Ironcad vs Solidworks
Barry Toppings
comparison of Ironcad vs Solidworks?
Which has the shorter learning curve?
Does one lack any important features over the other?
Other comparisons are appreciated.
Neil Getz
I evaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool. Despite
its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks.
IronCAD has some very appealing virtues. Because of its user-interface
design it is by far the best tool I have yet seen for putting geometry
together QUICKLY. Unlike every other solid modeller I have tried
(SolidWorks, ProE, AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop, DesignWave, Solid Edge,
DesignCAD), in IronCAD it is SIMPLE TO MAKE SIMPLE PARTS. Vellum tries
pretty hard to afford that simplicity, but IronCAD does a substantially
better job.
That said, IronCAD is not yet a true parametric solid modeller (by my
definition). You cannot, for instance, relate part parameters via equations,
and this makes it fall well short of my needs. It is really more suitable at
present for design visualization than for engineering (though it is
certainly priced like an engineering tool!). SolidWorks, with all its
problems, is a true engineering tool, and provides more bang for the buck
than any CAD tool I evaluated. I expect that IronCAD is about 2 years of
development away from being a true CAD tool. When/if it finally does become
a true parametric solid modeller and engineering tool, I believe its user
interface to be so strong that it will be head and shoulders above the other
CAD tools in its price range (assuming everyone else continues to sit on
their butts rather than improve their user interfaces). Unfortunately I
couldn't wait 2 years.
I wish that Dessault would buy IronCAD's geometry creation features and
incorporate them into SolidWorks.
-Neil
Barry Toppings wrote in message <36c32...@news.cadvision.com>...
Robert Berger
I evaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool. Despite
its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks. IronCAD has some very appealing virtues. Because of its user-interface design it is by far the best tool I have yet seen for putting geometry together QUICKLY.
Unlike every other solid modeller I have tried(SolidWorks, ProE, AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop, DesignWave, Solid Edge, DesignCAD), in IronCAD it is SIMPLE TO MAKE SIMPLE PARTS.Ain't it great!
Vellum tries pretty hard to afford that simplicity, but IronCAD does a substantially better job.
That said, IronCAD is not yet a true parametric solid modeller (by my
definition). You cannot, for instance, relate part parameters via equations,
and this makes it fall well short of my needs. It is really more suitable at
present for design visualization than for engineering (though it is
certainly priced like an engineering tool!).
SolidWorks, with all its problems, is a true engineering tool, and provides more bang for the buck
than any CAD tool I evaluated. I expect that IronCAD is about 2 years of development away from being a true CAD tool.
When/if it finally does become a true parametric solid modeller and engineering tool, I believe its user interface to be so strong that it will be head and shoulders above the other CAD tools in its price range (assuming everyone else continues to sit on their butts rather than improve their user interfaces). Unfortunately I couldn't wait 2 years.
I wish that Dassault would buy IronCAD's geometry creation features and incorporate them into SolidWorks.Don't hold your breath....
My $.02...
Robert Berger
Robert Berger
Everyone will give you a somwhat bias answer. Demo them both. In short,
Solidworks is a more mture product and is hence more feature rich.
IronCAD offers a unique drag and drop approach to modeling that many
people find extremely intuitive. Both companies will be introducing new
versions in less than a month.
My $.02....
Robert Berger
mbia...@my-dejanews.com
"Neil Getz" <Ge...@InversionInc.com> wrote:
> Barry-
>
> I evaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool. Despite
> its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks.
>
> IronCAD has some very appealing virtues.
Neil, very well put. I'm also an IronCAD user and was using it before SWX
came on the scene (3Deye trispectives). I use it with SWX for animation
mostly . I agree that it has some of the most innovative tools (i.e. the
Triball) and it figured out early, that light sources should be object
oriented for ease of use.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Terry Shimabukuro
I'm doing the same thing as you with the inclusion of SolidEdge and SDRC's
Artisan. I've had a pretty good look at IronCAD 1.4 and I agree with Neil's
comments. IronCAD's got a slick interface, but the current version comes up a
little short for my needs. I think the most powerful feature of IronCAD is
"Direct Face Modeling" that lets you modify individual surfaces on-the-fly
without having to be concerned about the history tree.
I haven't had time to build a big, complex model in IronCAD and I would be
concerned that the nice dynamic tools that they give you would bog when you
manipulate a big model. You should definitely try a part with the maximum
complexity for your company and see how it performs.
My IronCAD reseller showed me the list of 2.0 improvements and it looks like VDS
is heading in the right direction. Robert Berger's comments seem to confirm
that the 2.0 improvements are good ones.
To echo the advice that a lot of people give in response to these product
comparison postings, make sure that you understand your company's solid modeling
requirements before you begin your evaluation. Try the products out with
examples of your company's parts and assemblies.
--Terry Shimabukuro
Structural Solutions
Aiea, HI
Neil Getz wrote:
> Barry-
>
> I evaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool. Despite
> its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks.
>
> IronCAD has some very appealing virtues. Because of its user-interface
> design it is by far the best tool I have yet seen for putting geometry
> together QUICKLY. Unlike every other solid modeller I have tried
> (SolidWorks, ProE, AutoCAD/Mechanical Desktop, DesignWave, Solid Edge,
> DesignCAD), in IronCAD it is SIMPLE TO MAKE SIMPLE PARTS. Vellum tries
> pretty hard to afford that simplicity, but IronCAD does a substantially
> better job.
>
> That said, IronCAD is not yet a true parametric solid modeller (by my
> definition). You cannot, for instance, relate part parameters via equations,
> and this makes it fall well short of my needs. It is really more suitable at
> present for design visualization than for engineering (though it is
> certainly priced like an engineering tool!). SolidWorks, with all its
> problems, is a true engineering tool, and provides more bang for the buck
> than any CAD tool I evaluated. I expect that IronCAD is about 2 years of
> development away from being a true CAD tool. When/if it finally does become
> a true parametric solid modeller and engineering tool, I believe its user
> interface to be so strong that it will be head and shoulders above the other
> CAD tools in its price range (assuming everyone else continues to sit on
> their butts rather than improve their user interfaces). Unfortunately I
> couldn't wait 2 years.
>
> I wish that Dessault would buy IronCAD's geometry creation features and
> incorporate them into SolidWorks.
>
> -Neil
>
> Barry Toppings wrote in message <36c32...@news.cadvision.com>...
Robert Berger
Paul,I totally disagree with you. IronCAD 2.0 is light-years improved over Trispectives (v1.4 is at least as far as Pluto...). Trispectives established the paradigm of drag and drop modeling, drag handles, the triball and integrated high-end visualization. VDS has built upon these foundations to create a very productive engineering tool. There are too many differences between the two products to begin to get into. Wait until you see the reviews on v2.0. It will be well received at NDES next month. With all due respect, this group reminds me of what Pro/E users were saying about Solidworks back in 1996/1997. Don't be afraid, embrace change...Another gut feeling I have about IronCAD (sorry I'm kite flying on this one)
is that the main growth feature since the days of Trispectives (which I do
have some experience with) is the price Does anyone without an axe to grind say different?
Take your ax and sever your kite string!
Regards,
Robert Berger
Robert Berger
Kudos...
Robert Berger
"Michael D. Miles, PE" wrote:
> Like many who saw Trispectives (and I own its slightly younger brother
> SolidTools but never use it), I try to be circumspect about the promises of any
> CAD package but a little time and the promise of profits can cause tremendous
> things to happen.
>
> I can't help notice the irony of S/W users commenting about IronCAD (or any
> other upstart CAD vendor) in *EXACTLY* the same way Pro/E users did and still do
> comment on S/W. Not much changes, just the names and faces...
>
> If it helps them get the job done, it will find a following.
> If it finds a following, they will try to convert others.
> If they try to convert others, they will encounter resistance.
> If they encounter resistance, they will become forceful.
> If they become forceful, they will become rejected.
> If they become rejected, they will become belligerant.
> If they become belligerant, they will become blinded.
> If they become blinded, they will not get the job done.
>
> A long winded way of quoting Pogo - "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Paul
seem to use S/W for ALL of the modelling and use IronCAD for rendering and
animation.
To me, that says it all.
Another gut feeling I have about IronCAD (sorry I'm kite flying on this one)
is that the main growth feature since the days of Trispectives (which I do
have some experience with)
is the price
Does anyone without an axe to grind say different?
Paul Z
mbia...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7a1mlr$e8j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36c367c5$0$16...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> "Neil Getz" <Ge...@InversionInc.com> wrote:
>> Barry-
>>
>> I evaluated IronCAD (version 1) when I was shopping for a CAD tool.
Despite
>> its strengths I ended up purchasing SolidWorks.
>>
>> IronCAD has some very appealing virtues.
>
Michael D. Miles, PE
John Morris
>SolidTools but never use it), I try to be circumspect about the promises of any
>CAD package but a little time and the promise of profits can cause tremendous
>things to happen.
Michelle.... I am curious on your opinion of
SolidEdge in all this. What's your opinion of it?
Robert Berger
I just can't keep from making an observation: You yourself have never used SolidWorks. Shouldn't you state this before you attempt to compare the products? I am sure IronCad fulfills your needs. But it's a little hard to understand the differences unless you use both.What makes you think I haven't used Solidworks? I have demoed it, I also work closely with one client and one injection molder who have both used it for over 2 years. I think that Solidworks is an excellent product. I do not understand how the two products can really be compared. V1.4 lacks fundamental feature based relationships, such as associatively copying edges, faces, surfaces from the workpiece to build the next feature. This should be a basic requirement of any modern design tool. As a result, in IronCad, like in the old explicit solid modeling days of CADDS 4x or ACAD AME or Solid Designer (you name the 80s solid modeler), it is up to the user to update every minor detail of the model any time a change is made.
What you are stating is not true. In IronCAD you can copy and link features. It is by no means just a explicit modeler. It is an explicit modeler when you need it to be and a history based modeler when you need it to be that.
Maybe this is addressed in V 2.0? If and when they add real feature relationships, what then happens to these relationships using the standard destructive methods it currently uses such as the direct face manipulation? These are programing shorts cuts that strip out intelligence.
Me thinks you protest a bit too much...Don't worry about VDS. Their product is no good and Solidworks has absolutely nothing to worry about. People would just be foolish to consider looking at any other tool other than Solidworks. Keep focusing on MDT and Pro/E. They are truly the sources of innovation over the last to years. Don't get me wrong. IronCad has a good UI. And everybody can learn some things from it. But fundamentally IronCad takes the exact the same history based approach that all the other products use (this should be a good thing). As a result things like the direct face manipulation tools are history dependent.
Whatever you say Joe...I'm sure that you are an IronCAD power user and can speak forcefully on the subject. I bow to your supperior knowledge.
And in V1.4 they either destructively destroy portions of the "intelligence" that the user purposely placed in the model, or they inadvertently manipulate it behind the scenes, either way greatly reducing the predictability and value of a feature based modeler. The future of Mechanical design should be more intelligence in the parts which translates into less work for the user.
Joe, here is a hint. Try using your "shift" key and You'll get a different result. You'll see v2.0 soon enough. Let me put it simply, SolidWorks offers far more product capabilities to complete engineering tasks. SolidWorks offers many aspects of the things you like in IronCad such as drag and drop, and drag handles So this is not a unique ability. Yet SolidWorks goes far beyond this. I look at SolidWorks as the only product that has successfully combined the best aspects of all the methods out there, the power of Pro/E relationships, the flexibility of underconstrained methods (SDRC), drag and drop manipulation, etc... It's the only mechanical design product that brings all these things together, and then adds much more. So that is my totally unbiased response. :-)
Sounds like you've got the situation well under control. You have an excellent product that combines the best aspects of all products that have ever existed. People would be foolish to consider looking at any other products. One small point to consider:
- Modeling kernels are for sale
- Parametric constraint managers are for sale
- Translators and Healers are for sale
- Ray Traced Visualization is for sale90% of all patents established by MCAD companies over the last 5 years are in the area of user interface. What does that tell you? How are users to differentiate between products?
Its not what you can do..its how you go about doing it.
Enjoy your bubble while it lasts :)
Robert Berger
jdu...@solidworks.com
Paul Z
missed the point of my tongue-in-cheek post:
If there is a user out there who has both SolidWorks and IronCAD, and
prefers the latter for modelling, then I for one would love to hear why.
That's because (I think) I'm open-minded enough to try it if I hear good
things about it from another genuine user.
Sure, the best thing to do is try it one-self and make up one's own mind.
But I did that when it was called Tri-spectives, and it sounds like it
hasn't changed much. Can someone add to this thread some major improvement
which would justify trying it out again?
As far as the this statement goes....
>I can't help notice the irony of S/W users commenting about IronCAD (or any
>other upstart CAD vendor) in *EXACTLY* the same way Pro/E users did and
still do
>comment on S/W. Not much changes, just the names and faces...
... some ProE users do love it like a religion (and they are not alone in
this), but there are plenty of ProE users who have switched to SolidWorks
too. Are there any SolidWorks users who have switched to IronCAD?
Robert Andersson
the ground up to run under windows.
Ironcad do ,uses a new way to do modeling.Its not just the ordinary
"define plane ,sketch,extrude"
thing, It's more like drag features from catalogs ,and modify it using
handles on the shapes, edges and surfaces, position with the Triball ,all
in 3D.
We are consultants that have used a lot of different cadprograms including
Ironcad ,
Mechanical Desktop and Solidworks ,doing machines for
industrialautomation purpose.
In our opinion ,no Cadprogram came close to Ironcad 2 when it comes to
producing cadmodels.
Its so easy to modify geometry that it's not the same pressure to
constrain everything.
A Beta version of Ironcad 2 ariwed in December ,and cause
it's so stable and improved since ver1, that we are using the Beta of
Ironcad 2.
The improvments in v2 are great. Cut solids with surfaces ,
more feature based relationships, snap to all features, parts, assys,
included BOMlist (no need for excel).
Ironcad 2 has a constrain solver from D-cube, I think that’s the
same as PRO and S-works use.
Se more at
www.d-cubed.co.uk and www.ironcad.com
The drag/drop sheetmetal is something to see and use.
Ironcad is a nice assymodeler.
Every part is not ending up as a separate partfiles allover the disk. The
choice is yours.
You can easily reorder part and move parts between assy's ,just dragging
with the mouse in the sceenbrowser. Even if the assy's are linked out to
separate files.
You don’t get in to new different windows all the time, the work is
done in one stable environment.
You can import a bunch of 3Dformats and modify it.
You can take in a hole assy from Mechanical desktop and finish the work
faster than
it could have been done in M-top.
Ironcad don’t need
to translate the features to native format (like S-works feature recog.)
Things Ironcad do not handle very well, at the moment, is designtabels.
It also do not include a surfacemodeler.
There is a lot more to say about this piece of software.
But its always best to test it in your specific case.
Its obvious that the competitive cadmarcet is very good for the engineers.
Its just to let the Caddevelopers work for you.
Regards
Robert Andersson
Robert Berger
Here are some of the things that VDS, that nuisance little company have been doing. As you can see they've obviously been slacking off doing nothing with their VC money. I thought that you might be interested. This will give you a head start on your future innovations. Keep focusing on aqua blue Autodesk swimming pools....
Sarcastically,
Robert Berger :)
User Interface
Value capture from dialog - Copying the value from a SmartDimension
or profile dialog using
cut and paste captures the full precision value, not just the displayed
digits.
Improved visibility - When multiple IntelliShapes are selected,
no handles are displayed.
Positioning
Improved TriBall Tool - A new option allows for the displaying
of all handles. In reduced handle mode picking on the second orientation
handle causes the other side to be displayed.
Mirror using TriBall - The TriBall can now be used to mirror
shapes and parts.
Improved Mate and Align Constraint Tool - New symbols and mouse
icons have been added that more
clearly communicate what constraint condition is being applied. The
type of constraint to be applied can now be set using the right mouse.
Freeform Modeling
New version of ACIS - IronCAD 2.0 supports ACIS revision 5.0
Creation of Surface Shapes - Create surface shape from existing
part surface or imported IGES surface.
Trimming of Parts using Surface Shapes - Trim surface shape
with selected part.
Thickening of Surface Shapes to create a solid - Thicken surface
shape
Improved loft dialog - The term Path has been changed to "Profile
Position Curve" to more accurately, describe its function.
Tangency control for loft shapes - It is now possible to control
the tangency condition between a loft shape and its adjoining shapes.
Improved Split Command - The split command has been enhanced
so that any existing part or surface can be used as the splitting entity.
The split command differs from the trim command in that both sides of the
target part are maintained.
Constraints
2D Profile constraints - Full constraint engine using DCM from
D-Cubed is now available for 2D profile curves.
Improved SmartDimensions - SmartDimensions can be applied by
simply picking an edge. Midpoints are now a valid attachment point. SmartDimensions
can now be attached to a shape anchor by holding down the CRTL key.
2D shape as base for modeling operation - A 2D shape can be
used as the profile for extrude, spin and
sweep. A 2D shape can drive more than one operation and is fully associative.
Any change to the profile is
automatically reflected in the shape.
Productivity Tools
New Cold Rolled Steel - New member of the IntelliShape Tool
family that supports standard Cold Rolled Steel shapes
New Hot Rolled Steel - New member of the IntelliShape Tool family
that supports standard Hot Rolled Steel shapes
New Bearings - New member of the IntelliShape Tool family that
supports standard bearing shapes
Improved Gears - Improved member of the IntelliShape Tool family
that supports additional gear shapes
Technical Drawing
View movement assistance - All orthographic views are now associative.
Moving the front
view will automatically move other orthographic views as needed.
New Datum/Baseline style dimension - Datum/Baseline style dimensions
that automatically position relative to the first item picked.
New Ordinate style dimension - Ordinate style dimensions that
automatically position relative to
the first item picked.
Fractional support for dimension value display - Dimensions
values can now be displayed in customer settable fractional units.
Improved DWG/DXF export - Improved DWG/DXF export with added
support for detail views,
hatch, datum targets, item bubbles, BOM table, ordinate and baseline
dimensions.
Vector printing/plotting - Vector printing/plotting that includes
line properties. (This is a fast print option that no longer requires what
used to be called Precise mode)
Line weight support on active drawing sheet - Line weights can
be made viewable on a per sheet basis
BOM support on drawing - Create a custom Bill-Of-Materials table
automatically on the active sheet. A full set of table editing tools is
provided. Table information can be exported in several formats.
New Item bubble tool - A new tool to create item bubbles on
the view geometry associative to a previously created BOM table
Customer settable front view direction - Initial view direction
(front view dir.) can now be set at layout
creation time.
Additional dimension catch points in view - Dimension catch
points are now displayed for curve midpoints
and circular curve quadrants.
Improved pan and zoom performance - Pan/zoom performance improvements
2D Profiles
Smart cursor - Intelligently highlights key snap conditions
to surrounding 2D curves.
Direct size input during curve creation - It is now possible
to enter exact sizes during the creation process.
Customer configurable constraint default - Ability to set curve
snap conditions that will automatically be
set as a constraint.
New constraints toolbar - A new toolbar has been provided that
allows the user to add a particular constraint(s) to previously created
profile curves.
Constraint visualization - A new set of icons has been added
that show exactly what constraints are active on the profile. Blue indicates
snap condition and red indicates that it is an active constraint.
New constraint types - The following constraint types are now
available in the system: Horizontal, Vertical,
Perpendicular, Tangent, Concentric, Parallel, Fixed Point, Co-linear,
Dimension (linear, angular, radial).
New B-spline curve type - B-spline create and edit
Topology check highlight - When a problem is encountered in
a profile, the software will now highlight the problem area.
Improved grid visibility - Changes have been made to the grid
settings to improve visibility
Improved Trim tool - Trim between has been improved in the following
ways: 1. The area of the curve that is to be cut away highlights in blue.
2. Trimming has been reduced to a single pick on the highlighted curve.
Simplified 2D toolbars - A number of curve creation options
have been combined together to reduce the number of displayed icons.
Improved accuracy for all 2D creation tools - The accuracy maintained
for the 2D profile curves has been
changed to match the requirement for 3D.
Parametric relationships - Parametric relationships can now
be created between constraint dimensions belonging to the same profile.
Projected edges can now be made associative to 3D part - Non-intersection
3D edges can be projected to the 2D profile as associative curves. When
the 3D edge moves the associated 2D curve will move also.
Improved DWG/DXF import - Improved DWG/DXF support for coordinate
system matching.
Drag & Drop
New Direct SmartSnap handle behavior - All handle types now
support a new Direct SmartSnap behavior that allows the catching
to key points on the selected shape, between shapes of the same part and
between separate parts and assemblies.
Mouse over handle display system - To provide a clearer view
of the part geometry while editing, the profile and face handles are not
displayed until the mouse is over a visible face or hidden edge. Sizebox
handles remain as before.
New Profile handles - To improve the edibility of profile
based IntelliShapes in the context of the part/assembly each curve can
now be edited using a "profile handle". This handle supports the snap handle
behavior described above.
New Face shape handles - To improve the edibility of face
based IntelliShapes in the context of the part/assembly each face can now
be edited using a "face handle". This handle supports the snap handle behavior
described above.
New Handle Toggle - The Handle Toggle provides a quick way to
move between profile, shape specific, and sizebox handles. The Handle Toggle
will be displayed on the shape whenever more than one type of have handle
has been activated. The handle toggle display can be deactivated from the
Tools Options Interaction tab
Rendering
Improved performance - Several enhancements have been made to
improve large assembly selection and rotation.
Dynamic texture support for Open GL - Textures can now be dynamically
rotated on OpenGL cards
that support that feature
Assemblies
Settable assembly properties - Properties can be added
to any assembly or part. BOM export - Assembly BOM information is exported
from the BOM table created in a drawing. BOM information
can be exported directly to Excel or as a TAB delimited text file.
New assembly menu - Several assembly commands that were located
in other menus have been combined into a new Assembly menu option.
Unlink external part/assembly - It is now possible to break
the link of a linked file while in the parent scene file (.ics)
Part/assembly replacement - New parts can be placed in an assembly
by simply dragging new part on top of the old one while holding down the
CTRL key.
Direct Face Modeling
Improved feature recognition with profile reconstruction - Feature
recognition with profile reconstruction is currently restricted to extrude
IntelliShapes. Profile reconstruction can handle all side wall face taper
and slanted top surface.
New user preference that confines a DFM command to IntelliShape
only - With preference set, the DFM command performs its operation
on the IntelliShape only. With the preference off, the DFM command acts
on the part. Using the SHIFT key, temporarily changes the preference to
the opposite of what is set.
IntelliShapes are maintained when selected as part of a DFM command
- When all the faces of a profile based IntelliShape are selected as part
of a DFM command the software does not convert it to a face base IntelliShape.
Facet to solid model conversion improvements - Improvements
have been made when converting a facet model to a solid. Surface simplification
has also been enhanced.
New and improved translators - Improved translator quality (IGES,
STEP).
BOM
Default Templates - A default template with (part name/number,
quantity, item #, description) is provided. Others can be created as needed.
User definable columns based on properties - New columns can
be added to a BOM table. When the column label matches a custom part/assembly
property label the value will be displayed following a Update All Views.
Format Options - Supported format options are: Parts only, Top
Level only, Indented list
Associative item bubbles - When placing item bubbles, the assigned
number matches the entry in the BOM table.
Table properties - Supported table properties are column width,
height, text style etc.
Properties
Custom part properties - Custom properties can now be added
at the part and assembly level. These properties can be displayed in a
BOM drawing table.
New part property fields - Part and Description fields have
been added to the General tab of the part property dialog.
Instances get properties by default - All instance copies of
a part automatically inherit any new
properties added to any member of the instance set.
Properties can be overridden by default in instances - It is
possible to set a custom set of properties for a member on an instance
set.
Sheetmetal
New Drag and Drop Sheetmetal functionality - A breakthrough
module for doing sheetmetal design. The first release utilizes a 3D-design
methodology with lay flat.
Customizable Tool Table - The Tool Table is a text file that
contains the default sizes for the punches and stamps as well as the available
stock options. This tooltbl.txt file is located in the IronCAD directory
and can be customized as needed.
K factor support - Specified as a part of the stock definition.
The K factor can be set globally as well as at the part level.
Drag and drop bends - Bend features that can be dropped in from
a sheetmetal catalog. The bends will auto-align and auto-size. Fixed size
bends drop with bend relief’s active by default.
Drag and drop bend features - The Sheetmtl catalog contains
the following bend features: seam and hem
Drag and drop stamp features - The Sheetmetal catalog contains
the most commonly used stamps.
Drag and drop Punch features - The Sheetmtl catalog contains
the most commonly used punches.
Sizing handles for stock items and bends - When selected stock
and bends display appropriate handles
that can be used to position and size as needed. A mouse icon appears
on mouse over to indicate its function.
Sizing handles for bend angle - Bend handles that can measure
the inside or outside bend angle and be made parallel to an existing edge
Position handles for positioning bend on stock - Position handles
that can be snapped to existing points or
given a relative distance. All sheet metal features that come after
the handle being moved move as a rigid body.
Corner relief handles - Each bend has two types of handles shape
and relief. When in relief mode the handle moves just the bend, any bend
stock segments are left in place.
Lay Flat support - Ability to create a lay flat view of the
sheetmetal part in the scene. This lay flat view of the part can be accessed
by the drawing module to create a fully dimensioned view utilizing ordinate
dimensions.
Bend relief property control - Bend relief values can be set
globally and added automatically
with the option to edit or delete on an individual basis.
jdu...@solidworks.com
Robert Berger <rlber...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:36C66819...@earthlink.net...Joe,
Sarcastically,
Robert Berger :)
Drag and drop bends - Bend features that can be dropped in from a sheetmetal catalog. The bends will auto-align and auto-size. Fixed size bends drop with bend reliefs active by default.
Robert Berger
Hi Joe,
Lets see, I count from your list roughly 90 enhancents. In over one year. SW itself added over 200 in just one six month period. I'll take that type of "water treading"
Its sounds like Solidworks has everything well under control. Solid Edge and Mechanical Desktop aren't effecting your sales in the least. 13,848 new seats was great performance for 1998. Kudos. Just because AutoDesk was able to sell over 4x as many seats in 1998, I wouldn't let that get me down.
BTW, let me help you out with a little bit of facts and math. IronCAD 1.2 was released and began to ship on 06/24/98. IronCAD 1.3 was released in end of July 1998 and IronCAD 1.4 was released in September 1998. NDES is scheduled for 03/15/99. By my antiquated arthimatic thats roughly 8 months between major releases, with 2 minor releases in between. Should I count the bug fixes together with the enhancements?
Seriously, if things are as you say things will only get better for Solidworks. Why waste any energy on poking holes at what you believe an inferior product with a poor distribution channel. Like I said, me thinks you protest a bit too much...
:)
Robert Berger
Paul Z
Robert Andersson wrote in message <36C71536...@vemek.se>...
>The unik about Solid works is that it is written from..<snip>
thanks Robert, this is the sort of
info I was wondering about.
Paul Z
Leos Zaplatilek
Neil Getz
Robert Berger
Neil,
It is hard to take your braggs about SW's enhancement rate seriously while SW leaves a trail of bugs in the wake of its expanding features.
The truth hurts, don't it....SW 99 will soon be here with another 200...
:)
Robert Berger
jbt...@connix.com
> It is hard to take your braggs about SW's enhancement rate seriously
> while SW leaves a trail of bugs in the wake of its expanding features
One of the things I like about SolidWorks Corp. is that they seem to bust
their ass fixing bugs and releasing service patches. Maybe you needed to
have been using Crashkey 97 to appreciate SolidWorks. SolidWorks ain't
perfect but the effort is obviously there to fix problems.
Respectfully,
jon
Neil Getz
jbt...@connix.com wrote in message <7aaqgs$pbl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> It is hard to take your braggs about SW's enhancement rate seriously
>> while SW leaves a trail of bugs in the wake of its expanding features
>
>One of the things I like about SolidWorks Corp. is that they seem to bust
>their ass fixing bugs and releasing service patches. Maybe you needed to
>have been using Crashkey 97 to appreciate SolidWorks. SolidWorks ain't
>perfect but the effort is obviously there to fix problems.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>jon
Jon-
Yes, they fix some bugs, but they leave others dangling. As a user blocked
by bugs from using an essential (to my work) feature of SolidWorks though
multiple patches, it is frustrating to hear you crowing about SW's terrific
performance on fixing bugs based solely on your personal experience. Put
yourself in the position of a user positive enough about SolidWorks to lay
down the considerable money for the product and support, but whose SPR has
remained open through a number of patches. Don't you think it would be a
better plan for SW to fix existing bugs prior to expanding its list of
features? I enjoy the expanding quantity of features, but the cost in
quality is too high for my taste.
-Neil
Neil Getz
Yes, of course a balance needs to be struck between feature expansion and
bug fixing. As I said, I too enjoy the benefits of the enhancements.
The particular SPR I was referring to is 48260. What are the SPR's for the
problems that you have been tracking?
-Neil
David Murray wrote in message <36C9AA36...@cadimensions.com>...
Had to respond to this one, Neil. There are some problems that I have
tracked for some time. Not many, just a few. Others crop back up when you
think they are gone. Not being a programmer, I don't know how difficult it
must be to fix some of these problemss. But I would certainly not expect SW
to discontinue enhancing the software until they can fix every last problem.
And surely you can't reasonably expect them to do so either.
I browsed back through these postings to see if I could find mention of
the SPR that seems to be causing you grief, but did not find it. Would have
been curious to know which SPR it was.
Dave Murray
Joe Dunne
What you are stating is not true. In IronCAD you can copy and link features. It is by no means just a explicit modeler. It is an explicit modeler when you need it to be and a history based modeler when you need it to be that.
Robert you completely ignored my example. I do not want to link features, or build equations. I want to simply model in a freeform fashion and have the system automatically capture my relationships. I have tried to do this in IronCad. So far converting any edge, loses it's relationships. That is not what I call productive. Not the user will have to do a LOT of work to make even a small change. Am I missing something? It seems it is many times a explicit modeler when I don't want it to be.
I do not want a explicit modeler. I had explicit modelers back in the 80s. There is a reason the world has switched. I want unhindered modeling. Yet I want all intelligence maintained. I want the computer to do as much work for me as possible. Not the other way around. Destroying intelligence reduces automation. Destroying the history means more and more of the burden of making changes it put on me instead of the computer.
There is a reason SolidWorks chose not to take these types of programming short cuts. That is, removing chunks of history when convenient. It is from more difficult to maintain to relationships and yet give the user the flexibility to make changes. that is what SolidWorks gives the users.
And in V1.4 they either destructively destroy portions of the "intelligence" that the user purposely placed in the model, or they inadvertently manipulate it behind the scenes, either way greatly reducing the predictability and value of a feature based modeler. The future of Mechanical design should be more intelligence in the parts which translates into less work for the user.
Joe, here is a hint. Try using your "shift" key and You'll get a different result. You'll see v2.0 soon enough.
OK I have tried using my shift key many times now. Every time direct face modeling DESTROYS my design intent. So I guess I am not a Power User :-(
- Modeling kernels are for sale
- Parametric constraint managers are for sale
- Translators and Healers are for sale
- Ray Traced Visualization is for sale90% of all patents established by MCAD companies over the last 5 years are in the area of user interface. What does that tell you? How are users to differentiate between products?
Its not what you can do..its how you go about doing it.
Intelligence, referencing, history manipulation, handling changes in topology. Basically how you capture manipulate use relationships. This is what makes a system truly powerful. These have little to do with component technologies. Nor does user interface address them.
You fail to consider that component technology in itself does not guarantee that it will be used efficiently. Compare MDT to SolidWorks. Both use Component technology. However I would dare to say that there is a huge technical advantage that SolidWorks holds over MDT. Most of it has little to do with UI.
Joe Dunne
SolidWorks
jdu...@solidworks.com
SPR 48260 and it has been fixed already. It should be made available to
the public in the next build of SolidWorks that we put on the WEB. It
shouldn't be too long.
Joe Dunne
SolidWorks
Neil Getz wrote in message <36c9bdf1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
Paul Salvador
>
>
> I do not want a explicit modeler. I had explicit modelers back in the
> 80s. There is a reason the world has switched. I want unhindered
> modeling. Yet I want all intelligence maintained. I want the computer
> to do as much work for me as possible. Not the other way around.
> Destroying intelligence reduces automation. Destroying the history
> means more and more of the burden of making changes it put on me
> instead of the computer.
>
I'm with him Robert. Maybe 2.0 has more control in maintaining
history/edge/surface feature relationships with other geometry for build
relational geometry...and edit tools to redefine broken relationships??
Otherwise, for me, IronCad is fun, but fun as in a LEGO like toy, not
very productive for my needs still. But I do see it's place in
drag-n-drop, fast, non-committed, work structures, like fixture designs
with repeditive like clamps and simple geometric parts. It's still got
a ways to go, regardless, if it does not have strong geometric
relationships and redefining tools for broken relationships it's a
rebuild modeler, and that equals more work IMHO.
Robert Berger
Paul,
I with him Robert. Maybe 2.0 has more control in maintaining
history/edge/surface feature relationships with other geometry for build
relational geometry...and edit tools to redefine broken relationships??
Otherwise, for me, IronCad is fun, but fun as in a LEGO like toy, not
very productive for my needs still. But I do see it's place in
drag-n-drop, fast, non-committed, work structures, like fixture designs
with repeditive like clamps and simple geometric parts.
Those were my exact first impressions as well. I would encourage you to "play" around with it a bit more. I have found that by combining drag and drop intellishapes with some custom shapes and direct face modeling I can create real world geometry very productively. If I was a machine designer, and not a product designer, I could see the technique being significantly faster than any other method that I am aware of.
It's still got a ways to go, regardless, if it does not have strong geometric
relationships and redefining tools for broken relationships it's a
rebuild modeler, and that equals more work IMHO.
I'll be curious to see what your impression of v2.0 are. Its a significant step in the right direction. BTW, Lego was my favorite toy when I was kid...coincidence?
:)
Robert Berger
Paul Salvador
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I with him Robert. Maybe 2.0 has more control in
> maintaining
> history/edge/surface feature relationships with other
> geometry for build
> relational geometry...and edit tools to redefine broken
> relationships??
>
> Have you ever had problems in having a model not regenerate, or taking
> 20 minutes to regenerate when you modify a feature that was created
> early in the part's history? It is nice on a 500 feature part to make
> a change in seconds. Philosophically, I do see your point though.
>
Not really, I have rarely had to wait 20 mins for a regen, usually it
means something else is wrong.
Seriously, I feel very comfortable with rebuilding/rearranging features
in Pro/e.
Now, I am very concerned how IronCad will ever do this if ever and it is
a must IMO.
How could you not have a REDEFINE when relationships exist? Do users
make everything perfect the first time, no, no one does.
This is an issue I have with MDT, it cracks me up that the users have to
start over again if relationships fail, they're screwed. There are no
tools available to patch the failed relationships! That is, if a
relationship fails all related features are lost, not good at all.
VDS, luvs their philosophy of NON-history choice, I do not agree. I
used SolidDesigner(ME30) a bit and I thought it was cool but also a
royal pain IMO(a**). What's positive about history based modelers is,
if for some reason you do have to change the model drastically you have
feature history there to refer and rebuild your model and all is not
lost with your intent. Non-history modelers remind me of pottery, throw
allittle bit on and take allittle bit off and throw it away if it does
work.
With a History based modeler, if you put it together, you know how to
take it apart and put it back together, very similar to mechanical
design in general.
> Otherwise, for me, IronCad is fun, but fun as in a LEGO like
> toy, not
> very productive for my needs still. But I do see it's place
> in
> drag-n-drop, fast, non-committed, work structures, like
> fixture designs
> with repeditive like clamps and simple geometric parts.
>
> Those were my exact first impressions as well. I would encourage you
> to "play" around with it a bit more. I have found that by combining
> drag and drop intellishapes with some custom shapes and direct face
> modeling I can create real world geometry very productively.
The problem is, I just about NEVER make a similar part, everything is
custom and built with parametric surfaces related to parametric
wireframes(the only way to design, IMO, as you know). I do look at
IronCad constructively but do not see the speed advantage for my work at
all, it's to loose of a modeler and is limited. I want accuracy,
relationships, choice and commitment built around my intent and a way to
redefine/rebuild/rearrange when I need.
> If I was
> a machine designer, and not a product designer, I could see the
> technique being significantly faster than any other method that I am
> aware of.
>
Exactly. A machine/fixture designer may find this to be a very nice
tool.
>
> I'll be curious to see what your impression of v2.0 are. Its a
> significant step in the right direction.
I do look forward to LEGO 2.0. It's always fun for awhile. I won't be
happy until VDS has drag n drop Auto Design. ;^)
James Newman
seminar Wednesday the 24th at 9:00am. RSVP to Kelly Davis 770-937-9000 x
1250. She also has a map/directions, if you need.
See you there,
James Newman
Arris Interactive
Ironcad User
James Newman
700 Galleria Parkway, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA. 30339
(770) 937-9000
James Newman wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> James F. Newman <James....@arris-i.com>
> Hardware Design, Support Engineer
> Arris Interactive
>
> James F. Newman
> Hardware Design, Support Engineer <James....@arris-i.com>
> Arris Interactive
> 3871 Lakefield Drive Work: 770-622-8538
> Suite 300 Fax: 770-622-8712
> Suwanee Netscape Conference Address
> GA Netscape Conference DLS Server
> 30024-1242
> USA
> Additional Information:
> Last Name Newman
> First Name James F.
> Version 2.1
Barry Toppings
I have not made the decision yet. Thank you to all for the exchange of
information.
Is there anyone out there that has switched from SW to Ironcad? If so
please let me know and tell me why.
Barry
Jim Doxey
release) who "suggested" more folks would be following Iron CAD
revolutionaries in the near future -- Sounds like they've added a lot of new
features to the product, but it might be too little too late... Time will
tell. I don't know about people "switching" from SolidWorks to Ironcad, but
there might be a few that would consider Iron's newer version coming over
from 2D systems.
If they'd done this kind of product 3 years ago, perhaps SolidWorks would
have had more competition. You've got to consider the NT CAD installed
base: a bazillion seats of MDT (mostly still in shrink-wrap), 25,000+ seats
of SolidWorks, approx. 10K+ seats of SE, and how many hundred seats of IC?
Jim Doxey
Barry Toppings wrote in message <36cb8...@news.cadvision.com>...
Robert Berger
Jim,
I just talked to an industry expert yesterday (who has the newest Ironcad
release) who "suggested" more folks would be following Iron CAD
revolutionaries in the near future -- Sounds like they've added a lot of new
features to the product, but it might be too little too late... Time will
tell. I don't know about people "switching" from SolidWorks to Ironcad, but
there might be a few that would consider Iron's newer version coming over
from 2D systems.
If they'd done this kind of product 3 years ago, perhaps SolidWorks would
have had more competition. You've got to consider the NT CAD installed
base: a bazillion seats of MDT (mostly still in shrink-wrap), 25,000+ seats
of SolidWorks, approx. 10K+ seats of SE, and how many hundred seats of IC?
My $.02...
Robert Berger
Paul Salvador
>
> snip...
> a 100k+(bazillion) seats of MDT (mostly still in shrink-wrap),...
>
Another person who sees reality. But more like a huge amount of
shrink-wrapped copies, since MDT 1.x, collecting dust on a MIS
bookshelf(good burning material though).
rebecca...@vds.com
I am not in sales nor am I here to talk up IronCAD or any other CAD package,
I know you are looking for unbiased information and I respect that, I also
know that you have heard it all before! Just doing my homework and reading
the newsgroup. However, I did notice that someone mentioned the Atlanta
Seminar and I wanted to bring to your attention that we have several seminars
and workshops in various locations nationwide all the time. It is the best
way to check out IronCAD. If you are interested in getting a "hands on" look
at IronCAD and would like answers to all these endless questions then please
visit our website at www.ironcad.com and click on seminars. Keep in mind also
that for more information or literature on our product you may always call us
at 800-339-7304 Here is the most recent schedule below. Best of luck to all
of you in choosing a new CAD package!
Rebecca
IRONCAD™ SEMINAR
Learn about the next industrial revolution at an IronCAD Seminar. These 2-hour
presentations demonstrate IronCAD's revolutionary capabilities and how IronCAD
overcomes the limitations of traditional solid modeling with its history
independent Design Flow™Architecture. With the first true Drag and Drop solid
modeling environment and Direct Face Modeling™, IronCAD's proprietary features
and tools including IntelliShapes®, SmartSnap®, SmartUpdate™, Smart Render®,
SmartDimensions®, the TriBall® and more, will be presented.
All seminars are from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
IRONCAD WORKSHOP
Join the revolution at an IronCAD Workshop. At one of IronCAD's hands-on
workshops, test drive IronCAD's revolutionary Drag and Drop solid modeling
environment. Use IntelliShapes, SmartDimensions and SmartRender to create,
texturize, render and animate solid models. Perform complicated 3D
manipulations easily with IronCAD's SmartSnap and TriBall tools. Modify
imported solid models created from other solid modeling tools and overcome
the limitations of traditional solid modeling's history-based constraints.
West Coast:
2/17/99 Santa Clara, CA Seminar
3/5/99 Kirkland, WA Seminar
3/24/99 Beaverton, OR Seminar
3/24/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
3/24/99 Santa Clara, CA Seminar/Workshop
4/6/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
4/14/99 Beaverton, OR Seminar
4/14/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
4/21/99 Santa Clara, CA Seminar
4/28/99 Santa Clara, CA Workshop
5/4/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
5/12/99 Beaverton, OR Seminar
5/12/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
5/19/99 Santa Clara, CA Seminar
5/26/99 Santa Clara, CA Workshop
6/1/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
6/09/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
6/16/99 Santa Clara, CA Seminar
6/23/99 Santa Clara, CA Workshop
7/8/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
7/14/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
8/11/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
8/17/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
9/08/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
9/9/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
10/5/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
10/13/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
11/4/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
11/10/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
12/7/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
12/08/99 Santa Ana, CA Seminar/Workshop
East Coast:
2/17/99 Des Moines, IA Workshop
2/17/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
2/18/99 Germantown, WI Seminar
2/18/99 Raleigh, NC Seminar
2/19/99 Greensboro, NC Seminar
2/23/99 Germantown, WI Workshop
2/24/99 Atlanta, GA Seminar/Workshop
2/24/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Workshop
2/24/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
3/02/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
3/03/99 Charlotte, NC Seminar
3/03/99 Nashua, NH Seminar
3/03/99 Arlington Heights, IL Seminar
3/04/99 Greenville, SC Seminar
3/04/99 Germantown, WI Seminar
3/04/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Seminar
3/04/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
3/05/99 Columbia, SC Seminar
3/05/99 Des Moines, IA Seminar
3/09/99 Germantown, WI Workshop
3/17/99 Charlotte, NC Seminar
3/17/99 Des Moines, IA Workshop
3/18/99 Greenville, SC Seminar
3/18/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Workshop
3/19/99 Columbia, SC Seminar
3/23/99 Germantown, WI Workshop
3/24/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
3/31/99 Nashua, NH Workshop
4/01/99 Germantown, WI Seminar
4/01/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
4/02/99 Des Moines, IA Seminar
4/06/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
4/06/99 Germantown, WI Workshop
4/07/99 Arlington Heights, IL Seminar
4/07/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Seminar
4/07/99 Nashua, NH Seminar
4/13/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
4/15/99 Germantown, WI Seminar
4/21/99 Arlington Heights, IL Workshop
4/21/99 Des Moines, IA Workshop
4/21/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Workshop
4/21/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
5/04/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
5/05/99 Arlington Heights, IL Seminar
5/05/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Seminar
5/07/99 Des Moines, IA Seminar
5/11/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
5/13/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
5/19/99 Arlington Heights, IL Workshop
5/19/99 Des Moines, IA Workshop
5/19/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Workshop
5/19/99 Nashua, NH Seminar
5/19/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
5/26/99 Nashua, NH Workshop
6/01/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
6/02/99 Arlington Heights, IL Seminar
6/02/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Seminar
6/02/99 Nashua, NH Seminar
6/03/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
6/04/99 Des Moines, IA Seminar
6/16/99 Arlington Heights, IL Workshop
6/16/99 Des Moines, IA Workshop
6/16/99 Mississauga, Ontario (Canada) Workshop
6/16/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
6/30/99 Nashua, NH Seminar
7/01/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
7/08/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
7/14/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
7/29/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
8/17/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
8/18/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
9/02/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
9/09/99 North Olmstead Seminar
9/15/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
9/30/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
10/05/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
10/20/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
11/04/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
11/04/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
11/10/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
12/02/99 Schaumburg, IL Workshop
12/07/99 North Olmstead, OH Seminar
12/15/99 Schaumburg, IL Seminar
In article <36CB3251...@arris-i.com>,
James Newman <james....@arris-i.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------2E79CAA2B2FC4D117D95A354
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> --------------2E79CAA2B2FC4D117D95A354
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for James F. Newman
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
> begin: vcard
> fn: James F. Newman
> n: Newman ;James F.
> org: Arris Interactive
> adr: 3871 Lakefield Drive;;Suite 300;Suwanee;GA;30024-1242;USA
> email;internet: James....@arris-i.com
> title: Hardware Design, Support Engineer
> tel;work: 770-622-8538
> tel;fax: 770-622-8712
> x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
> x-mozilla-html: FALSE
> version: 2.1
> end: vcard
>
> --------------2E79CAA2B2FC4D117D95A354--
>
>
In article <36CB2EFD...@arris-i.com>,
James Newman <james....@arris-i.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------3B35D5C26CCCF4BA2D7AA95D
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> For those that live in the Atlanta area there will be a free Ironcad 2.0
> seminar Wednesday the 24th at 9:00am. RSVP to Kelly Davis 770-937-9000 x
> 1250. She also has a map/directions, if you need.
>
> See you there,
> James Newman
> Arris Interactive
> Ironcad User
>
> Barry Toppings wrote:
>
> > I am looking into buying a 3D package. Can anyone give me an unbiased
> > comparison of Ironcad vs Solidworks?
> >
> > Which has the shorter learning curve?
> > Does one lack any important features over the other?
> > Other comparisons are appreciated.
> >
> > topp...@cadvision.com
>
> --------------3B35D5C26CCCF4BA2D7AA95D
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for James F. Newman
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
> begin: vcard
> fn: James F. Newman
> n: Newman ;James F.
> org: Arris Interactive
> adr: 3871 Lakefield Drive;;Suite 300;Suwanee;GA;30024-1242;USA
> email;internet: James....@arris-i.com
> title: Hardware Design, Support Engineer
> tel;work: 770-622-8538
> tel;fax: 770-622-8712
> x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
> x-mozilla-html: FALSE
> version: 2.1
> end: vcard
>
> --------------3B35D5C26CCCF4BA2D7AA95D--
Joe Dunne
I'd like to attend the.... Hey you missed Massachusetts!
Joe Dunne
SolidWorks
rebecca...@vds.com wrote in message
<7as8ro$gv8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Paul Salvador
>
> Good Morning!
>
> I am not in sales nor am I here to talk up IronCAD or any other CAD package,
Ahhhh, you work for VDS... c'mon, that's bs.
Robert Berger
Why don't you go to the one being held 3/03/99 Nashua, NH?
:-)
Robert Berger
Robert Berger
I agree..."I'm not a doctor, I just play one on TV". I'm going to have a word with Bill Thompson about this. Its a bogus way to conduct business.
Robert Berger
Paul Salvador wrote:
rebecca...@vds.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning!
>
> I am not in sales nor am I here to talk up IronCAD or any other CAD package,
James Newman
miss something.
James
Paul Salvador wrote:
> rebecca...@vds.com wrote:
> >
> > Good Morning!
> >
> > I am not in sales nor am I here to talk up IronCAD or any other CAD package,
Jaap
>Lets see,
>
>I count from your list roughly 90 enhancents. In over one year. SW =
>itself added over 200 in just one six month period. I'll take that type =
>of "water treading"
>
>:-)
>
>Joe
Was SW that limited before?
Jaap
Jack Goff
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:55:59 -0500, <jdu...@solidworks.com> wrote:
>
> >Lets see,
> >
> >I count from your list roughly 90 enhancents. In over one year. SW =
> >itself added over 200 in just one six month period. I'll take that type =
> >of "water treading"
> >
Are the 200 enhancements posted on the SW website?
I've been amazed at what some marketing folks call an enhancement!
Trevor D'Arcy-Evans
>I've been amazed at what some marketing folks call an enhancement!
if it is relevant to what you do. For example, a lot of people design
machinery and have no use for surfacing; or people who do CNC
machining directly have little use for better drawing features.
Kind regards
Trevor D'Arcy-Evans
trev...@DivingMagpie.com.au
http://www.DivingMagpie.com.au
- high quality addins for SolidWorks