ACIS vs. PARASOLID!
LIM
There seems to be two major players in the solid modeling kernel market.
On one hand there is ACIS and on the other is Parasolid. Is there any
knowledgeable soul out there who can enlighten us about these two? And
what about the other major players; SDRC, Dassault Systems, PTC, etc?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Preferred Customer
It doesn't matter to me which engine the software uses, as long as the
software
does what I need it to do!
Kpenn
LIM <limt...@tm.net.my> wrote in article <8733530...@dejanews.com>...
Lim
In article <01bcd0c6$a3ed4830$06e241a7@kpenn>,
"Preferred Customer" <kurt.pe...@andrew.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't matter to me which engine the software uses, as long as the
> software
> does what I need it to do!
>
> Kpenn
>
> LIM <limt...@tm.net.my> wrote in article <8733530...@dejanews.com>...
Do you mean to say that it does not matter whether your car engine is
diesel or petrol powered or whether its rotary or four stroke cycle?
Just as long as it gets where you want to go. I think there are some of
us among the engineering community who would like to know the differences
between these two. What are their respective capabilities, shortcomings
and potential. Surely they can't be the same. Otherwise ACIS would be
Parasolid and vice versa.
Lim
Joe Dunne
Lim <limt...@tm.net.my> wrote in article <873519...@dejanews.com>...
> Do you mean to say that it does not matter whether your car engine is
> diesel or petrol powered or whether its rotary or four stroke cycle?
> Just as long as it gets where you want to go.
I think a better analogy would be, does a car owner want to know which
forging manufacturer forged the crank arm? Or does he want to know what
company supplied the aluminum?
Joe Dunne
SolidWorks
Kevin Hedspeth
I disagree. Most of todays solid modelling software takes an existing
solid kernel,such as parasolids or acis, and builds a package around it.
Some do a good job and others do not, but the kernel determines the final
capabilities of the software. If the kernel will not fillet an area no
amount of interface manipulation can make it fillet the area. I personally
will trade ease of use for functionallity any day of the week. Therefore I
believe it is very important that you know which solid modelling engine is
under your software and keep up with what is being done to advance its
capabilities.
Kevin Hedspeth
Product Development Manager
Technimark Inc.
Muir Harding
The importance of the solid modeling engine is obvious. A quick way to
expose this is to ask 'what good is the software without it's modeling
engine?' In the case of CAD, all you have left is a viewer (which is a
freebee these days). Since most engineers want to do more than look at
models, the engine must matter to them.
Judging from what has been announced for ACIS 3.0, it looks like it is
developing into a powerfull general-purpose modeler. On the other hand,
Parasolids can do really tough blends. Pick your poison, they both have
problems.
Another reason to care about this issue is the relationships that exist
between the CAD companies and the companies that supply modeling engines
to them. Autodesk talks about partnering with Spatial technology to move
CAD technology foward. Solidworks seems to have a much more distant
relationship with their vendor. Since Autodesk has helped Spatial ship
many, many copies of ACIS (in AutoCAD r13, r14 and MDT) it's logical that
they be a bit more 'cooperative.'
I don't know which engine supplier will win, it may not be either of them,
but I know that the battle IS, and WILL CONTINUE TO BE important to
serious CAD users. IMHO, of course.
--
Mu
--
Matter and Motion, Inc.
m...@teleport.com
Darin Jay Trippensee
I think a more important question is not, "which Kernel is Better today,"
rather, "what
software has the capability to use either Kernel, or potential NEW Modeling
Kernel."
Ask you SW rep about it.
Muir Harding wrote:
> The importance of the solid modeling engine is obvious. A quick way to
> expose this is to ask 'what good is the software without it's modeling
> engine?' In the case of CAD, all you have left is a viewer (which is a
> freebee these days). Since most engineers want to do more than look at
> models, the engine must matter to them.
>
> Judging from what has been announced for ACIS 3.0, it looks like it is
> developing into a powerfull general-purpose modeler. On the other hand,
> Parasolids can do really tough blends. Pick your poison, they both have
> problems......
Kevin Hedspeth
I agree it sounds like Acis 3.0 should be a big improvement. Check out
www.spatial.com to get a low down on all the new features. With Asic's
customers like Autocad, Solid Edge and Cadkey/Fastsolids the
Acis/Parasolids battle will continue to the benefit of all us endusers.
Kevin Hedspeth
MikeFox1
Kevin wrote:
Just remember: If the CAD programmers don't write an interface to turn-on
specific features, ACIS 3.0 can still be functionally limited. MDT2.0 does
not use ALL of the advanced features of ACIS3.0. But now that the *hooks*
are there, I feel confident(?) we will see substantial improvements to
MDT's solid modeling capabilities.
PS: SW97plus has the advanced modeling capabilities NOW.
M.F.
Lars Sandberg
In article <19970911060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
mike...@aol.com says...
But not in the same level as MDT R2.0 !!!!!
>
> M.F.
>
Kevin Silbert
But Lars- can you get MDT R2.0 RIGHT NOW ?????? (of course not)
Anybody can compare software that doesn't exist yet... I am catching
bits of info that suggest to me that MDT 2.0 will not make the release
date of Sept 30... By the time it comes out, SW will probably have
"raised the bar" another notch.
-KWS