Decisions, decisions....

Discussion in 'SolidWorks' started by JB, Nov 12, 2003.

  1. JB

    per Guest

    Well, IronCAD is basically non parametric. Despite that, there is the
    possibility to use a command called the “mate align constraint tool”. Moving
    a hole then carries the screw with it, if it was constrained with that tool.
    This is an alternative positioning possibility that many IronCAD users may
    not use, since the Triball moves everything so swiftly to where ever you
    want it. And then there are those "smart dimensions" too...
    In my opinion there are too many copycat parametrical cad systems, and too
    few constraint free cad systems on the market. The “up” side with
    no-constraints, is that it never stalls because you haven't put in the last
    constraint. This speeds up conceptual work tremendously. And you can always
    change or remove any part or feature from anything in the assembly model no
    matter what’s in the history tree, before or after the changed part or
    feature. The tree will never get those “red berries”.
    And with parametrical, it may be close to impossible to foresee what a
    change will bring, especially when someone else has set those parameters up.
    The downside with all the freedom is very much the same as the upside. It’s
    very (maybe too) easy to make changes in the parts, and also unlink them,
    from within an assembly. Just like when somebody else explodes all your
    blocks in an acad dwg. Anarchy could prevail if you don’t watch out
    carefully.
    For companies making small series of machines, all very different with a few
    hundred parts or so, a non-parametric, constraint free cad (read IronCAD)
    would probably be the best way to go, but for companies designing a range of
    products with similar and a foreseeable layout, a parametric cad system is
    of course superior. Then there are all the different shades of grey between.
    This is when choosing the right CAD system becomes so very difficult.
    One thing I really miss with IronCAD, aside from large model drawing
    performance, is a mechanism movement simulation module.
    /per
     
    per, Nov 15, 2003
    #21
  2. JB

    Ken Guest

    Definitely check out Solid Edge. SE's sheet metal capabilities are
    excellent. UGS PLMsolutions provides direct software support as well as
    support through the VARs for the best of both worlds. They also produce UG
    NX, SDRC NX, TeamCenter products as well as the Parasolid modeling kernel
    that is used by all of UGS PLMsolutions products as well as SolidWorks (Yes,
    every sale of SolidWorks lines their competitors pocket with cash) I believe
    that you can get an eval copy of Solid Edge if you contact them. Here is
    the link to their site:
    www.solidedge.com

    Ken
     
    Ken, Nov 16, 2003
    #22
  3. JB

    Ken Guest

    Jon,
    You should probably research your facts a little better, as the one
    about Parasolid not supporting surfaces is untrue. As you probably are
    aware, UG uses the Parasolid kernel and has some of the best surfacing in
    the industry and is unmatched by anything except for IDEAS and Catia in this
    area (none of them use ACIS, and two of them use Parasolid). I have also
    includes a link to a UGS PLMsolutions web page for Parasolid that states
    that it does indeed have native support for surfaces.

    http://www.eds.com/products/plm/parasolid/extreme.shtml

    Ken
     
    Ken, Nov 16, 2003
    #23
  4. JB

    Ken Guest

    A correction to your erroneous post:

    Solid Edge does have a user base, just not quite as big as SolidWorks...
    yet! As far as support, Solid Edge offers the best support of any system
    I've seen. You can call SE directly and talk with the Application Engineers
    or you can work with your VAR. For small organizations without dedicated
    support personnel, the VAR might be the way to go, while organizations with
    dedicated support can call UGS PLMsolutions directly. Thing is, you can
    choose what is best for you. Their support group has also been ranked on of
    the best in the industry. Remember, EDS is a services industry and prides
    itself on taking care of it's customers, and that shows through in the UGS
    PLMsolutions division.

    Ken
     
    Ken, Nov 17, 2003
    #24
  5. JB

    Arlin Guest

    Thanks for the claification. That is pretty much what I thought. I use
    (and move) mechanisms quite a bit and really like it when an assembly
    automatically updates when component dimensions change, so it looks like
    IC would not really fit the bill for that.

    I understand how lack of history tree and constraints can be a good
    thing. It can also be extremely useful.
     
    Arlin, Nov 17, 2003
    #25
  6. JB

    jon banquer Guest

    Ken,

    "You should probably research your facts a little better"

    I've researched the *FACTS* that I posted *extensively!* My
    research includes talking to software developers who chose
    ACIS over Parasolid because Parasolid does not have the high
    level surfacing routines than make it easy to implement
    hybrid modeling. They even stuck with Spatial / ACIS during
    the dark days when the ACIS kernel could not even compare
    with the solid model functionality of Parasolid.

    "As you probably are aware, UG uses the Parasolid kernel and
    has some of the best surfacing in the industry"

    I agree that Unigraphics does. The problem is that the
    Parasolid kernel does NOT give a developer the high level
    tools to easily create a seamless, unified hybrid modeler.
    Now please read the following very carefully....

    There is no one besides UGS PLM Solutions that has used
    Parasolid to create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler...

    *No one !!!*

    What CAD/CAM developers who choose Parasolid are forced to
    do is marry separate surfacing routines outside the
    Parasolid kernel to Parasolid. It does not work, Ken. You
    end up with a something that is far from unified and
    certainly not seamless.

    "I have also includes a link to a UGS PLM solutions web page
    for Parasolid that states that it does indeed have native
    support for surfaces."

    Having support and giving software developers the badly
    needed high level tools are entirely two different things
    !!! The tools do NOT exist in Parasolid so that a CAD/CAM
    company could much more easily create a seamless, unified,
    hybrid modeler.

    There not there !!!

    UGS PLM Solutions is a very smart and a very talented
    company. I'd say the smartest in the business. Answer this
    question for me, Ken:

    Why would UGS PLM Solutions give away the farm by putting
    high level routines in Parasolid so that others could easily
    build another Unigraphics ???

    I'm very impressed with how UGS PLM Solutions controls the
    CAD/CAM market. First they did it with Unigraphics and
    Parasolid. Now UGS PLM Solutions will try to do it with
    Unigraphics and SolidEdge. Their smart and they see the hand
    writing on the wall. It's an entirely new game now that ACIS
    is more robust, now that Autodesk has the code to the ACIS
    kernel and has D-Cubed on board to develop what was ACIS and
    is now called Shape Manager, and finally now that Dassault
    Systems owns Spatial / ACIS.

    These conditions are forcing UGS PLM Solutions to rapidly
    improve SolidEdge. In one release SolidEdge blew the doors
    of SolidWorks surfacing. Just one. In the soon to be
    released new version of SolidEdge, according to the person
    who published Mark Biasotti's comparison of surfacing in
    SolidWorks vs surfacing in Pro/E Wildfire, SolidEdge blows
    the doors off of some of IX Speeds advanced feature stuff.

    Why ???

    LOL

    First better sheet-metal functionality in SolidEdge and now
    better plastics design functionality in SolidEdge.

    The rules of the game have changed, Ken. It's an all new
    game now.

    If you e-mail me I would be glad to give you a developers
    name and a way to contact him and he will be happy to tell
    you why he / they chose to use ACIS rather than Parasolid.

    jon
     
    jon banquer, Nov 17, 2003
    #26
  7. Indeed he should, but then ignorance is bliss.
    Not quite, Missler Software has bested the IDEAS product functionally for
    some time and has gone head to head with UG and Catia in Europe for years.
    Should you ever wish to see EDS drop their drawers, just mention TopSo;id
    during the course of a sale. As for SolidWorks, well, less is less, and you
    actually pay quite a premium to end up with a competetive dissadvantage.




    --

    John R. Carroll
    Machining Solution Software, Inc.
    Los Angeles San Francisco
    Portland
    www.machiningsolution.com
     
    John R. Carroll, Nov 17, 2003
    #27
  8. Jon,

    I do not think any of us are going to listen to you so just get Michael
    Crown and Timothy Olsen to directly comment about your "shared" claims
    regarding SolidWorks surfacing and Parasolid not having those tools.

    I know you are going to spin this around so, "NO COPY/PASTING ANYTHING",
    simply get your buddies Michael Crown and Timothy Olsen to comment on
    the claims you are making.

    Then, after that, if they do comment, we will try and have SolidWorks or
    someone from Parasolid to comment, ok?

    Otherwise, the "Wizard of OZ" is on, so spin around a few hundred times
    and hit your head with something, get a mirror and take some notes while
    watching the Scarecrow.

    Cheers.. ;^)
     
    Paul Salvador, Nov 17, 2003
    #28
  9. JB

    jon banquer Guest

    Paul,

    Mike Crown has not been with Varimetrix now VX in years.

    No offense but I don't really care what you want or what you
    believe. I haven't for many years and you don't and never
    will dictate what I post on or the conclusions I reach.

    I have spoken to too many developers and seen the results of
    too many attempts to develop a seamless, unified hybrid
    modeler with Parasolid.

    The high level tools that are needed by developers to easily
    create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler simply don't exist
    in Parasolid.

    Why don't you do your own research like I have and figure it
    out on your own ? I'm certain some CAD/CAM software
    engineers don't know who you are and the demands you make
    and will talk to you. ;>)

    If I were you, I would skip SolidWorks Corp. and Autodesk,
    though.

    Perhaps you can make a contact at IronCAD and they will tell
    you the truth ? Perhaps not. You could always try Mike Payne
    at Spatial. I've talked (more like listened) to Mike Payne
    before and I was very pleasantly surprised. To bad Mike
    Hanson is not with Spatial anymore. He could easily handle
    your attitude and have a good laugh. :>)

    On the other hand, you could just continue to do what you
    normally do... make no real effort and stay totally ignorant
    on what the real problems are behind the curtain.

    One last suggestion, Paul :

    Don't demand that the person willing educate you on the difference
    between ACIS and Parasolid *pay you* because you are willing
    to listen to what they have to say. This would probably go over
    about as well as your demands that SolidWorks Corp. pay you
    to beta test.

    Hope this helped,

    jon
     
    jon banquer, Nov 17, 2003
    #29
  10. JB

    jon banquer Guest

    You might also want to see if Alibre will talk with you.
    The seem like very nice people to me. Always responsive
    to anything I ask for.

    Naturally, Alibre uses the ACIS kernel and they plan on
    making Alibre a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler in the second
    quarter of next year.

    Hope you finally decide to do the work,

    jon
     
    jon banquer, Nov 17, 2003
    #30
  11. Nah, don't think so, everyone wants to see your FACTS, Jon.
    Educate us with FACTS, Jon.

    And/or have your name dropping developer buddies (now on the list, Mike
    Payne and Mike Hansen) explain publicly to all of us about your
    parasolid claims!?

    You keep mentioning FACTS, so, show them.

    Spin the SUHM wheel... and see where the avoid-o-rama indicator points..

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Nov 17, 2003
    #31
  12. Avoid-o-rama.... nah, we all just want the FACTS you claim...

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Nov 17, 2003
    #32
  13. JB

    jon banquer Guest

    Paul,

    I could find nothing productive in your posts so I'll just
    add this:

    It's very unfortunate that you won't grow up and start
    having adult conversations with people like software
    developers so that you would have some idea why products
    don't work like you would like them to work.

    Instead, you remain hopelessly lost on why the products you
    use don't work like they should work. I've noticed this
    about you since the days in the autodesk newsgroups.

    I think your the only user that I know that alienated
    Dominic Gallello who was truly a nice man and very helpful
    to both me and the company that I was doing consulting for
    at the time. Dominic once called me on a Sunday morning at
    home to let me know that an issue that concerned my client
    had been resolved.

    Here is hoping you realize that your approach is failing you
    and leading you to much frustration because you don't know
    what really causes your problems and that you actually do
    something about it as I have suggested to you.

    Should you decide to do something please make sure that
    your research is through like mine is. I accomplish this by
    talking with multiple sources. You should too !

    Best of luck to you in your effort to find out why your
    having so many problems with SolidWorks surfacing / splines.
    I think it's high time you did the work and got some real
    answers to your problems with SolidWorks.

    Hope your enjoying Concepts !!!

    www.cadsoft-usa.com

    Concepts should have a user newsgroup in the next few months,
    perhaps sooner. In the mean time feel free to use their toll free
    number.

    1-800-477-5721


    jon
     
    jon banquer, Nov 17, 2003
    #33
  14. Try and change the subject and drop all the names you want, Jon.

    We all are waiting for your FACTS, Jon.

    ...
     
    Paul Salvador, Nov 17, 2003
    #34
  15. JB

    jon banquer Guest

    We all are waiting for your FACTS, Jon.

    The FACTS have already been shown. You have offered nothing
    to refute the FACTS because you can't.

    The FACT is that it's not my problem that you wish to remain
    ignorant of the issues.

    Here are the FACTS restated for you once again:

    The FACT is that no one has been able to create a
    seamless, unified, hybrid modeler with Parasolid with the
    exception of UGS PLM Solutions.

    The FACT is that you have proven for many years that you
    don't understand why SolidWorks has the problems it has.

    The FACT is that you are unable to communicate with
    software developers so that you have an idea where the
    problems lie.

    The FACT is that Concepts at $995 is a better pure modeler in
    many ways than SolidWorks.

    The FACT is that Concepts is built on ACIS.

    The FACT is that Concepts offers a seamless, unified, hybrid
    approach to modeling that is not in evidence in SolidWorks.

    The FACT is you can't show any proof of a seamless, unified
    hybrid modeler built by someone else besides UGS PLM
    Solutions that is based on ACIS. Not a single one !!!

    The FACT is that Concepts makes a product like Rhino
    unnecessary.

    The FACT is that Concepts is an excellent way to translate
    CATIA files.

    The FACT is that you have not offered up a single FACT in
    any of your last four posts in this thread.

    The FACT is until you offer up PROOF that any of the above
    is NOT true that I'm done responding to your nonsense.


    jon
     
    jon banquer, Nov 17, 2003
    #35
  16. Again, prove that the tools do not exist in parasolid.

    ...


    ....snip side stepping bs...
     
    Paul Salvador, Nov 17, 2003
    #36
  17. JB

    hoser_71 Guest

    If you don't mind paying EDS big $$$ to get support, that's fine for
    you. Solidworks and Inventor have great online support supported by
    the user base that's totally free, and from what I've seen will handle
    95% of the questions out there. With more users there are more people
    willing to help, and create some great web pages, tutorials, and
    macros. The software companies are great at knowing the software
    specifics, but the user base helps make the software complete.
     
    hoser_71, Nov 20, 2003
    #37
  18. JB

    Ken Guest

    And if you want service packs as well as updates that are released approx.
    every six months, you will pay the $$$ to any of the three to get them. So
    unless you want to draw a line in the sand and fade into history with your
    software, you are paying maintenance!

    Ken
     
    Ken, Nov 21, 2003
    #38
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
Loading...