Free Yourself from Parametric Programming
jon_banquer
Now proclaims:
"Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:
Build sophisticated 3D models without having to learn feature-based
CAD with entangled relationships that are often impossible to
understand or edit."
Note to blow-hard liars, Tom Brewer and Joe 788:
Call SpaceClaim and tell Mike Payne he needs more training on how to
use a rollback bar. Let us know how Mike Payne responds.
ROTFLMFAO
For those who have no idea who Mike Payne is: He's one of the founders
of PTC / Pro-E and of SolidWorks and he's also one of the founders of
SpaceClaim.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
Joe788
When I drop your name, I'm quite certain he'll respond the same way
HSMWorks did.
jon_banquer
vinny
"jon_banquer" <jon_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53ad39de-0958-403a...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I already have.
Iv'e regressed back to node based modeling.
brew...@aol.com
brew...@aol.com
<jon_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>www.spaceclaim.com
>
>Now proclaims:
Is Space Claim your CAD-De-jour, what happened to SolidEdge?
>"Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:
>
>Build sophisticated 3D models without having to learn feature-based
>CAD with entangled relationships that are often impossible to
>understand or edit."
"Build sophisticated 3D models without having to learn"
Well that explains why Jon is interested.
>Note to blow-hard liars, Tom Brewer and Joe 788:
So Jon what exactly is your engineering department doing while you are
editing customer supplied models as you claim you have to do often?
>Call SpaceClaim and tell Mike Payne he needs more training on how to
>use a rollback bar. Let us know how Mike Payne responds.
Was Mike Payne having the same beginner problems you were?
You know where help was offered but you never posted exactly what
issues you were having so more experienced SolidWorks users could help
you. But we both know you weren't really having problems, you
plagiarized someone else's comments as your own and when asked for
specifics you ran.
You ran away just like you do every time you're asked what your
engineering department does. You know, where you accidentally let it
slip your company has an engineering department. That slip came after
you posted all over the net that you a "CNC Programmer/Machinist" had
to "OFTEN" make arbitrary changes to customer supplied models. Where
YOU needed to determine design intent so YOU could alter their models
to make them easier to manufacture.
>ROTFLMFAO
>
>For those who have no idea who Mike Payne is: He's one of the founders
>of PTC / Pro-E and of SolidWorks and he's also one of the founders of
>SpaceClaim.
He wouldn't be trying to sell anything would he?
Seems Mike Payne is sliding downhill, PTC/ProE then SolidWorks now
Space Claim, some may consider it a downward spiral....
>Jon Banquer
>San Diego, CA
Chula Vista Jon, you live in Chula Vista not San Diego.
Tom
Cliff
He just doesn't get it, does he?
Then all the handy advantages of having parametrics for
CAD design are lost. Not that they are probably needed
for hack-n-whack one-way one-use & toss garbage with
*single details*.
We had explicit modelers long ago & many can still be
used that way.
--
Cliff
madcadman
know the Pope. Get a life you loser!
"jon_banquer" <jon_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53ad39de-0958-403a...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
brew...@aol.com
Complaint:
CAD program automatically constrains model based on how it was
built. Takes skilled labor and is hard down the road to determine how
the model was built, what the design intent is/was & to make future
changes due to those constraints.
Fix:
CAD program strips model of constraints & design intent so changes
are easier to make. Constraints are not automatic any longer. To input
design intent each and every critical dimensions must be MANUALLY
locked by the designer to insure someone (or himself) in the future
doesn't accidentally change something critical they shouldn't.
Conclusion:
Sync-Tech looks to be a double edged sword, until I see it I reserve
judgment however I have concerns:
1) Manually locking critical dimensions. I see issues where a
lazy, inexperienced or hurried designer doesn't lock all applicable
critical dimensions.
2) Skill level, if true that all critical dimensions need to be
manually locked when using ST it seems a more experience person is
needed rather than the advertised "anyone can make changes".
3) Qualifications, maybe anyone can make changes with Sync-Tech
but should they be able to?
4) Control, does anyone in any of these newsgroups really want
someone like Jon Banquer given tools to easily make arbitrary changes
to their design?
Tom
John Scheldroup
"jon_banquer" <jon_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:53ad39de-0958-403a...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Title:
ALGOR and SpaceClaim: Redefining CAD and FEA
Date:
03/11/2008
Description:
Find out how SpaceClaim can help you simplify the meshing process via
de-featuring of an existing model or rapid creation of designs from scratch.
You will then learn how the geometry can be utilized in ALGOR to perform a
wide range of analyses.
jon_banquer
>
> Wes
Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for
working with other people's designs, parametric programming, as it
stands right now, really sucks. Can parametric programming be made a
lot better? You bet it can. See all the posts I put up in the past
regarding what SolidWorks need to do.(something very similar to Solid
Map).
As tools like Solid Edge with S/T get stronger and better parametric
programming might not be needed at all for anything.
j
are you trying to push now. Spaceclaim, SE with stinkronous tech or are
you still trying to figure out how to use the etch a sketch with the
crayon attachment. Or still trying to figure out why you got banned from
Cadkeys forum. FYI its the same reason you get banned from every other
forum that has people that police it from idiots like you.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
jon_banquer
> jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:
> Why? For some things it is a tool worth using.
> Wes
Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for
working with other people's designs, parametric programming, as it
stands right now, really sucks. Can parametric programming be made a
lot better? You bet it can. See all the posts I put up in the past
regarding what SolidWorks need to do.(something very similar to Solid
Map).
As tools like Solid Edge with S/T get stronger and better parametric
programming might not be needed at all for anything.
jon_banquer
"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their
proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software.
Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid
models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing
parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of
their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between
two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file
formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in
as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features
of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors
seem to agree is best left unresolved."
"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with
conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing
what he should be doing ‐ designing, not doing book‐keeping of
parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or
wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his
mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same
software that he is using."
"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a
CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any
time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from
day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is
collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software
others are using."
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
Cliff
>Why would any body in their right mind want to do this. Which program
>are you trying to push now. Spaceclaim, SE with stinkronous tech or are
>you still trying to figure out how to use the etch a sketch with the
>crayon attachment. Or still trying to figure out why you got banned from
>Cadkeys forum. FYI its the same reason you get banned from every other
>forum that has people that police it from idiots like you.
vinny <> "jon_banquer"
Cliff
wrote:
>See all the posts I put up in the past
<Snicker>
>regarding what SolidWorks need to do
Then it came out that you cannot even use it
& have not for about a decade .. and that was
a brief training demo your poor wife had to pay for
for you.
<Snicker>
--
Cliff
John R. Carroll
> On Jul 23, 5:32 am, clu...@lycos.com wrote:
>> jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:
>>
>> Why? For some things it is a tool worth using.
>>
>> Wes
>
> Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for
> working with other people's designs, parametric programming,
LOL
You have been blathering about "Parametric Modeling" Jon, not parametric
programming.
Thank God Qualcom sent their core design function to India.
CDMA is what puts money in the bank for them, not your pathetic efforts.
You can apply at Cubic when you get cut.
They'll love your BS.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
jon_banquer
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
John R. Carroll
Nothing but ten year old nonsense.
CATIA, UG, Missler and a host of others have been able to constrain imported
geometry for a long time Jonnie.
You must be new or something.
jon_banquer
brew...@aol.com
Maybe some machinist decided it was too much trouble to make and just
deleted that safety lock out feature from the customer supplied solid
model.
+++++++++++++++++++=
http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=8711634
Three planes collide on the ground at Baton Rouge Metro Airport
Posted: July 21, 2008 05:48 PM PDT
Updated: July 22, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - A three-plane ground crash at the Baton Rouge
Metro Airport could have become an explosive disaster.
It happened at the new regional maintenance hangar for Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, or ASA.
The total value to the three CRJ commuter jets is $100 million and it
looks like the most expensive one is a total loss.
The entire incident reportedly took five seconds.
A young mechanic pressed a starter switch to slowly spin the
compressor blades for cleaning.
Instead, her action sent the engine to immediate takeoff power,
hurling the fragile aircraft at 90 degree angles.
Witnesses say it's a wonder the entire hangar wasn't sent up in
flames, not to mention injury or death to the 14 ASA mechanics and
cleaning crew members working inside.
jon_banquer
Joe788
It's not that he's "new", it's just that the press releases he's read
haven't done a good enough job covering those topics.
Notice how he instantly resorts back to damage control copy/paste mode
the second you humiliated him with actual product knowledge?
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>jon_banquer wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 5:32 am, clu...@lycos.com wrote:
>>> jon_banquer <jon_banq...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:
>>>
>>> Why? For some things it is a tool worth using.
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>> Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for
>> working with other people's designs, parametric programming,
>
>
>
>
>LOL
>You have been blathering about "Parametric Modeling" Jon, not parametric
>programming.
He does not know one from the other it seems and hence knows
neither.
(Buzz)Word salad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
Confusion explained.
QED.
>Thank God Qualcom sent their core design function to India.
At best they might have a manual BP next to the broom closet
for the maintance department & janitors to use. Nor do they
seem to have a use there for SW or any MCAD systems at all.
I checked their job listings & etc.
Not one CNC, SW, machining or Mastercam related job
worldwide AFAIK.
>CDMA is what puts money in the bank for them, not your pathetic efforts.
>
>You can apply at Cubic when you get cut.
>They'll love your BS.
--
Cliff
jon_banquer
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
DanP
so, after all these years of strugle you cannot use parametric
programs.
will you stick to cad 2 now?
DanP
gk
Parrot Alert! Give Jonnie a cracker!
gk
DanP
>
> - Show quoted text -
no cracker, bring the cat
DanP
Cliff
wrote:
>It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their
>proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software.
>Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid
>models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing
>parametric information.
Drooling idiot AND moron.
IF they had to use the same "format" they would all be the same.
ONLY ONE POSSIBLE SYSTEM.
NOBODY could add new features, capabilities, etc.
No innovation or response to customer needs & requests. NO
NEW MARKETS.
Anybody NOT doing so would win the market in a few months.
Want to use the SAME format? Simple. Everybody
uses the binary IGES format for their part databases AND
EVERYTHING ELSE.
<Snort>!
And the poor idiot is not the only clueless one about it seems.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>They cannot even save to an earlier version of
>their own software.
Sort of like version 1 has no circles & version 2 does.
How are you going to add circles to version 1 which has no
such provision for any such "circle" data structures?
Just being able to migrate version 1 to version 2 can
cause problems at times.
You do NOT get to add new data structures & the
applications to use them to the OLD software !!!
IF you do you now have version 2 !!!
What a drooler.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>http://www.sycode.com/publications/white_papers/cad_20.pdf
>
>"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their
>proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software.
>Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid
>models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing
>parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of
>their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between
>two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file
>formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in
>as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features
>of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors
>seem to agree is best left unresolved."
>
>"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with
>conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing
>what he should be doing ? designing, not doing book?keeping of
>parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or
>wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his
>mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same
>software that he is using."
>
>"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a
>CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any
>time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from
>day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is
>collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software
>others are using."
<Snicker>
So translate your parametric stuff to SpaceClaim (with it's proprietary
file format) thereby tossing away all of your parametrics.
PLUS you lose lots of other capabilities & data.
<Snicker>
Does anyone still wonder how dumb clueless is?
>Jon Banquer
>San Diego, CA
>http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com/
<Snicker>
--
Cliff
jon_banquer
"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their
proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software.
Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid
models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing
parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of
their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between
two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file
formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in
as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features
of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors
seem to agree is best left unresolved."
"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with
conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing
what he should be doing ‐ designing, not doing book‐keeping of
parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or
wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his
mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same
software that he is using."
"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a
CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any
time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from
day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is
collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software
others are using."
Jon Banquer
Cliff
wrote:
>It is a well known fact that
You drool on your keyboard.
CLUE: This one is for non-CAD-users to make cheap
mark-ups of details for others (professionals & designers)
to review.
They even market it as such.
--
Cliff
gk
Parrot Alert! Jonnie gets another cracker!
gk