Geometry Lock

Geometry Lock has been mentioned on a few sites as of late.

That is, STOP the features from REBUILDING at a point in time.

For instance,.. an example of SolidWorks Corp's POOR PROGRAMMING...
Remove or delete a NON releted feature (even a sketch of a sketch
image or a simple unrelated feature) and the WHOLE feature list
rebuilds!?!?!?!?!?!

TOTALLY UNPRODUCTIVE PISS POOR PROGRAMMING!!!!

This have been happening since I've used this PIECE OF CRAP modeler
back in 1998!!!

I wanted to remind people that this NOT NEW, it has been a LONG OVER
DUE REQUEST where by SolidWorks Corp has CONTINUED to NOT APPLY NEEDED
CUSTOMER REQUEST to enhance PERFORMANCE and PRODUCTIVITY!!!!!

Instead, SolidWorks Corp CONTINUES to release HALF BAKED UNPRODUCTIVE
CRAP the users DO NOT NEED or WANT! Or, add crap AutoCad users miss/
need!?!?!!?

So, if you have some free time.... please, write to SolidWorks Corp
and tell them to STICK IT UP THEIR ASS!!!!

Thanks.. 8^)

 

ok..that was nice... how far should they stick it? you must be
more specific if you are to get results...you should know that from
experience with constraints.


I have inventor pro. 2008 a little arcane around the edges...and in
many aspects not as slick at SolidWorks... and it appears SW is easier
to use and to learn, but i dont know actually

comments?


Phil scott

 

Choose your unit of measure, or however deep you prefer it be,.. I
could careless.

Well, well, well,... I don't know, I know.... what are constraints,..
I've never heard of constraints!????

Wow... that is news to me.. and I've used 3D since the late
eighties... oh boy, learn something every day...

Inventor??? Please,.. go to the AutoDe$k newsgroup. Now, that is a
company who knows 3D and how far to stick it up!???

Anyhow, back to reality,.. or, if you did know anything about
SolidWorks or constraint based solvers,.. the rebuilds happen with
entities and features which DO NOT HAVE CONSTRAINTS, OR PARENTS
(default planes), FOR THIS TO HAPPEN! It's called.... PISS POOR
PROGRAMMING! It's really that simple.

Ah,... never mind,.. maybe this has always been the problem with
SolidWorks and other dysfunctional 3D programs... the majority of
users don't have a FUCKING CLUE how to use the program!?!?!?

...

 

Ah,... never mind,.. maybe this has always been the problem with

You could take a break and download IronCAD V10 and see if it really
does a much better job with large assemblies like they claim. I wish I
had the time right now. Spending all my time working with the
developers of HSMWorks because CAM is badly lagging CAD.

www.hsmworks.com

"Single design environment - IronCAD is very unique in that it does
not require the support of a separate assembly and part file, instead
it only requires a single file which has the ability to support both
parts and assemblies seamlessly. This approach allows the user to
effortlessly move between part and assembly design. It allows parts to
be created in context to the full assembly model without having to
setup a constraint relationship first. This fully-integrated
environment allows the user to let the assembly structure evolve
within a single file, and and at any time link out or insert files as
required to create the desired assembly structure."

"In context design - Traditional CAD systems create what is called a
feature tree that captures the order in which the features were
combined to create the model. When you want to edit a feature in this
tree all the features that occur after that point in the history are
blanked out. Software that utilizes this approach creates a non-
productive situation for the user because many times the feature they
would like to reference has been removed. IronCAD does not have this
restriction. A user can reference any visible feature on a part while
making any required changes. This makes it both easier and faster for
the user."

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

GET THE **** OUT OF HERE YOU SOB!!!

...

 

LOL ;o)

 

ya...welll I was interested in DOOFUS CAD but you have screwwed that
up for me.

that leaves me STUCK with Inventor where i have to constrain every
little thing or it screws up when all I want to do is make a living
hussling business for fab shops.

and for YOUR information.. constraint means clicking the little fix
point button a lot.
whatever.. we know what you dknow now....zipppp. and you TRASHED
DOOFUS CAD.

OK now here is a test to sse if you have been around long enough...
what color were the diamonds and who the hell is little darlin?

well... out with it....

I thought so NO dAMN CLOO.




..

 

Paul,

I think they do that now in a totally transparent and uncontrolable
way. If you have tried to get a model, drawing or assembly to totally
rebuild at some point you will realize that nothing you can do will
always get the job done. But something like a roll back bar that stops
activity above it isn't a bad thought if it is possible. A feature
tree that shows where the branchs are wouldn't be a bad thing either.

TOP
(The Other Paul)

 

A feature tree that shows where the branchs are wouldn't be a bad thing either.

No shit, Sherlock. Making the FeatureManager easy to follow
(especially when you didn't create the part / assembly) should be the
top priority for SolidWorks 2009. I can't think of anything that needs
to be revamped in SolidWorks more than this.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

Odd timing - I was at a user group two weeks ago and Lloyd Beachy, in
missionary mode, handed me a sheet with this exact enhancement
request on it hoping I would sign on to it.

The real drag is that THIS WOULD BE EASY TO IMPLEMENT (except for the
"caveat", below). But dopn't let the caveat stop it - even if it was
half done, it would be better than not doing it.

Paul, you of course remember the bad old days when we couldn't roll
back a part at all without it rebuilding from the very top of the
tree. This went away circa 2003 (I don't remember the exact release,
but it was around then). This is because SolidWorks now saves
parasolid snapshots of the model at various points in the feature tree
so when we rollback or make changes we only have to rebuild from the
last snapshot - not from the top. This is called 'partitioned
rollback'

This was one of the reasons (I suspect) Thilo stepped up and improved
ecosqueeze - he wanted to remove parasolid info because that was
causing mega-bloat in our files. Anyone want to know why your files
are getting so huge? Partition rollback is the biggest cause, and
that's what ecosqueeze removes when you tell it to remove parasolid
data. New folks - check out, experiment with, and cherish ecosqueeze
at http://www.ecocom.com/eng/index00.htm

So I think the path to glory on your request has two parts:

1) when you delete a feature, SolidWorks checks to see if there are
dependents. There is already a parent-child list so this info is
already available. Any of you macro guys want to chime in, here is
your opening - seems like it would be easy to me (except for the
"Caveat", below).

2) When you open a part from an earlier version of SolidWorks, we know
it's a crapshoot on whether it will rebuild the same (or at all).
What gets me is that there is already parasolid snapshots behind the
scenes, so why can't we use it? Here's the case - last week I opened
a job from 2005 and needed to make a new part to fit it. Of course
the 2005 part erupted in bloody errors that prevented anything from
rebuilding, and even if it did rebuild there is no guarantee that the
features will rebuild the same. Fortunately we had an IGES of the
original released part lying around that we could use to for
references to make the new part (tips to the newbies - always save a
parasolid or IGES of all released products so you can reference a
locked version of your geometries if you need to do any other
development in a later release!)
The thing that gets my goat is that the feature tree of that part from
2005 probably already has the parasolid info locked into its tree.
Why can't I get an option to use that instead?


The promised "Caveat" - This is what I bet Solid Work's line will be
- what about equations? For instance, if I have an offset plane in my
part, and if I have another dim in a sketch that through an equation
is set to be related to the offset-dim of that plane, I have a
problem. A parent-child on that plane shows no children, but if I
delete the plane the equation is now in error.

There are also in-context ramifications - parent parts don't know
about their kids except when child relations are made to the sketch in
the parent (a tag is left somehow, and will let you know that there
are outside relations when you try to delete a referenced segment,
though you don't know if it is local or through the assembly - it's
weird, and I bet no one in Concord actually knows this)
SolidWorks would have to take on a major project to clean this all up
and have it make sense. Without adding more to an already long post,
it's a big nut for them and it is far easier to just-make-us rebuild
than actually work it out. Maybe around 2015 they will finally clean
up their references, get all kids under their parents so we can see
everything that parts already know, add new stuff they need to know,
and otherwise get all this stuff in line. Sorry to end with a bummer,
but I think this is what's going on and why you have to rebuild.

Ed