When SolidWorks Can't Do It...Blame The Users Lack of TRAINING !!!
jon_b...@my-deja.com
user is having problems getting SolidWorks to do the job is because the
user does not have enough training ?? This excuse is made repeatedly in
this newsgroup by one poster, who just happens to work for a SolidWorks
reseller, and handles training. (Must be some lucky coincidence :) )
Note, I don't have this problem with my SolidWorks VAR as he is ethical
and happens to agree with me on what SolidWorks problems are.
Lets looks at the facts:
When you import a surface model created with another modeler into
SolidWorks you can't do a dam thing with it. Your locked out. You can't
edit the surface in ANY way !! The only current answer to gaining
editing control is to REBUILD the model in SolidWorks. Is this
practical... NO !!!
In a recent post, this SolidWorks VAR trainer suggests, among other
things,...training, the use of FeatureWorks, etc. The fact is that
SolidWorks does not presently have ANY tools to solve this problem. The
solution certainly won't be coming from GSSL, who developed
FeatureWorks, because the technology to recognize surfaces so they
can be edited inside of SolidWorks, does not exist. Why does this
problem occur ??? Simple... SolidWorks is based on Parasolid. Until
recently (a few months ago) Parasolid did not have ANY tools for direct
surface face manipulation. You can take all the training you want,
without these tools, the job can't be done.
An similar example of how silly this training recomendation is would be
like showing up for the Indy 500 with your Chevy. If you could bring
Ayrton Senna back from the dead as your trainer you still would not
qualify for the race. You could even put Ayrton in the Chevy and
you would have the same non qualifying result.
Without the proper tools in SolidWorks, users will continue to have the
massive problems they currently have...no matter how much training they
get.
This kind of unethical trainer prays on SolidWorks users who don't have
a basic understanding of the components that make up SolidWorks and that
SolidWorks relies upon. Examples would be D-Cubed's constraint
manager, Parasolid, GSSL FeatureWorks, etc.
jon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
nich...@my-deja.com
times you've offered some valuable input to the SOLIDWORKS newsgroup.
No longer will I read all you worthless crap. Hope other members of
this newsgroup feel the same.
Won't miss you.
In article <8sa6hi$t82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jon_b...@my-deja.com
My agenda does not include fan worship and rather is directed to
getting SolidWorks Crop to make the needed changes on a much faster pace
than they have in past releases. I hope you won't be offended if I'm not
terribly concerned with that fact that you don't like my posts anymore.
The same would be true if twenty others posted that they no longer enjoy
reading my posts.
BTW, any reason that when you did enjoy reading my posts that you did
not speak up on these issues ???
Kevin Hill
of anyone I'm associated with. They are also to be considered
copyrighted 2000.
I'll start by agreeing that training won't solve all problems, but
it will teach you to use the tools that are there.
<jon_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sa6hi$t82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Note, I don't have this problem with my SolidWorks VAR as he is ethical
> and happens to agree with me on what SolidWorks problems are.
>
I think you meant, "......what SolidWorks' limitations are." Because, since
you purchased it with those limitations, it becomes your problems, not SW.
> Lets looks at the facts:
> You can take all the training you want, without these tools,
> the job can't be done.
As I said before, then stop using SW and start using something that
can do YOUR job. Everything I need to do can be done with the
existing toolset. Sure, I wish they would speed it up and improve
the GUI and give me a magic button that would do my job
for me. It's my guess that most users would like that magic button,
so it should take priority over your direct surface manipulation issues.
Sorry about that, but majority rules.
>
> An similar example of how silly this training recomendation is would be
> like showing up for the Indy 500 with your Chevy. If you could bring
> Ayrton Senna back from the dead as your trainer you still would not
> qualify for the race. You could even put Ayrton in the Chevy and
> you would have the same non qualifying result.
>
At least he might be able to inform you where the accelerator pedal is
and how to push it.
> Without the proper tools in SolidWorks, users will continue to have the
> massive problems they currently have...no matter how much training they
> get.
At least, this time, you admit that these are YOUR problems.
***I just had a breaking idea that anyone can learn from:
-Don't purchase something that won't do what you need
it to do. What a concept!!
>
> This kind of unethical trainer prays on SolidWorks users who don't have
> a basic understanding of the components that make up SolidWorks and that
> SolidWorks relies upon. Examples would be D-Cubed's constraint
> manager, Parasolid, GSSL FeatureWorks, etc.
If this is the guy I think it was, he had aked the entire newsgroup for
examples of extremely advanced topics, and difficult problems,
so he could write his training manuals. Did you send him any examples?
Probably not.
Again, if this is the guy I think it is, he has been very helpful in this
newsgroup by supplying "free training" by answering a myriad of questions,
from the simplest to the most complex.
I don't remember you doing anything, at least recently, but complaining
about not having the tools to contort someone elses design that was
done in another system. Get over it.
While you suggest that hybrid modeling is the only way to accomplish
anything, many, many users don't want the overhead of all the stuff
that they will likely never use.
Kevin
By the way, Jon, how many seats of SW does the company you work
for own? What other packages to they (you) own?
matt
I'm only gonna set you straight once on this. All of your railing is
backfiring on you, as I think even you can see. You are not going to force
a successful corporation to do anything, and you have lost most of your
backing in this group.
Since your rant is directed at me, I'll answer it. See my replies below.
jon_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
> How many times are we going to hear the excuse that the real reason a
> user is having problems getting SolidWorks to do the job is because the
> user does not have enough training ??
Jon, your problems are not related to your lack of training. I have no idea
how much training you do or don't have, and it doesn't matter. Personally,
I have never been trained in any CAD program. Training and skill are
different. If you don't have the capacity to learn, training will not help
you. If you are a freaking genius, training will give you a head start, but
in the end it won't put you any farther along, you just become productive
more quickly. My guess is that you're somewhere in between the two
extremes.
> This excuse is made repeatedly in
> this newsgroup by one poster, who just happens to work for a SolidWorks
> reseller, and handles training. (Must be some lucky coincidence :) )
I'm the engineering services manager for a company that makes high precision
optics and nano-positioning equipment. Check it out: www.burleigh.com .
In the past I did my stint in the SW reseller channel for 3.5 years. I've
done a lot of training, and I think I know where it helps and to what
extent. I joined a SW reseller because the company I purchased SW for would
not send me to training (yes, this is the truth). I wasted a lot of
personal nights and weekends learning stuff someone else was ready to just
tell me.
> Note, I don't have this problem with my SolidWorks VAR as he is ethical
> and happens to agree with me on what SolidWorks problems are.
If a reseller agrees with your tripe, they are just cowing to your
argumentative personality because they know that is the only way to keep
your annual maintenance coming in. To me, ethics has something to do with
standing up for your values and being able to live with your conscience.
> Lets looks at the facts:
>
> When you import a surface model created with another modeler into
> SolidWorks you can't do a dam thing with it. Your locked out. You can't
> edit the surface in ANY way !!
I thought you said "look at the facts"? I'm sure your blood boiled, and you
couldn't make it through my whole post that has precipitated this reaction
from you. Please go back and read it. I have two days worth of information
that I can show you to prove this statement wrong. (I won't call it a
"training class", cuz for god's sake, that would imply that there's
something that you need to learn!)
> The only current answer to gaining
> editing control is to REBUILD the model in SolidWorks. Is this
> practical... NO !!!
I agree with you, rebuilding is not practical. Rebuilding is a casual
user's response to a problem which a power user would know how to handle.
It should be noted that I have not written or conducted a class that makes
you into a "power user". If you can't acheive that status on your own, I
can't teach it to you.
> In a recent post, this SolidWorks VAR trainer suggests, among other
> things,...training, the use of FeatureWorks, etc. ...
Imagine that, selecting tools appropriate for a given situation. See Kevin
Hill's response for clarification.
> Without the proper tools in SolidWorks, users will continue to have the
> massive problems they currently have...no matter how much training they
> get.
Jon, it is my opinion that SW users are not having "massive problems" due to
missing functionality (with the exception of people doing 2D drawings).
Most people are smart enough to pick a tool that does what they need it to
do. Did you do an evaluation before you bought SW? Do you even own SW?
Maybe you're not even a "casual" SW user. If you had done an eval, what
would you have bought? We've heard you criticize everything on the planet,
and how the world would change if you were God. What do you actually use?
What have you put your money down on?
It is also my opinion that if SW users are having "massive problems" it is
due to functionality which is supposed to be there, but doesn't really work
or is unreliable. See my previous posts for details... I think that the
reason for SW software becoming kind of flaky is that they are listening to
idiots like you and adding stuff that no one needs so fast that they can't
maintain the meat and potatoes stuff that's there already and everyone uses
on a daily basis.
> This kind of unethical trainer prays on SolidWorks users who don't have
> a basic understanding of the components that make up SolidWorks
People who don't have a basic understanding need to spend time with the
software or get trained. What would you recommend? Sounds to me like you
haven't done either. If someone asks about underlying architecture of SW, I
go through it in as much detail as they require. This usually happens in
the evaluation stage. If someone asks about training, the first thing I
always tell them is to go through the tutorial. The tutorial is good, but
it is not like having a SW expert looking over your shoulder and showing you
cool shortcuts, etc. The freaking genius mentioned earlier will become a
power user after only doing the tutorial, with no training. I've seen it
happen several times. Yeah, it's a bummer not making a coupla bucks, but
seeing real genius at work has rewards of its own.
Also, I cannot tell you how much time I have spent training slow users (who
never took training) over the phone or via email 3-4 times a week under the
guise of tech support. I didn't get paid extra for that, I just did it cuz
I didn't know any better. Many people would've suggested that I tell the
customer "that's a training issue" or "that's a consulting issue" and sell
them something, leaving the question unanswered. I've solved problems for
former customers and folks here in this NG for nothing that other people get
paid big bucks for.
In fact, a lot of people think that you should use this group as a free
resource for finding bugs, workarounds, new techniques, newbie help, etc
(that really should be handled by the VAR's tech support/training) instead
of grousing ad infinitum about crap that only you care about. I'm not the
only SW techie that gets involved helping people with issues that should be
answered via paid support contract. Uh oh, now you'll add to the list of my
offenses that I claim you need to be on support as well as get trained.
Most people actually *ask* for and expect both of these options.
When I hire a new SW operator where I work, the first thing I'm gonna do is
train him/her, not just in SW, but also in Word, Excel, our MRP, Acad,
etc.. It's a waste of my company's time to have that user trying to
re-invent the wheel, learning by making mistakes. I'll make sure that the
person has enough skills to do the job necessary. If you expect someone to
do a top-notch job, you must provide them with top-notch skills.
And if we need to design wire harnesses, I'm not gonna rail at SolidWorks
Corp because you can't drive the length of a spline, or that using moving
frames moves other spline control points, or that auto- or drag n' drop
relations don't work on spline points, or mirroring splines with tangency
doesn't work for a damn or splines with tangency in derived sketches doesn't
work either, or that I can't semi-accurately sweep flat ribbon cable, or
anything else. These issues are actually valid. An example of an invalid
issue would be that SW won't take the 3D spline and flatten it into a
nailboard diagram. If I need wire harness nailboards, I'll get a tool that
does it. Maybe I'll even go to training.
Anyway, Jon, it's time to put an end to your crap. The group has spoken and
we are sick of it. Bitching every now and then to get something out of your
system is bad enough (Lord knows I've done enough of that myself), but
dwelling on it is unexcusable. Move on to something constructive.
Matt Lombard
Jerry Steiger
> user is having problems getting SolidWorks to do the job is because the
> this newsgroup by one poster, who just happens to work for a SolidWorks
> reseller, and handles training. (Must be some lucky coincidence :) )
Jon,
I think you need to think a little about selling your ideas to the people
that count. You're not going to influence the folks at SW with this kind of
ranting. You're not going to do your reputation with the news group any good
either.
I don't think that Matt is bad guy you paint him to be. You both have valid
points. You both have pushed the language a bit past where it should go. I
think you have pushed it farther, but I don't remember all the things either
of you have said, so I'm probably just comparing your latest diatribe
against his more reasonable responses. You both seem to be knowledgeable and
intelligent. Hell, you can both write and spell better than most engineers!
You ought to get together over a couple of good microbrews and talk it over.
Maybe in Orlando?
Jerry Steiger
Jim Sculley
>
> Anyway, Jon, it's time to put an end to your crap. The group has spoken and
> we are sick of it. Bitching every now and then to get something out of your
> system is bad enough (Lord knows I've done enough of that myself), but
> dwelling on it is unexcusable. Move on to something constructive.
Like libel. Or 'from-the-hip' mental evaluations of peopel you haven't
met. You know, important stuff.
Jim S.
Paul Salvador
The user can do things to imported surfaces but they are limited in
comparison to what other tools offer with surface manipulation.
This is what the SW00 user can do to imported surfaces.
-Extend
-Trim
-Knit
-Offset
-Radiate
-Thicken
-Fillet
-Project curves to and from and on.
The users also can copy edges or project edges and build off those
reference edges to build other surface geometry like
sweeping/lofting/extruding/revolving/planer.
Of course the user can use those surfaces for cutting/extruding/..
solids.
But basically imported surfaces in SW are "static".
What other tools offer are ways to manipulate imported surfaces, such
as:
-control point manipulation and addition.
-UV manipulation/altering.(isoparms)
-scale, stretch, taper, twist, pull, push,..
-array/copy/mirror (can be done through workarounds)
-chamfer
We DO need these tools:(or I would like because I do not think the other
tools are coming soon)
-Blending/lofting or patching between surfaces with control of tangency
and continuity between shared edges.
-Better visual or analysis tools, draft, porcupine,...
-radius blending with more control for variable options/points and types
of blending like conics or ellipses.
-Chamfer
And not to forget the other very important need for manipulating
imported curves!
-control point manipulation and addition.
-blending between curves with tangency control
-moving curves on a projected/tangent surface, freeform.
..
jon_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> Lets looks at the facts:
>
> When you import a surface model created with another modeler into
> SolidWorks you can't do a dam thing with it. Your locked out. You can't
> edit the surface in ANY way !! The only current answer to gaining
jon_b...@my-deja.com
>Like libel. Or 'from-the-hip' mental evaluations of peopel you
>haven't met
When SolidWorks can't do the job because of it's limitations, this kind
of crap is the end result from some people who have vested interests. I
try and concentrate on making it clear what the limitations of
SolidWorks are, how to remove them and ignore all the other
nonsense....and there is plenty of nonsense. :)
To put it in your terms, his and others "metal evaluations" of me seem
to change on a frequent basis. They can change on a daily basis it still
is irrelevant to the severe limitations of SolidWorks and what needs to
be done to correct these problems.
I do understand the how and why you can get so upset with his libel,
though.
Trust me on this, Jim:
SolidWorks Corp. DOES care about improving the product.
SolidWorks Corp. DOES listen very closely to what gets posted in this
newsgroup.
I have the e-mail from SolidWorks employees to prove it.
jon_b...@my-deja.com
>But basically imported surfaces in SW are "static".
Correct. This is a situation that I feel must change in the next
release.
It locks CAM people, who have to manufacture someone else's non
manufacturable design, out of making the part manufacturable /
manufacturable at a reasonable cost.
I appreciate your post and should have been more specific on why
surfaces imported into SolidWorks are "static".
> What other tools offer are ways to manipulate imported surfaces, such
> as:
> -control point manipulation and addition.
> -UV manipulation/altering.(isoparms)
> -scale, stretch, taper, twist, pull, push,..
> -array/copy/mirror (can be done through workarounds)
> -chamfer
> -Blending/lofting or patching between surfaces with control of
>tangency and continuity between shared edges.
> -Better visual or analysis tools, draft, porcupine,...
I can't see SolidWorks Corp creating these tools when they already exist
in the ACIS Toolkit and it's husks. I am well aware that you have posted
numerous time that you don't have any confidence in ACIS. I think your
concerns were valid in the past but starting about a year ago, ACIS
seemed to get their act together and produce a robust product. I guess
my big question is, how and when this is going to be implimented in
SolidWorks ???
Dual kernel ?
Yank Parasolid ?
Not sure. I just know that CAM customers are totally fed up and I don't
think most of the CAM companies are willing to wait for SolidWorks Corp
too much longer. I see this as an unfortunate situation because CAM
companies limited resources are much better spent elsewhere. As of now,
CAM companies have no choice because of the lack of tools in SolidWorks
to deal with CAM customers everyday problems.
Enjoyed reading your post,
Jon Bagnell
what product at the Solidworks price point DOES meet your needs?
Perhaps you have chosen the wrong tool for YOUR particular needs.
Perhaps your evaluation of the products in the mid-range MDT market were not
as thorough as they might have been?
Midrange modellers (most notably, SW, SE and Inventor) are there to provide
Solid Modelling (Mechanical Design) tools, to those comapnies who cannot
afford to install products at the higher end of the market.
I have to say that for the company I work for the capabilty in 'modelling'
terms that these products offer over traditional 2D layout and detailing is
nothing short of revolutionary.
And whilst these products cannot be everything to everyone, they cover 90%
of the job that I need to get done. The cost to achieve the extra 10% by
implementing a high-end modeller is simple un-justifiable.
Jon B
<jon_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sd217$u29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
jon_b...@my-deja.com
> So, if Solidworks isn't the answer to your CAM problems, can you tell
>me what product at the Solidworks price point DOES meet your needs?
Varimetrix VX Vision.
>Midrange modellers (most notably, SW, SE and Inventor) are there to
>provide Solid Modelling (Mechanical Design) tools, to those comapnies
>who cannot afford to install products at the higher end of the market
This is NOT a sacrifice a user needs to make any longer. A CAD modeler
should be like a swiss army knife or like one of the new Leatherman type
multi-purpose tools.
The fact is that solid modeling is NOT a silver bullet because silver
bullets do not exist in the CAD world. A user needs a CAD multi-purpose
tool to handle all the situations that occur in the real world.
SolidWedge has become little more than a marketing tool of UG to give
users a migration path to Unigraphics.
Other CAD tools that give users a multi-purpose tool type of
approach are Ashlar Vellum Solids and Think3.
These new hybrid modelers offer a seamless unified modeling enviorment.
This is a major destinction over the kind of thrown together tools that
companies like Autodesk or CADKEY have offered in the past / still
offer. These products amount to little more than cobbled together
separate solutions that were NOT unified and were / are certainly not
seamless in any way.
Despite what you have heard and what some people have posted here, there
is NO silver bullet called solid modeling that works in all real world
situations.
Have you considered why SolidWorks parent company purchased Spatial
(the ACIS kernel) ???
matt
For general reference, could I add a little to your list?
Paul Salvador wrote:
> This is what the SW00 user can do to imported surfaces.
> -Extend
> -Trim
> -Knit
> -Offset
> -Radiate
> -Thicken
> -Fillet
The things I had in mind were "replace" and "remove" type functions. It
doesn't get much press, but SW has the ability to take translated solid
models, decompose them into surfaces or individual faces. Alternatively, you
can choose to import the model as surfaces or as individual faces right from
the start. Faces or surfaces can then be deleted. Then you can use your
list of tools above to build a new face and rebuild the model as a solid.
A common usage is to delete a fillet face and extend/trim the surrounding
faces and rebuild the solid. This is a good way to be able to add draft to
imported models with filleted edges. Another technique is to leave the model
solid and use FeatureWorks to remove fillets. It doesn't always work,
granted, but if it allows you to avoid surface modeling, you'll be ahead of
the game.
The technique I use most commonly when replacing faces is to loft surface
edges together to make a "patch" surface using two edges as sections and two
edges as guide curves. When there is an odd number of edges, I use a
composite curve to join a couple together, as appropriate. You can even
close gaps with only 3 sides by using two sections and one g.c. SW usually
gives an error or warning, but it makes the surface in the end. On some bad
translations you can have two sided gaps, which are just a simple loft.
After removing faces and making new ones, you knit the whole thing together.
It has to be "watertight" to become a solid, so I use a Tools/Options setting
to make the "open" edges of a surface a different color to make it easy to
spot, or you can use the Tools/Check to find this for you. Once the surface
is watertight again, make it solid by using the "thicken" function, which
should have a check box in the lower left for the occasion.
You can also import a surface to replace a face.
Another thing you can do is to edit the definition of an imported base
feature or surface to update it with a new translated part or surface.
Please don't forget that SW also has an import diagnosis routine which does
some of the above automatically. This is not a magic wand, meaning that it
doesn't always work, but if it saves me an hour of surface modeling, I'm a
happy camper. It is intended mainly to seal gaps usually caused by bad
translation tolerances, but I have used it to remove bad faces (usually
belonging to fillets) and then seal them up. SW is trying to seal the gap
while maintaining face tangency.
I have heard rumors that n-sided patches are coming in SW01 (for the
situation where there are more than 4 sides to a gap - my work around has
been to seal the gap with a number of 3 or 4 sided lofted patches, which is
not always a good solution). And of course, the tangency control issue is a
perennial rumor.
My frustration with all of this is that it works better on paper than it does
in the software. Theoretically, all of this is supposed to work in SW, and
on various kinds of models, it actually does work. With the functions being
in many cases new in the last release, it has been easy to kind of "overlook"
the fact that the functions aren't as "solid" as they would need to be to be
really useful.
Matt.
Gary Knutson
jon_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> An similar example of how silly this training recomendation is would be
> like showing up for the Indy 500 with your Chevy. If you could bring
> Ayrton Senna back from the dead as your trainer you still would not
> qualify for the race. You could even put Ayrton in the Chevy and
> you would have the same non qualifying result.
>
If you were really serious about the Indy 500, you probably wouldn't
show
up with a Chevy! Most people would probably bring an Indy type car.
If you really need all the "missing" SW tools, perhaps you might
consider
one of the "high end" packages. Of course, the Indy car probably costs
a "little" more than the Chevy and the high end modeler costs a "little"
more than SW.
Perhaps this is yet again - use the correct tool(s) (or cars) for the
job.
gary
Paul Salvador
Agree, remove and replace(reinsert) are very useful and are taken for
granted.
What I would clarify is your - "replace" or how I have used replace.
> You can also import a surface to replace a face.
In SW you are reinserting surfaces through "Edit Definition", (replace)
which Opens a file dialog to re-insert another surface reference (x_t,
sat, iges,...)?
So if the surface feature is referenced to a group of surfaces knitted
and make up a solid, you can do this but my guess is, it most likely
will fail and you will have to redefine the trims/extends and knit to
resew the volume.
Well anyway, what I would call "replace face" is not physically swapping
or reinserting a surface.
What I'm referring to is Pro/e's replace face tweak function. It
replaces a face in the feature list with another chosen face(or
polyfaces). The replace function replaces the face with a new face and
extends/trims the boundaries to the new face. Basically, I want this
face to now be this other face.
I've actually made a ER for this awhile back. If anyone else wants this
please add more request.
So, removing/reinserting surfaces to created boundaries which can than
be edited to become more draftable/moldable.
Or remove/reinsert a static surface with another static surface. The
user is relying on a external source of data to get in what they need
because the base program does not have some of the tools to truly
manipulate the imported geometry.
The other problem with most molders are surfaces which will not draft or
are negative. So tweaking surfaces out of a negative draft would be a
reason for surface face and edge manipulation within SW. And, of
coarse, a Draft surface option!
The only thing with inserting surfaces or curves which I have not
understood is in constraining the imported geometry to other features
within the part mode? Is there a way other than just moving and
rotating relative to? It seems more of a assembly thing for
constraining?
I think the auto repair tools are nice and do hope they evolve to become
more interactive in showing possible solutions built from assumptions
and built from user inputs by overriding options which can create other
what if's.
I would like to see your imported examples of a 3 sided patch or
multisided patch with composite curves as well as your loft with guide
curves between two edges. Maybe you can post them to share with the
whole NG?
It makes sense that these would be approximate blends. Tangency control
is a must.
N-Sided patch rumor! 8)
And possibly a Draft surface(knitted or not)!? 8)
..
Kevin Hill
for own? What other packages to they (you) own?
You've been asked this question before and you always seem to dodge it.
So, I thought I'd ask it by itself to keep you from getting distracted.
Kevin
Matt G
suit against Matt, how's that going anyways??
Kevin Hill
There have been reports made of comments by users on this newsgroup
for purposes of slamming SW. (If anyone saw the "Why SE is better than
SW" article written of course by UG a couple of years back, you know
what I mean, they pulled many comments saying "SW Can't do this",
"SW is too slow doing that," etc. And they mostly were questions
that were answered in the same thread. They conviniently left out
the answers in their report, making it seem that "SW can't do anthing")
I just don't want any of my comments being used for any reason other
than the purpose for which they were posted. Many comments can
be snipped and twisted to defeat the context in which they were written.
Kevin
"Matt G" <matt...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0jEG5.83312$O95.7...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Bobby Henry
As you probably already know from your previous place of employment,
this reason and just the lack of time, is why I have been a little more
reserved in my posting this year. I got quite a few calls from
perspective SolidEdge customers last year regarding some of my posts
about drawing/detailing performance/tools and surface manipulation.
Just a little annoying, but in the end, I got some of what I had
requested from SolidWorks. All in all though, if that is what it took
to get what was needed, so be it. Overall, I have found SolidWorks
Corp. to be responsive to user needs, but it never hurts to have a lot
of other existing and potential seats on your side when vying for space
and priority on an already crowded development schedule. After all,
every business is driven by competition and majority user needs in
order to maintain or expand a revenue stream. Personally, I have no
problem stacking the deck and besides, if the problems we were having
at the time did not actually exist, there would not have been a real
marketing point for UG. Come to think of it, I guess I should commend
the companies that called to confirm what they had been shown by the
Edge VARs, despite the time it took. If they hadn't have done that,
they wouldn't have heard the complete story or the results of the
internal benchmark we had performed. I might have to re-think my
reservations.
Bobby Henry
CAE Support Group Leader
FlightSafety International SSD
In article <78FG5.552$NP.4...@news.flash.net>,
"Kevin Hill" <SkPeAvM...@infinitypartners.com> wrote:
> Yep,
> There have been reports made of comments by users on this newsgroup
> for purposes of slamming SW. (If anyone saw the "Why SE is better than
> SW" article written of course by UG a couple of years back, you know
> what I mean, they pulled many comments saying "SW Can't do this",
> "SW is too slow doing that," etc. And they mostly were questions
> that were answered in the same thread. They conviniently left out
> the answers in their report, making it seem that "SW can't do
anthing")
>
> I just don't want any of my comments being used for any reason other
> than the purpose for which they were posted. Many comments can
> be snipped and twisted to defeat the context in which they were
written.
>
> Kevin
>
mat...@my-deja.com
Yes, you're right about the difference between "replace" in SW and
Pro. Pro's replace is more automated, I'm sure, but I'm not very
familiar with it. By "replace" in SW, I mean deleting a face,
rebuilding a new face via loft, planar, extend/trim or via import, then
re-knitting the faces to fill the gap made by the delete. Knitting
can't be done unless the face is trimmed. I've never actually done a
replace with an imported face.
As far as positioning an imported face, yes, I'm pretty sure your best
bet is to do the assembly route. This was one reason why SurfaceWorks
was a good solution, because you could use some of the SW geometry as
reference, and the suface came back from SurfaceW in the right place.
I suppose you could do an export of a few faces to get started in the
surface modeler, but that's pretty "kludgy".
I understand the issue of drafting surfaces, and I've submitted this as
an ER a while back myself. I'm not sure if this is something we can
hope for, though. It really is handled better in solids, although the
need is there to do it in surfs.
The thing I don't understand is your use of the word "negative". Do
you mean negative draft? Is that a Pro/E way of looking at it? Is
that the same as changing the direction of pull in SW? I know Pro
uses "red or yellow" sides of planes for + or -.
Actually, SW can draft a face in the opposite direction easily, as long
as all other draft conditions are met, by changing the pull direction.
SW can also draft a face that has curvature with an axis perpendicular
to the direction of pull (if the ground establishes direction of pull,
think of this as a curved snow plow blade being made into an angled
wall). It will make the face planar at the specified angle in either
direction (up or down).
I will get some sample files posted later today which will show the
replacement technique, some of the lofting, and maybe a draft example.
Matt.
In article <39EAA3D5...@gte.net>,
Paul Salvador
A definite want!
Paul Salvador
see inserts...
mat...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> Yes, you're right about the difference between "replace" in SW and
> Pro. Pro's replace is more automated, I'm sure, but I'm not very
> familiar with it. By "replace" in SW, I mean deleting a face,
> rebuilding a new face via loft, planar, extend/trim or via import, then
> re-knitting the faces to fill the gap made by the delete. Knitting
> can't be done unless the face is trimmed. I've never actually done a
> replace with an imported face.
>
Yes, it's more automated if you will in that the boundaries extend/trim
to the new replaced surface.
Ok, so remove and then replace. I understood this but the
reinsert(replace) is something I thought maybe were referring to as
well.
> As far as positioning an imported face, yes, I'm pretty sure your best
> bet is to do the assembly route. This was one reason why SurfaceWorks
> was a good solution, because you could use some of the SW geometry as
> reference, and the suface came back from SurfaceW in the right place.
> I suppose you could do an export of a few faces to get started in the
> surface modeler, but that's pretty "kludgy".
>
If SW makes In Context easier to manage and faster, I would not mind
having surfaces reference at the assembly level or as derived but having
surfaces in the part mode being more controlable is what should be
worked on.
> I understand the issue of drafting surfaces, and I've submitted this as
> an ER a while back myself. I'm not sure if this is something we can
> hope for, though. It really is handled better in solids, although the
> need is there to do it in surfs.
>
> The thing I don't understand is your use of the word "negative". Do
> you mean negative draft? Is that a Pro/E way of looking at it? Is
> that the same as changing the direction of pull in SW? I know Pro
> uses "red or yellow" sides of planes for + or -.
>
Negative draft.
> Actually, SW can draft a face in the opposite direction easily, as long
> as all other draft conditions are met, by changing the pull direction.
> SW can also draft a face that has curvature with an axis perpendicular
> to the direction of pull (if the ground establishes direction of pull,
> think of this as a curved snow plow blade being made into an angled
> wall). It will make the face planar at the specified angle in either
> direction (up or down).
>
Yes, the face is part of a solid body. I'm talking about surface body,
knitted or individual, draft control.
> I will get some sample files posted later today which will show the
> replacement technique, some of the lofting, and maybe a draft example.
>
Kewl! I also add to the earlier list the need for a UNTRIMMED surface
option or untrimming individual trims in a trimmed surface.
..
Kevin Hill
These perspective SW customers that were calling you due to your
posts on the newsgroup, were the few that were doing their own
research. I also commend these companies.
This letter I stated was given to perspective SE customers,
and without their knowledge that a newsgroup even existed, they would
have believed most of the statements were true, and UG didn't give
any credit to the authors of the statements, whether true or not. They
also didn't (for obvious reasons) give the answers to the questions.
I don't remember all of the arguments exactly, but, I do remember
that a few of them were legitimate shortcomings, but most were
only misinformed statements purely taken out of context.
I agree that major problems, when elevated to the public eye, get attention.
Like all of the sub-par drawing issues. Maybe SW will listen one of these
days.
Anyway, good to chat with you. I'll give you a call sometime, maybe
I'll give you a couple of things to lobby for.
Kevin
jon_b...@my-deja.com
>Of course, the Indy car probably costs a "little" more than the Chevy
>and the high end modeler costs a "little" more than SW.
Not anymore.
Varimetrix VX Vision sells for the same price as SolidWorks. A user no
longer has to pay more for these kinds of features. Not sure what
Think3 or Ashlar Vellum Solids sells for but probobly about the same
or less than SolidWorks.
jon
jon_b...@my-deja.com
>but having surfaces in the part mode being more controlable is what
>should be worked on.
I see no reason why something can't be done about not allowing
disjointed solids in part mode. It's very unnatural to have to move
to assembly mode for basic part editing.
jon
Jason Capriotti
jon_b...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >but having surfaces in the part mode being more controlable is what
> >should be worked on.
>
> I see no reason why something can't be done about not allowing
> disjointed solids in part mode. It's very unnatural to have to move
> to assembly mode for basic part editing.
>
Assembly mode should be just that, for assembly. This limitation of not
allowing disjoint solids in part mode is a hinderance. You can work
around it, but it's not fun.
Examples where I needed it:
Complicated castings. It would be easier if disjoints solids were
allowed. I've had need to model both end of the casting and then join
them in the middle afterwards. Had to extrude a piece to make them
touch then cut it away later. Works, but not very elegant.
Importing solids from our legacy Catia models. If they weren't unioned
together in Catia, they come in as assemblies in Solidworks. Not what I
want.
Also, we model parts such as electrical contactors and terminals. These
parts may be imported from Catia or modeled from scratch in SWX. Most
always there are pieces of the model that are disjoint. We don't model
all the detail which is why. Sometimes the contacts or screws are just
simplified models that may not be making actually contact with the base
model. Currently we have to monkey around and added extrusions to the
pieces so that a join then export can be performed. Time-consuming.
I understand that SWX doesn't want users building assemblies in the
part mode, but I think they should give us users more credit than that.
Plus as I illustrated above, for vender parts that we purchase, I want
them in the same file. Sure don't need a terminal block with several
files to maintain, especially since we don't even manufacture the part.
Oh well....
--
------------------------------------------------
Jason Capriotti
Thyssen Dover Elevators
------------------------------------------------
Jon Bagnell
choice?
If so, why are you so concerned with how Solidworks performs? How many other
CAD groups do you post to with this pointless rhetoric?
If not, why do you keep banging on about it?
Jon B
<jon_b...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sgagg$i7v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Jerry O'Hara
relegated SW to the closet. Does this mean you will leave this newsgroup?
(please, oh please say yes...please).
I currently use Pro-E at my organiztion, and would kill to get a chance to
use SW. My past company was doing an evaluation some four to five years
ago, and I fell in love with SW product and vision. I believe that SW blows
the door off of Pro-E for the majority of the uses that are asked of 3D CAD
design (ie. sketch and project, sketch and project, sketch and project).
Our industrial designers use Alias Wavefront to do most surfacing, and then
we import into Pro-E and make a solid. My past company tried using CDRS
(Pro-E) but felt it was not complete. They ended up using Intergraph EMS
for surfacing, and then import into Pro-E. If Pro-E's surfacing is so great
why do most of my experience prove otherwise. I believe that SW has to have
tools to stitch and create surfaces to transfer imported data into solids.
This would be an excellent selling tool to get people from other CAD
systems to switch over to SW. As far as providing a full blown surfacing
modeler ----> NO WAY. Other tools do the job much better (ie. Rhino? UG?
Alias Waverfront? ect...) Again, SW serves the purpose TODAY of nearly 90
to 95% of the CAD Design requirements for most companies. SW needs to
improve drafting (YUCK I hate drawings), improve speed, improve solid
creation, improve assembly design, help users import non-SW data. That's
it. Let someone else create a best in class surfacer, FEA analysis,
interfence/tolerance analysis, kinematics, mold design, milling, et al. If
these products at least use native SW data -> COOL. If they run inside
elegantly of SW -> AWESOME.
Black Dragon
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:56:13 +0100 in comp.cad.solidworks,
<globetr...@hotmail.com> `Jon Bagnell' said:
[a bunch of fucking chicken shit that can be summarized as a personal attack]
Hey Now Jon!
Apparently you've acquired quite the fan club in this thread, eh? :-)
--
Black Dragon
hot_...@my-deja.com
Gerald.O'Ha...@marconi.com wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------59FE050DF2BFC82F2DD5DA20
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="johara.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Jerry O'Hara
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="johara.vcf"
>
> begin:vcard
> n:O'Hara;Gerald
> tel;fax:(440) 483-5728
> tel;work:(440) 483-5141
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> org:Marconi Medical;MR Engineering
> adr:;;595 Miner Rd.;Cleveland;OH;44143;USA
> version:2.1
> email;internet:gerald.o'ha...@marconi.com
> title:Senior Engineer
> fn:Gerald O'Hara
> end:vcard
>
> --------------59FE050DF2BFC82F2DD5DA20--
>
> Well, so far so good, just a different opinions.
From my angle ,, after 10 years using pro and 3years solid works,
I will stay with pro, I like many things about solid works.
But this software is just a tip of iceberg ,,, ( to pro-e )
You are right , most of the times is jus a user fault or stupidity.
Pro-e is complex and powerful , ,,, versa solid works ,,, simple and
limited.
So to make my point clear, take this ,, pro-e is only for open minded
and intelligent people.
Solid works is for easy riders,,,, and,,, that is ,,, ok with me.
John.
Jim Sculley
> From my angle ,, after 10 years using pro and 3years solid works,
> I will stay with pro, I like many things about solid works.
> But this software is just a tip of iceberg ,,, ( to pro-e )
> You are right , most of the times is jus a user fault or stupidity.
> Pro-e is complex and powerful , ,,, versa solid works ,,, simple and
> limited.
> So to make my point clear, take this ,, pro-e is only for open minded
> and intelligent people.
What a remarkably closed-minded and unintelligent statement. How
ironic.
Jim S.
Matt G
every major package out there....Out of all of the stuff I get, the
Solidworks ones are the most often unmanufacturable, unfinished or just a
"napkin sketch" of what the customer wants.....And this does happen in other
CAD packages....I'd also have to believe cost is a big issue here...Now any
Widget designer out there can jump into a nice 3d package for a few thousand
and probably make that money back in lack of engineering changes alone....
I tend to believe there's plenty lack of training out there.... And on the
same token, some people aren't meant to use modeling software...I think part
of that is this big "easy-to-use" campaign everyone is on...
matt
Rob Lemmen
Matt G wrote:
<snip>
> I tend to believe there's plenty lack of training out there.... And on the
> same token, some people aren't meant to use modeling software...I think part
> of that is this big "easy-to-use" campaign everyone is on...
> matt
That is an interesting point.
I used to have a former PTC consultant working for me. He said that the
reason that Pro/E designs often come out so well is that the software is
so unwieldly and non-intuitive that the majority of designers get the
training they need.
I personally use both packages based on my customers' requests. IMHO
they both have their positive and negative points. What I would like to
see (in a perfect world) is the high end power of Pro/E with the ease of
use and low cost of SWX. Please note that I do compare apples to
apples. To get that high end power out of Pro/E, You have to buy add-on
modules that rocket the price into the stratosphere.
I like ease of use and productivity features. If a company chooses not
to hire skilled employees or train the ones they have, that is not my
problem.
Regards,
Rob Lemmen
KORVER ENGINEERING Ltd.
jon_b...@my-deja.com
> Can I take it then that Varimetrix VX Vision is your modelling system
>of choice?
No...SolidWorks is. I do understand how NOT to be a blind loyalist and
to give credit where credit is do, though.
You could have easily answered this question yourself by reading the
last two weeks worth of threads.
jon_b...@my-deja.com
Would you care to describe your experience with SolidWorks at
the mold shop you and Robert Watson work at. ;>)
I believe Matt use to work with the VAR who sold your shop
several seats of SolidWorks.
Do either you or Bob Watson use SolidWorks anymore ???
If not, why ???
hot_...@my-deja.com
Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> hot_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > From my angle ,, after 10 years using pro and 3years solid works,
> > I will stay with pro, I like many things about solid works.
> > But this software is just a tip of iceberg ,,, ( to pro-e )
> > You are right , most of the times is jus a user fault or stupidity.
> > Pro-e is complex and powerful , ,,, versa solid works ,,, simple
and
> > limited.
minded
> > and intelligent people.
>
Hey ..
I can do better then that, but for simple people like you,, not much
left…ok.
I don’t want to waste more time waning about pro-e or solid works.
I like pro-e, and I’m using solid works as well, and yes I did whack
few blind solid works
Lovers like you with simple engineering and modeling scenarios.
Light up, if you can???
> What a remarkably closed-minded and unintelligent statement. How
> ironic.
>
> Jim S.
>
Jim Sculley
> Hey .. I can do better then that, but for simple people like you,, not
> much left…ok.
You comma key appears to be stuck. You may also want to have the IS
department check the network connection. It seems to be inserting
spurious underline characters.
> I don’t want to waste more time waning about pro-e or solid works.
> I like pro-e, and I’m using solid works as well, and yes I did whack
> few blind solid works Lovers like you with simple engineering and modeling
> scenarios.
> Light up, if you can???
All grammatical and spelling errors aside, do you have even the faintest
idea of how stupid you look at the moment? I'd suggest you move on over
to the nearest chat room where blithering idiots such as yourself will
find far greater acceptance than you will here, in what is (for the most
part) a technical newsgroup.
Jim S.
hot_...@my-deja.com
Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> hot_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Hey .. I can do better then that, but for simple people like you,,
not
> > much left…ok.
>
> department check the network connection. It seems to be inserting
> spurious underline characters.
>
> > I like pro-e, and I’m using solid works as well, and yes I did
whack
> > few blind solid works Lovers like you with simple engineering and
modeling
> > scenarios.
>
> > Light up, if you can???
>
faintest
> idea of how stupid you look at the moment? I'd suggest you move on
over
> to the nearest chat room where blithering idiots such as yourself will
> find far greater acceptance than you will here, in what is (for the
most
> part) a technical newsgroup.
>
> Jim S.
> Careful, you're intelligence is showing... Unfortunately you have no
clue.
I feel sorry for stupid narrow-minded- idiots like you.
I'm curious as to why Solid works poor performance would inspire you to
personally criticize my message.
Get a grip! Or get lost.
Jim Sculley
>
> In article <39F02CEA...@abraxis.com>,
> Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> > hot_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Hey .. I can do better then that, but for simple people like you,,
> not
> > > much left…ok.
> >
> > department check the network connection. It seems to be inserting
> > spurious underline characters.
> >
> > > I like pro-e, and I’m using solid works as well, and yes I did
> whack
> > > few blind solid works Lovers like you with simple engineering and
> modeling
> > > scenarios.
> >
> > > Light up, if you can???
> >
> faintest
> > idea of how stupid you look at the moment? I'd suggest you move on
> over
> > to the nearest chat room where blithering idiots such as yourself will
> > find far greater acceptance than you will here, in what is (for the
> most
> > part) a technical newsgroup.
> >
> > Jim S.
>
> > Careful, you're intelligence is showing... Unfortunately you have no
> clue.
> I feel sorry for stupid narrow-minded- idiots like you.
I don't recall making a ridiculous generalization, which is demonstably
false. That's exactly what you did. Perhaps you've already forgotten.
Your comprehension of the term 'narrow-minded' is as lacking as your
social skills. I'd suggest you find some other forum in which to opine
about which particular demographic group is using a particular CAD
package.
Jim S.
Black Dragon
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:34:53 GMT in comp.cad.solidworks,
<jon_b...@my-deja.com> `jon_b...@my-deja.com' said:
>Would you care to describe your experience with SolidWorks at
>the mold shop you and Robert Watson. work at. ;>)
#1) It was not enjoyable. #2) I no longer work there. :-/
>I believe Matt use to work with the VAR who sold your shop
>several seats of SolidWorks.
Yes, those VAR's were Axis Technologies, then Cadimensions. Matt's a very
sharp individual, anyone who reads this news group knows that for a fact.
But, once a sales droid, always a sales droid. Feh.
>Do either you or Bob Watson use SolidWorks anymore ???
Can't speak for RW, and nope.
>If not, why ???
That company is migrating to Unigraphics, mainly for two reasons related to
working with imported data. #1) Solidworks is painstakingly slow. #2) The
glaring inadequacy of Solidworks not being able to work with non-manifold
geometry.
You get what you pay for. For them, Solidworks was an excellent entry level
package that is very easy to learn, but, it's difficult to compete when your
designers sit around half the day watching the hour glass, and the CNC
people have to work on the non-manifold data, instead of programming.
--
Black Dragon
William Wicker
<39F02CEA...@abraxis.com>:
<snippage>
>All grammatical and spelling errors aside, do you have even the faintest
>idea of how stupid you look at the moment? I'd suggest you move on over
>to the nearest chat room where blithering idiots such as yourself will
>find far greater acceptance than you will here, in what is (for the most
>part) a technical newsgroup.
>
>Jim S.
TECHNICAL? (guffaw)
When the hottest threads going are about how who's an idiot? And the
standard troubleshooting methodology is to check your video driver? And
discussion of whether or not MyCAD(TM) is better than YourCAD(TM) dominates
discussion of how to achieve a desired goal in SolidWorks.
There is far too little technical content for what SHOULD BE a technical
newsgroup.
William.
NOTE: This is a general reply, not aimed particularly at Mr. Sculley.