Re: is ugnx considered a "hybrid" modeler?
Cliff
> Reason I ask is you have the history of the model, but you can also just
>make anything anywhere right in the middle of the history. You have the
>option to make things associative or not.
> I was just wondering if that's what's meant by a hybrid modeler?
You already know that banquer is an idiot, right?
He saw that term in an ad.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:14:53 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>
>> Reason I ask is you have the history of the model, but you can also just
>>make anything anywhere right in the middle of the history. You have the
>>option to make things associative or not.
>> I was just wondering if that's what's meant by a hybrid modeler?
>>
>>
>
>Solids & Surfaces
So CADDS IV (before IV-X) was hybrid, eh?
It had CSG solids at the very least.
Putting a smallish sphere at (0,0,0) helped keep you oriented.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 9:31 am, Black Dragon <b...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Fucked if I know. As long as it does what you need it to do, why care?
>
>Excellent advice especially because the word hybrid is now being used
>to describe history based and direct modeling in the same package
>rather than what it use to mean... combining a surface and a solid
>modeler. You can place a good part of this blame on Autodesk and their
>attempts to make Inventor Fusion (basically vaporware) seem like the
>only way to go with its supposed coming "hybrid" approach to history
>and direct modeling. Siemens delivered with their technology. Autodesk
>still hasn't. No surprise there.
>
>I think the real answer is direct modeling becoming much more powerful
>and Siemens leads the way with Synchronous Technology. Only time will
>tell what PTC plans are for CoCreate. No one wants to admit it but
>history based modeling as we know it today is going to become history
>as all the effort gets put into making direct modeling tools much more
>powerful than they have traditionally been. Autodesk seems to think it
>should be about combining the two approaches. I'm not convinced this
>is the best answer and I doubt it's the right long term answer.
>
>One thing is for sure: All of this non-history based software
>development shows what an idiot Tom Brewer is with his moronic
>insistence that using a roll back bar in a history based modeler is a
>powerful enough tool and is all that is needed.
>
>Jon Banquer
>San Diego, CA
LOL .... found out how to drill a few holes yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>to err is
.... banquer.
--
Cliff
Cliff
> I saw
>some abuse
>coming your way, that of course is inexcusalbe... responding to it
>though as some do
>is fatal... its been a real pleasure to notice you have been avoiding
>that...despite
>ongoing provocations.
You are a newbie here.
Go back & watch the silly clueless twit full of BS & hype from ads
& stuff stolen (but ungrasped) from the posts of others & BBS systems)
for a decade.
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>One thing that does come to mind on that range of issues... you are a
>machinist, hands on
On a broom I suspect. Not much of a "machinist" of CAD or CAM person.
Did you catch his recent "toolbox" posts?
This is a guy that got kicked out of HS early on, lacks even
the basics of any shop math, .....
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>If you get a chnce try the hole feature on a donut , round or revolved
>shaped object in synch...that will blow your mind.
He does not have or use SE.
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>(I talked to HQ in germany)
The applications & programming folks are probaby still in the US,
mostly.
Try the support number. UGS is quite good.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Inventor was way to much of a complex convolution for what I do or
>have the time
>to learn.... however, to say the least it was complete as hell doing
>gear sets etc
>from a library with adjustable lash and tyng that to thrust bearing
>tolerances.
AFAIK Almost no gear can be accurately modeled with a NURBS-based
modeler.
The types of surfaces needed differ.
Gears are generated ....
>SE doesnt come close (but has other features that are gettng me great
>compliments and
>very fast production, inteli sketch for instance...great stuff. gear
>sets in SE for instance you'get to
>dig up yer machinists handbook and manually enter the gear teeth,
>angles, numbers etc by hand.
>similar with der piping program... Inventor has all that complete and
>more or less fully automated, self
>checking, wear and stress testable... i dont need even .01% of
>that however.
Do you have an API?
IF so check the user library and group for programs.
--
Cliff
phil scott
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:03:00 -0700 (PDT), phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> > I saw
> >some abuse
> >coming your way, that of course is inexcusalbe... responding to it
> >though as some do
> >is fatal... its been a real pleasure to notice you have been avoiding
> >that...despite
> >ongoing provocations.
>
> You are a newbie here.
> Go back & watch the silly clueless twit full of BS & hype from ads
> & stuff stolen (but ungrasped) from the posts of others & BBS systems)
> for a decade.
>
> HTH
> --
> Cliff
that is the behavior of a god.. perfection in motion, taking what the
other gods have written, putting it yet
clearer and into clearer context until the ultimate perfection is
acheived.... you had simply not reached that high level
plateau. 10 years of this and YOU have not caught on?
Phil scott
phil scott
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:03:00 -0700 (PDT), phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> >One thing that does come to mind on that range of issues... you are a
> >machinist, hands on
>
> On a broom I suspect. Not much of a "machinist" of CAD or CAM person.
> Did you catch his recent "toolbox" posts?
> This is a guy that got kicked out of HS early on, lacks even
> the basics of any shop math, .....
>
> HTH
> --
> Cliff
HS has screwed up a lot of fine minds. Einstein for instance dropped
out going on as has JB to lead the world
in advances across the broad spectrum of life, math, physics and in
the case of JB advanced machine development.
phil scott
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:03:00 -0700 (PDT), phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> >(I talked to HQ in germany)
>
> The applications & programming folks are probaby still in the US,
> mostly.
> Try the support number. UGS is quite good.
the SE help group is quite good thats for sure... Ive gotten'
back in touch with them....
> --
> Cliff
phil scott
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:03:00 -0700 (PDT), phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> >If you get a chnce try the hole feature on a donut , round or revolved
> >shaped object in synch...that will blow your mind.
>
> He does not have or use SE.
>
> HTH
> --
> Cliff
ok ok...so he proves once again how he can dodge bullets... You are
whinning about that?
phil scott
Cliff
>I was actually cordial with Jon in the past, and even tried to help
>him with
I did too, via private Email.
He was & is very confused about posts, as an example,
& I did not want to embarass him in public with some free aid.
In return for my effort I got threats via Email.
A bit later I set a slight trap for him about a subject I
knew very, very well.
His replies, trying to pose as an expert, were utter tripe,
gibberish, name dropping & BS. It was clear he'd not
even begin to grasp what the subjects were about & was just
mouthing noises he'd just seen in ads or someplace else.
Utterly clueless.
He's been trapped by experts & still does not know <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Cliff
>Einstein for instance
Now earns quite a lot of money.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Applications Programming Interface.
Quick search (excludes internal SE stuff):
http://www.jasonnewell.net/
http://www.jasonnewell.net/Forums/tabid/55/view/topics/forumid/1/Default.aspx
http://www.barhamsoftware.com/SE_Tools/SELinks.htm
http://newsletter.plmworld.org/archive/Vol5No1/solid_edge_customization.php
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/COM/sestaddin1.aspx
Etc.
Plus check the SE user's group at ugs.com ....
Search for "solid edge" programming ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jun 26, 7:38 pm, Bill <Kin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. It's been one a looong time. Back in the "old days" if one didn't
>> make every single tiny bit of data "associative" they were considered a
>> hack.
>
>It depended on who you worked for and what system they had so while
>what Bill Triffet writes above is bullshit it pales in comparison to
>the claims that a loser and a liar like Cliffy Huprich has made and
>posted on for years... that full associativity is a must.
You are drooling cluelessly again.
I posted of toolpath to geometry relations.
You STILL have no clues. Not a one.
>Recently someone posted how nice the Hurco conversational programming
>is and once again Cliffy Huprich showed he has zero recent (the last
>25 years) machining job shop experience by knocking a system that does
>nothing but save time and continues to get more and more innovative...
>I've posted about the benefits of Hurco Winmax for *many years*.
I wrote/configured a Hurco post while your diapers were wet <VBG>.
You can even do 3D stuff.
YOU don't even begin to grasp what a post is.
>It never fails to amaze me how many idiots the machine shop business
>seems to attract.
Thy name is banquer, right?
>Luckily more and more of these idiots are being
>forced out, retire or are being driven into bankruptcy everyday so
>they can post on Usenet and show how little they know.
Wheels fell off your cart?
>>Those days are (thankfully) long gone. The system is more than
>> stable to handle multiple types of data as well as multiple solids
>> within the same part file (something many other systems didn't like).
>>
>> --
>
>Mastercam X4 still can't handle a disjoint solids
How many solids are you making? LOL ....
>and I don't believe
>a piece of crap like Gibbscam Solid Surfacer can either. I'd bet that
>Mastercam X5 when it comes out will solve this problem.
>
>Jon Banquer
>San Diego, CA
Nope. National City.
You moved from Chewey Vistas.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Mastercam X4 still can't handle a disjoint solids and I don't believe
>a piece of crap like Gibbscam Solid Surfacer can either.
How are they at the cut & paste of buzzwords from ads
in a confused & clueless manner?
--
Cliff
phil scott
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:02:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Mastercam X4 still can't handle a disjoint solids and I don't believe
> >a piece of crap like Gibbscam Solid Surfacer can either.
>
> How are they at the cut & paste of buzzwords from ads
> in a confused & clueless manner?
> --
> Cliff
for cut and paste buz words try an engineering office some time...
those come in waves,
like the management fads... remember 'matrix management' :) each
load of crap
lasts about 18 months...and if you dont know the latest hot load of
steaming terms you are
deemed an idiot..
'fast track' was the most impressive... that is doing yer planning,
engineering and strategy *after
you have purchased the land, poured the slab and bought the wrong
equipment....
. all 'ahead of the curve'... very impressive.
something like 'credit default swaps'... brilliant you know....
I thought 'shock and awe' was impressive as well, real
courage those folk.
John Scheldroup
"phil scott" <ph...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:18e831e5-409c-4b27...@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 3:53 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:02:01 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>> <jon_banq...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mastercam X4 still can't handle a disjoint solids and I don't believe
>> >a piece of crap like Gibbscam Solid Surfacer can either.
>>
>> How are they at the cut & paste of buzzwords from ads
>> in a confused & clueless manner?
>> --
>> Cliff
> for cut and paste buz words try an engineering office some time...
> those come in waves,
> like the management fads... remember 'matrix management' :)
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_management
Visual Representation
Representing matrix organizations visually has challenged managers
ever since the matrix management structure was invented. Most organizations
use dotted lines to represent secondary relationships between people,
and software packages, such as Visio and PowerPoint support this approach.
Until recently, Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and Human resource
management systems (HRMS) software did not support matrix reporting.
Late releases of SAP software support matrix reporting, and Oracle
eBusiness Suite can also be customized to store matrix information.
]
Knowledge based corrective action at the workflow can arrive with
assumptions,
that with one or two experts in the plant to manage and program the plc and
cnc's.
in other words the Rembrandt's trained experts when the final product needs
finishing
touches.
When alarms fire off this expert operator knowledge comes in handy.
To prevent errors, bells & whistles in repeatable processes, just like in
software,
there is always a pattern in the process that makes it repeat itself.
Not self-aware but what if the process changes down the road with next
customer?
Processs is not so repeatable next time but needed is some kind of
grandfather
inheritance from the original pattern so you adjust the process for your
next client.
Instead of grouping similiar work skills like in Matrix and sending or
confining at
select departments, you want to solve the pattern in real-time and its new
mutation.
The future will need a software webservice framework style maybe like Java
or .NET.
The point about framework and patterns is forget the buzzwords but your
knowledge
over 30 years can execute the processes to be found from the new framework
that
solves new features of the original pattern.
Feeds come in real-time with collaboration between between people and the
applications. SPC in software development might have a couple points to
measure,
while in repeatable processes with a single pattern and process that works
like
CNC's and PLC's you get hundreds of points to measure.
Processes in software that have one pattern like CNC & PLC tend to service a
rigid business model too. Whereas in software the time it takes to develop a
system
of knowledge or whatever there can be found lots of people with only one or
two points.
A couple SPC points that will probably be measured not during all those
programmer hours with less unique skills and components that can be
purchased,
but more likely at end product testing.
John
Cliff
"Strategic Planning" (almost unlimited budget).
AKA "Tragic Planning".
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:d9ub459oqgvs9vka5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:01:35 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><brew...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sbv945hva6r68g5gf...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:14:53 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Reason I ask is you have the history of the model, but you can also
>>>>> just
>>>>>make anything anywhere right in the middle of the history. You have the
>>>>>option to make things associative or not.
>>>>> I was just wondering if that's what's meant by a hybrid modeler?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Solids & Surfaces
>>>
>>>You mean Body's and Sheets? lol
>>
>> Or faces or zero thickness solids ....
>> The kernel needs to think of solids ... just
>> like jb thinks of KFC.
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>I needed a stock block, no biggie, just a block the size of the electrode.
> And I was stumped. As simple as it seems.
> Next day I came in and said "this is really humiliating, but I need to make
>a stock block, I need to know how where you guys get that block from".
> Dood says...just make a block?
>
>I thought for a minute and said "add a component in the assembly"?
> And he looks at me weird and says just make a damn block??
> So I did. I just made a block. And it's in the history, but has nothing to
>do with anything.
Pretty simple, eh?
> That was an awesome moment, when I realized the whole history thing is now
>just a tool, not a rule.
> Finally associativity is an option.
It's good to ask questions of other users <G>.
And help them when you can too.
(Suggestion: If on nights pretty much alone make a list of
questions to ask of others later AND one of what you "discovered".)
Not that you will always get the best of possible answers. Often
there are even better ways to be discovered by all.
Used to set aside about an hour a week for a department-wide
show & tell.
Sometimes some had wonders to show or demonstrate & many
learned much from others.
Worst case you had to assign bits of the "unknown" to a few
to learn & tell about. Worked a little bit <sigh>.
HINT: Don't ask jb. He's clueless.
--
Cliff
vinny
I use email with the day guy. It's working great.
I wish there was a bit more stuff out there to read. The help files are
kinda weird.
I am trying to force myself down a new path.
I'm absolutely not using surfaces unless there's no other way. That hasn't
happened yet. Surfs are a great tool, but I'm trying to think totally
solids.
The other thing I'm doing is forcing myself to not create geometry, lines,
etc... Always using the edges of faces for boundry's and profiles.
Takes a bit at first, but after a while it's a lot faster. No more thinking
about actual numbers. Instead just having to input how much stock on a face
or edge or floor.
Downloaded nx6 this morning. We have it installed at work at every seat, but
nobody is using it. I'll play with it for a while and then ask if I can
switch over. I couldn't imagine it getting any better? We shall see.
Cliff
As long as you don't need interactive & slow $$ typing on both ends is fine.
> I wish there was a bit more stuff out there to read. The help files are
>kinda weird.
You don't have CAST or the hardcopy docs?
How about the install & release notes?
> I am trying to force myself down a new path.
> I'm absolutely not using surfaces unless there's no other way. That hasn't
>happened yet. Surfs are a great tool, but I'm trying to think totally
>solids.
> The other thing I'm doing is forcing myself to not create geometry, lines,
>etc... Always using the edges of faces for boundry's and profiles.
Plus tools such as stock settings & etc I assume.
> Takes a bit at first, but after a while it's a lot faster. No more thinking
>about actual numbers. Instead just having to input how much stock on a face
>or edge or floor.
Tool/part relationships. Poor jb will never grasp any of it.
>Downloaded nx6 this morning. We have it installed at work at every seat, but
>nobody is using it. I'll play with it for a while and then ask if I can
>switch over. I couldn't imagine it getting any better? We shall see.
Users have sugestions & ideas. Many of the ones that make sense
get added over time, one way or another (though not all needs
are the same).
Do they still have the Macro keystroke recorder or similar?
--
Cliff
vinny
yep. The cast was cool, but real weak on manufacturing.
The docs are weird, good for when your stuck, but not real good for just
browsing.
I guess I could read the release notes, havnt read that yet lol
>
>> I am trying to force myself down a new path.
>> I'm absolutely not using surfaces unless there's no other way. That
>> hasn't
>>happened yet. Surfs are a great tool, but I'm trying to think totally
>>solids.
>> The other thing I'm doing is forcing myself to not create geometry,
>> lines,
>>etc... Always using the edges of faces for boundry's and profiles.
>
> Plus tools such as stock settings & etc I assume.
Hell yah. The real power of this stuff is when you tweak a cutterpath. The
options to control the toolpath are freakishly badass.
>
>> Takes a bit at first, but after a while it's a lot faster. No more
>> thinking
>>about actual numbers. Instead just having to input how much stock on a
>>face
>>or edge or floor.
>
> Tool/part relationships. Poor jb will never grasp any of it.
>
>>Downloaded nx6 this morning. We have it installed at work at every seat,
>>but
>>nobody is using it. I'll play with it for a while and then ask if I can
>>switch over. I couldn't imagine it getting any better? We shall see.
>
> Users have sugestions & ideas. Many of the ones that make sense
> get added over time, one way or another (though not all needs
> are the same).
>
> Do they still have the Macro keystroke recorder or similar?
It has macros. I havn't looked into it, just noticed the menu ops. I'll look
into them when I get into programming moldbases.
> --
> Cliff
>
Cliff
> I guess I could read the release notes, havnt read that yet lol
Start with the earlist version you can find & read them in order.
IIRC They mark changes with black bars on the side.
Handy.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>> I am trying to force myself down a new path.
>>> I'm absolutely not using surfaces unless there's no other way. That
>>> hasn't
>>>happened yet. Surfs are a great tool, but I'm trying to think totally
>>>solids.
>>> The other thing I'm doing is forcing myself to not create geometry,
>>> lines,
>>>etc... Always using the edges of faces for boundry's and profiles.
>>
>> Plus tools such as stock settings & etc I assume.
>
>Hell yah. The real power of this stuff is when you tweak a cutterpath. The
>options to control the toolpath are freakishly badass.
And all should then be associative as you did it at the CAD/CAM level
instead of editing code <g>.
Next part/job you may be able to reuse stuff using data from
that one (& others).
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> Do they still have the Macro keystroke recorder or similar?
>
>It has macros. I havn't looked into it, just noticed the menu ops. I'll look
>into them when I get into programming moldbases.
Check it out soon. If it's the "macro recorder" (or similar)
you can easily capture & automate routine tasks that now take
lots of choices.
Though in the past it (what was recorded & perhaps then edited)
was not quite as upwardly portable between UG versions as one might
have wished for.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Jun 26, 8:02�pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 7:38 pm, Bill <Kin...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes. It's been one a looong time. Back in the "old days" if one didn't
>> > make every single tiny bit of data "associative" they were considered a
>> > hack.
>>
>> It depended on who you worked for and what system they had so while
>> what Bill Triffet writes above is bullshit it pales in comparison to
>> the claims that a loser and a liar like Cliffy Huprich has made and
>> posted on for years... that full associativity is a must.
>>
>> Recently someone posted how nice the Hurco conversational programming
>> is and once again Cliffy Huprich showed he has zero recent (the last
>> 25 years) machining job shop experience by knocking a system that does
>> nothing but save time and continues to get more and more innovative...
>> I've posted about the benefits of Hurco Winmax for *many years*.
>>
>> It never fails to amaze me how many idiots the machine shop business
>> seems to attract. Luckily more and more of these idiots are being
>> forced out, retire or are being driven into bankruptcy everyday so
>> they can post on Usenet and show how little they know.
>>
>> Those days are (thankfully) long gone. The system is more than
>>
>> > stable to handle multiple types of data as well as multiple solids
>> > within the same part file (something many other systems didn't like).
>>
>> > --
>>
>> Mastercam X4 still can't handle a disjoint solids and I don't believe
>> a piece of crap like Gibbscam Solid Surfacer can either. I'd bet that
>> Mastercam X5 when it comes out will solve this problem.
>>
>> Jon Banquer
>> San Diego, CA
>
>Jon, do you think anybody, anywhere, actually thinks you know more
>about ANYTHING, than Bill? Seriously?
>
>Hmm, the guy who was at top the machining department of a near billion
>dollar company, with a million square feet of shop space, 1000+ FMS
>pallets, and now programs simultaneous 5 axis parts with UG........
Bill has long been doing so, Joe.
Other systems too IIRC.
APT too, probably.
>Or the nomadic CNC operator
Who, at best, does not quite grasp 2 1/2 D OR CAD/CAM.
And that's giving him far too much credit.
>who works in a faux "machine shop"
>consisting of a few worn out tool dropping verticals, who has never
>actually used UG, but has only watched videos on it?
>
>I'll pick the former.
Vinny is beginning to like associativity <g>.
--
Cliff
vinny
sux, I'm at the point of looking at another proggy and writing down the
info. This week I will master copying the ops somehow.
Just don't know how yet.?
The help files suck. You cant type in a search bar "copy operations" or
something like that. Well, that I know of anyway :)
vinny
I just downloaded the teacher course training from somewhere.
Looks like the official ugnx5 class package for teachers.
it's perfect, all the data without some lame dick teacher getting in the
way. Maybe it will show me how to copy ops from part to part.
?
phil scott
wrote:
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
your last two sentences make the crucial point... the field data
available is too sparce
to adequately populate the matrix or decision making tree...the real
time issues are outside
that matrix also in one aspect or the other.............. and ....
the ownership or senior management
in true Dogbert style is clueless and making entirely loopy demands
that fit no rational concept at all.
Meantime the project is burning off tradesmans time...wasting it.. so
the tradesmen and contractors
being pro's at hosing the oposition in this case begin very
selectively and strategically to discover
engineering errors..(but only after they have very strategically built
a few real thick concrete reinforced
walls that preclude a cheap change)...
that doubles or triples construction costs.
If the idiot hired to project manage by this software then proceeds to
try and shove it up the contractors
posterior orifice... the contractor goes into total glee...takes the
day off early and spends the next few days
figuring out how to nail the owner and blackmail the engineers and
especially the matrix management idiot
...into oblivion.... whilst smiling gleefully.
bottom line virtually all construction projects have too many
variables, too little predictability, and too little management
talent with actual hands on experrience to make things go right. (I
use negotiated contract tactics with the engineers and most
especially the contractors, and everyone involved and developing a
flexible working plan that allows everyone some slack
and opportunity to do well..and....provides 'buy in'..
buy in is crucial.
Buy-in alone though, with the various ethics issues and variables in
play is not sufficient. You have to bring all the players
into the contractd so each is accountable to each other, in writing,
and contracted to work out any issues at no extra charge
to the contract etc.... that works about half the time.
to get 100% workability you must deal with known quantities, not just
the low bidders that come and go like toilet paper. This does not
even run up the tab if you incorporate everyones value engineering
approach... you can usually reduce net costs this way... a shared
risk approach.
(one example: cooling load on a tall building is 1,000 tons by the
book.... but the book will show 8 hours a year at this peak...the rest
of the
time the load is under 700 tons you might say. a cost reducing
strategy would be to put 700 tons in, but redesign the duct work so
that
the 700 ton capacity shifts to the sunny side of the building for
those few hot hours....and allows (gasp) the shady side of the
building to get up to say 76F.
If the owner is in bed with the arrangement then all is well. and
savings in that and other areas can be in the 50% range from previous
low bid.
If you have brought the electrical contractor into the arrangement he
may be able to arrange to remove lighting transformer loads from the
space and
hold the shady side of the building at 72F worst case... or cut the
over all tonage to 500 tons...etc etc.
same with the massively wide range of construction variables.... the
viability is negotiated in advance, war is precluded...and the gentle
folk to not
have to hire pore ol philsie here to arrive and cut everyones
throat...I just *hate that.
:)
Phil scott
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes indeedie, management in the dying phases of a diseased
culture...is not brilliant, it
drives the larger problem.
I'm a calif guy..... but spent 15 years all around the US on various
consulting projects later in my career ...and a few years
when I was a kid hoboing around on the freight trains... that will
shape yer notions some.
At Texas Instruments in
dallas they hired temps, thats cowboys and cowgirl plumbers union folk
to do the most sophisticated semi conductor
fabs in the world. // the size of a football field, raised floor, a
thousand tons of cooling or more, .. for about a fourth
of what it costs to do in Silicon Valley..and in a few months not a
year or longer...
management generally knew better
than to get in the way.
when management was hired to wax eloquent the job usually had
issues.. . one project for instance ended up with 11' tall
doors :)
and we all saw it coming but of course management could not back track
without looking like idiots...so they gotts the
worlds very first 11' doors on a semi conductor fab... very nice if
ya'll loves head room.
costs are 4 to 10x higher in silicon valley.
In silicon valley a fab is built generally all on one floor, with
piping and equipment in aisles...and some on the roof. that works but
editing it (rip out and upgrade often in less than a year) is
costly.
At TI in Dallas, the fab is stacked. the mfg floor in the middle,
a 20' talll pipe and equipment
'space' layer above that (for DI water production, HVAC air handlers,
process gas and acids and all kinds of exhaust systems... all easilty
edited you might
say. the basement level holds vibration sensititive equipment and
primary power etc... its a 15' ceiling... with equipment elevator
shafts for moving fab equipment in and out.
that was a a different mentality than seen in silicon valley... where
it was all much more integrated, jammed to gether to the last inch...
and over time
a real costly pain in the ass. Many of the fabs at TI in dallas
have been there since 1950... upgrades involve rolling yer new gismo
down a 15' wide aisle to
the primary utility branches. using the pre-fit tees and valves... and
presto that aspect is upgraded.
Management involved calling Oddie (who dropped out of the third
grade) and informing him of what you needed... with an engineered
drawing, which he would then correct as a rule seeing as how the
engineer wouldnt be up to speed on a few details such as mixing silane
gas and acid exhausts ... which will explode yer clean room... he made
those corrections.
Phil scott
Cliff
Ought to be pretty basic in the training.
Try searching for "library" or somesuch.
"Operation Navigator" ?
Open a library part?
Sure I saw the new option in the V13 docs but don't recall
where, exactly.
See also tool libraries.
BTW, Used to be settings on install for the $ and the ! libraries.
(Just sets environment variables in a shell script but ... )
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Joe788 wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 12:10 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 11:11 am, brewe...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:36:51 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
>>>> <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> One thing is for sure: All of this non-history based software
>>>>> development shows what an idiot Tom Brewer is with his moronic
>>>>> insistence that using a roll back bar in a history based modeler is a
>>>>> powerful enough tool and is all that is needed.
>>>> The first Jon Bandqueer victim is truth. I never said any such thing
>>>> Jon and you know it. I have corrected you on this a number of times so
>>>> you know I never posted any such thing which makes it another lie in
>>>> your long list of lies such as your posing as a Machinist & CAD/CAM
>>>> expert.
>>>> You were having beginner problems with SolidWorks and I simply told
>>>> you to post examples and specifics so more experienced users could
>>>> help you. Which of course you never did because it comes down to your
>>>> normal MO in these groups, you were copying, parroting & plagiarizing
>>>> others.
>>>> --
>>>> Tomhttp://tinyurl.com/5okkgz
>>> what i notice is that one low road tactic tends to produce a similar
>>> response...first thing
>>> you know it ends with morons drooling at each other.
>>>
>>> its all avoidable...it is not other peoples foibles that one can
>>> actually address, you know
>>> that maybe...it is only ones own that are effectively addressible..
>>>
>>> Phil Scott, the magnificent :)
>>
>> I remember when I first started reading AMC. I too thought that people
>> were unfairly targeting Jon. That's before I realized he has some
>> serious mental and social disorders, and that everything he was
>> telling people was either made up, or plagiarized. Even his "insults"
>> are figments of his imagination. The jab he attempted to make at Tom
>> above was completely false, as usual.
>>
>> I was actually cordial with Jon in the past, and even tried to help
>> him with his beginner Mastercam problems. When I explained to him that
>> he was doing things terribly wrong and asked him to "get specific"
>> about the problems he was having, he blew up and has been that way
>> ever since towards me.
>>
>> Why don't you ask Jon a few "specific" questions about Solid Edge with
>> Sync Tech? He claimed he'd be using it in January, so he should very
>> well be up to speed by now. You'll quickly find out that he's just
>> making stuff up. After that, ask him about his trip to the Solidworks
>> intro awhile back (emphasis on the *trip*)....
>>
>
>Trust me, Phil is more fucked in the head than JB. Conspiracy theorist.
>He's been frequently posting off topic conspiracy theories for years on
>alt.motorcycle.sportbike. Just DON'T ask him about his speeding ticket...
What about his speeding ticket?
--
Cliff
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
:) I gotts a BOGUS speeding ticket, coming out of the McArthur
tunnel in SF... Im a VERY old man... 68 now I cant
even GO that fast.. I was barely dragging the pegs in a slight drift
to the outside... and this COP... half a mile away claims I was
speeding..
he
must have been on crack or something.. I was just trying to get away
from the korean meat truck driver that
had almost squeezed me off against the center divide in the tunnel
... regardless I went to court and it was entirely corrupt as you
can imagine. so I had cafe press do some 'bogus speeding ticket tee
shirts, the back exposes the cops retirement
fraud scheme'. those sold like hot cakes and some even showed up at
some bankrupt city town hall meetings.
so thats it. ..not ONE of them cowards on alt.motercicle.sportsbike
would see it my way. they got all stuck on my remark that the bike
was in third gear... what the hell did they expect... those crap
out at 85 in first...Im supposed to go past the red line or something.
Phil scott
Cliff
> gotts a BOGUS speeding ticket, coming out of the McArthur
>tunnel in SF...
>so thats it. ..not ONE of them cowards on alt.motercicle.sportsbike
>would see it my way. they got all stuck on my remark that the bike
>was in third gear... what the hell did they expect... those crap
>out at 85 in first...Im supposed to go past the red line or something.
How much faster than 85 MPH were you going?
--
Cliff
phil scott
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:17:51 -0700 (PDT), phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> > gotts a BOGUS speeding ticket, coming out of the McArthur
> >tunnel in SF...
> >so thats it. ..not ONE of them cowards on alt.motercicle.sportsbike
> >would see it my way. they got all stuck on my remark that the bike
> >was in third gear... what the hell did they expect... those crap
> >out at 85 in first...Im supposed to go past the red line or something.
>
> How much faster than 85 MPH were you going?
> --
> Cliff
115
Cliff
And did you catch the BOGUS?
--
Cliff
Bill
>
> I just downloaded the teacher course training from somewhere.
> Looks like the official ugnx5 class package for teachers.
> it's perfect, all the data without some lame dick teacher getting in the
> way. Maybe it will show me how to copy ops from part to part.
> ?
In the OM, select add new operation. In the types area there is
something like "Other". Select that and you can go to existing part
files for there operations. I'm at home so not sure (wine in hand).
It gets much deeper too...You can create template part files with just
the ops you use frequently. You use a dummy solid in that file just for
creations sake. Read up on Templates and you'll see.
--
Bill
vinny@work
"Bill" <Kin...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9Tf3m.23251$S16....@newsfe23.iad...
> vinny wrote:
>
>>
>> I just downloaded the teacher course training from somewhere.
>> Looks like the official ugnx5 class package for teachers.
>> it's perfect, all the data without some lame dick teacher getting in the
>> way. Maybe it will show me how to copy ops from part to part.
>> ?
>
>
> In the OM, select add new operation. In the types area there is something
> like "Other". Select that and you can go to existing part files for there
> operations. I'm at home so not sure (wine in hand).
I figured it out using templates. But your way is what I was looking for.
Thanks a lot. This was perfect!
Just as I suspected it beats the hell out of mastercam when reusing ops.
You don't have to save anything, just take any op from any file.
Suweeeettt!!!
> --
> Bill
>
Cliff
> You don't have to save anything, just take any op from any file.
>Suweeeettt!!!
Tools too IIRC.
Used to be a limit in the number of lines of TEXT or PPRINT allowed per op
though that I always considered to be a problem. Max text length problem too
IIRC.
And using (enhanced) APT FORMAT statments to extract the op
data & add as comments ... perish the thought .... I LIKED self-documenting
stuff !!
Often such statements are sort of common and a program to select them
from "standard comments" & edit as needed ... then add to the op ....
--
Cliff