the technical implementation of the present invention are as follows, and see also... Figure 2 The flowchart of the parameterization conversion is shown below:

[0160] (1) Create a mapping table based on the modeling features of SolidWorks and CrownCAD (i.e., the corresponding implementation relationship of features, options, etc. in SolidWorks in CrownCAD).

[0161] The mapping table contains the following:

[0162] Mapping relationship between sketch primitive information (such as lines, arcs, splines, etc.) and sketch constraint information (such as perpendicularity, concentricity, dimensions, etc.).

[0163] The mapping relationship between modeling features and their various option parameters (such as extruded bosses and extruded depth, revolved bosses and rotation angles, holes and dimensions, etc.).

[0164] Assembly tree structure and the mates between individual part geometries (Assembly tree: The assembly tree is the overall structure tree of the model and one of the core parts of a model file, used to represent the hierarchical relationship and assembly order of the various parts in the model. Each node represents a part or sub-assembly in the assembly. Matches: Define the relative position and orientation between different part geometries. There are mates (also called constraints) between the part geometries on the nodes of the tree structure, such as mapping relationships like coaxial, mating, and fixed.)

[0165] The mapping table creation scheme is as follows:

[0166] Scenarios with similar features and option parameters are matched one-to-one. For example, if a given angle option for the SolidWorks Rotate Cut feature exists in CrownCAD with the same feature and option, a matching relationship can be directly established.

[0167] For scenarios without similar features or option parameters, a combined matching method is used (i.e., prioritizing feature meaning and matching multiple features together). For example, in SolidWorks, the Extrude Cut feature cuts multiple bodies at once, while CrownCAD has an Extrude Cut feature but can only select and cut one body at a time. In this case, the single Extrude Cut feature in SolidWorks can be decomposed into multiple independent Extrude Cut features in CrownCAD. Therefore, the scenario where the Extrude Cut feature in SolidWorks cuts multiple bodies at once can be matched with the combined scenario of multiple independent Extrude Cut features in CrownCAD.

[0168] In scenarios where there are no matching entities of the same type and no possible combination, a result entity substitution method is used. (A non-parametric transformation scheme is used, which does not retain feature details from the modeling process, but directly converts it into the final geometry, and uses this final geometry to replace the parametric modeling result.) For example, the vent feature in SolidWorks has no matching solution in CrownCAD. Therefore, if the modeling process of the entity contains this feature, a non-parametric transformation scheme will be used to convert it into the final geometry to replace the parametric modeling result.

[0169] (2) SolidWorks model data parsing

[0170] Use a secondary development interface to obtain SolidWorks model file data. Parse and extract sketch primitive information and sketch constraint information; extract modeling features and their parameters; extract the assembly tree structure and the mates between the geometry of each part.

[0171] (3) Feature reconstruction is performed by combining the mapping table and the parsed data.

[0172] Using mapping tables: Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation of SolidWorks features or option parameters in CrownCAD. Then, reconstruct the feature in CrownCAD using the parsed data. For example, in a scenario where a SolidWorks extrusion cut removes multiple bodies at once, first, the mapping table determines its implementation in CrownCAD as a multiple extrusion cut feature. Then, the parsed parameters of this feature in SolidWorks are applied to the implementation in CrownCAD to complete the feature reconstruction.

[0173] The process involves reconstructing a CrownCAD sketch by combining sketch primitive information and sketch constraint information; reconstructing a CrownCAD parametric feature model by combining features and their various option parameters; and constructing a CrownCAD assembly tree and mate constraints by combining the assembly tree structure and the mates between the geometry of each part. While technically part of the assembly process, this is done after error correction and repair, but logically it involves data reconstruction.

[0174] (4) Fault tolerance and repair mechanism (belongs to the part in the process, so it is before the creation of the assembly structure in the flowchart)

[0175] If certain SolidWorks features do not have a matching implementation in CrownCAD, they are marked as pending and converted into placeholder final geometry to ensure model integrity; (Mapping Table Scheme 3)

[0176] For constraint conflicts: Automatically detect and attempt to resolve conflicting constraints by adjusting redundant parameters;

[0177] All constraint information is recorded during data parsing. Each newly added constraint is compared with existing constraints to detect geometric, topological, or combined conflicts between multiple constraints. If a constraint conflict is found, it can be resolved by automatically deleting the conflicting constraints or by adjusting their parameters to make them consistent.

[0178] If the model has open sketches, duplicate constraints, or illegal features, automatic repair suggestions will be provided.

[0179] Sketch closure check: After the sketch is built, check whether the outline forms a closed outline.

[0180] Duplicate constraint detection records all constraint information during data parsing. For each newly added constraint, it is compared with the already stored constraints to detect whether there are duplicate constraints.

[0181] Illegal feature detection involves performing geometric and topological validity checks on each reconstructed feature during model reconstruction. Geometric validity checks primarily focus on whether the geometric features (such as points, lines, surfaces, and volumes) in the model conform to the expected geometric rules and constraints. Topological validity checks primarily focus on whether the connection relationships between the geometric features in the model are reasonable and consistent.

[0182] (5) Output and Verification

[0183] Generate a complete parametric model in CrownCAD; provide parameter comparison and verification with the original SolidWorks model; after model reconstruction in CrownCAD, obtain editable parameter data for each feature, compare it with the original parameter data of the parsed SolidWorks model, record and highlight inconsistent parameters. Support exporting CrownCAD models for subsequent editing, simulation, drawing, and other applications. Models reconstructed in CrownCAD can be exported to various 3D formats (IGES, STEP, CATIA, etc.). Exported models can be opened and further edited in other CAD software. Exported models can be imported into different simulation software for mechanical, fluid dynamics, and other simulation analyses. Exported models can generate 2D drawings for manufacturing and assembly guidance.

[0184] The beneficial effects of the technical solution of this invention are as follows:

[0185] This system enables parametric model-level conversion from SolidWorks to CrownCAD, preserving design intent. Through a parametric conversion scheme, all geometric and constraint information in the model is retained, ensuring that design intent is not lost during the conversion process. This allows for accurate reproduction of the original design details and logic in the target CAD software (CrownCAD).

[0186] Parametric models improve model reusability and reduce repetitive modeling work for designers. They allow designers to quickly modify models by changing parameters without redrawing the entire model. Designers can quickly adjust and optimize existing parametric models, reducing the need for repetitive modeling and thus improving work efficiency.

[0187] It supports feature-level and constraint-level structure restoration, improving the intelligence of data transfer; the parametric transformation scheme can accurately preserve the feature and constraint information in SolidWorks models, making data transfer between different systems more accurate and reliable, thus achieving intelligent data transfer. This intelligent data transfer reduces the need for manual intervention, improves the automation of data processing, and ensures data consistency and accuracy.

[0188] It supports the reconstruction of assembly levels and constraints to adapt to the transformation requirements of complex multi-part structures. Complex assembly structures often contain multiple parts and complex constraint relationships. Supporting the reconstruction of assembly levels and constraints ensures that these complex structures are fully preserved during the transformation process, thereby meeting the transformation requirements of complex multi-part structures.

[0189] Introducing fault tolerance mechanisms enhances the system's robustness in adapting to complex models. When dealing with complex models, the introduction of fault tolerance mechanisms ensures stability and reliability even in the face of exceptional circumstances.

[0190] Figure 3 This specification provides a schematic diagram of the structure of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems, which includes one or more embodiments: a mapping table acquisition unit 301, a file acquisition unit 302, a parsing unit 303, a data determination unit 304, and a file reconstruction unit 305.

[0191] The mapping table acquisition unit 301 acquires a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system when the first CAD system transfers the model to the second CAD system.

[0192] The file acquisition unit 302 acquires the file to be transmitted from the first CAD system;

[0193] Parsing unit 303 parses the file to be transmitted to obtain model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0194] The data determination unit 304 determines the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system according to the mapping table;

[0195] The file reconstruction unit 305 applies the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstruction file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0196] Figure 4 A schematic diagram of a file reconstruction device between CAD systems provided for one or more embodiments of this specification, including:

[0197] At least one processor and bus; and,

[0198] A memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein,

[0199] The memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, which, when executed by the at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to:

[0200] When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained.

[0201] Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0202] The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0203] Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system;

[0204] The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0205] This specification provides one or more embodiments of a non-volatile computer storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by a computer, can perform the following:

[0206] When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained.

[0207] Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system;

[0208] The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted;

[0209] Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system;

[0210] The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system.

[0211] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to mutually. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. In particular, the embodiments of apparatus, devices, and non-volatile computer storage media are basically similar to the method embodiments, so the descriptions are relatively simple; relevant parts can be referred to the descriptions of the method embodiments.

[0212] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to mutually. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. In particular, the apparatus embodiments are basically similar to the method embodiments, so the description is relatively simple; relevant parts can be referred to the descriptions of the method embodiments.

[0213] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this application.

[0214] In the embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus / network devices and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus / network device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For instance, the division of modules or units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some interfaces; the indirect coupling or communication connection between devices or units may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0215] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs.

[0216] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The aforementioned units can be implemented in hardware or software.

[0217] If the integrated module / unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can also be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. The computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed by a processor, it can implement the steps of the various method embodiments described above. The computer program includes computer program code, which can be in the form of source code, object code, executable files, or certain intermediate forms. The computer-readable medium can include: any entity or device capable of carrying the computer program code, recording media, USB flash drives, portable hard drives, magnetic disks, optical disks, computer memory, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electrical carrier signals, telecommunication signals, and software distribution media, etc. It should be noted that the content included in the computer-readable medium can be appropriately added or removed according to the requirements of legislation and patent practice in the jurisdiction. For example, in some jurisdictions, according to legislation and patent practice, computer-readable media do not include electrical carrier signals and telecommunication signals.

[0218] The above-described embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit them. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, and should all be included within the protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A method for file reconstruction between CAD systems, characterized in that, The method includes: When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained. Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system; The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted; Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system; The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system; The mapping table includes mapping relationships for sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and mating relationships between various part geometries. The step of determining the equivalent implementation data of the model parsing data in the second CAD system according to the mapping table includes: Based on the mapping relationship between the sketch primitive information and the sketch constraint information in the mapping table, the sketch is reconstructed into the sketch in the second CAD system. Based on the mapping relationship of the parametric feature modeling in the mapping table, the model is reconstructed into a parametric feature model in the second CAD system; Based on the mapping relationship of the assembly tree structure in the mapping table and the mapping relationship of the fit between the geometry of each part, the assembly tree and fit constraints in the second CAD system are reconstructed. Before obtaining the pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the method further includes: For the same type of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, establish a mapping relationship for the corresponding feature parameters; For different types of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the different types of parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system are converted into the same type of parameters through combination matching, and the mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established. For feature parameters of different types between the first CAD system and the second CAD system that cannot be combined and matched, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into preset result entities, and a mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established. Before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, the method further includes: During the parsing of the file to be transmitted, all constraint information is recorded, and conflict constraints are automatically detected and attempted to be resolved by adjusting redundant parameters.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of converting the feature parameters of the first CAD system into preset result entities and establishing a mapping relationship for the corresponding feature parameters includes: Marked as pending processing, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into the preset result entity to ensure the integrity of the model, and a mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The automatic detection and attempt to resolve conflict constraints by adjusting redundant parameters includes: During the data parsing process, all constraint information is recorded. For each newly added constraint, it is compared with the stored constraints to detect whether there are constraint conflicts. The constraint conflicts include geometric constraint conflicts, topological constraint conflicts, and conflicts between multiple constraints. If a constraint conflict exists, the conflict can be resolved by automatically deleting the conflict or by adjusting the parameters of the conflicting constraints to make them consistent.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, the method further includes: Check whether the outline of the reconstructed sketch forms a closed outline; During the parametric feature model reconstruction process, each reconstructed parametric feature model undergoes pre-defined geometric and topological validity checks; wherein, The geometric validity check focuses on whether the geometric features in the parameterized feature model conform to the pre-defined geometric rules and constraints; Topological validity checking focuses on whether the connection relationships between geometric features in the parameterized feature model meet the pre-defined requirements.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The first CAD system is SolidWorks, and the second CAD system is CrownCAD.

6. A file reconstruction device between CAD systems, characterized in that, include: At least one processor; as well as, A memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor; wherein, The memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, which, when executed by the at least one processor, enable the at least one processor to: When the first CAD system transfers a model to the second CAD system, a pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system is obtained. Obtain the file to be transferred from the first CAD system; The file to be transmitted is parsed to obtain the model parsing data of the file to be transmitted; Based on the mapping table, determine the equivalent implementation data of the first CAD system in the second CAD system; The model parsing data is applied to the equivalent implementation data to obtain a reconstructed file adapted to the second CAD system; The mapping table includes mapping relationships for sketch primitive information, sketch constraint information, parametric feature modeling, assembly tree structure, and mating relationships between various part geometries. The step of determining the equivalent implementation data of the model parsing data in the second CAD system according to the mapping table includes: Based on the mapping relationship between the sketch primitive information and the sketch constraint information in the mapping table, the sketch is reconstructed into the sketch in the second CAD system. Based on the mapping relationship of the parametric feature modeling in the mapping table, the model is reconstructed into a parametric feature model in the second CAD system; Based on the mapping relationship of the assembly tree structure in the mapping table and the mapping relationship of the fit between the geometry of each part, the assembly tree and fit constraints in the second CAD system are reconstructed. Before obtaining the pre-created mapping table between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the method further includes: For the same type of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, establish a mapping relationship for the corresponding feature parameters; For different types of feature parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system, the different types of parameters between the first CAD system and the second CAD system are converted into the same type of parameters through combination matching, and the mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established. For feature parameters of different types between the first CAD system and the second CAD system that cannot be combined and matched, the feature parameters of the first CAD system are converted into preset result entities, and a mapping relationship of the corresponding feature parameters is established. Before applying the model parsing data to the equivalent implementation data, the method further includes: During the parsing of the file to be transmitted, all constraint information is recorded, and conflict constraints are automatically detected and attempted to be resolved by adjusting redundant parameters.

Images