Mark Biasotti on Wildfire vs. SolidWorks

Here's a nicely done comparison of Wildfire and SolidWorks as ID tools,
based on Mark Biasotti's input:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solidworks/select/cadcamnet_proe_vs_solidworks.htm

I was a little surprised by the comparison of Pro/E's Boundary Surface with
SW's Loft with Guide Curves, since Fill Surfaces weren't mentioned. Either
I'm missing something or the writer misinterpreted Mark. I suspect it's the
former and would love to here what I missed.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

From just the free part of this article:

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/solidworks/select/cadcamnet_proe_vs_solidworks.htm

"SolidWorks can't assign tangency or C2 matching at curve endpoints."

"Although SolidWorks enables adjacent lofted surfaces to be tangent,
it can't assure continuous curvature (C2) between two surfaces"

"Unfortunately SolidWorks can't connect 3dsketch splines end-to-end
with continuous curvature."

"Unfortunately, SolidWorks can't make guide curves tangent or C2
continuous with adjacent surfaces"

After reading this why even pay for the rest as ISDX II
is not even covered in the free part of this article ???

jon

 

Hey, jerry.. the link is broken. Can you copy and paste it here?

Works fine for me.

jon

 

Hey, jerry.. the link is broken. Can you copy and paste it here?

 

I have already gotten a few e-mails asking for an explanation of what
C2 surfacing is and what the hell is it needed for. :>)

I like this simple definition:

http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2000/Aug/10/feature3.phtm

"Surfaces are classified in three different ways: C0, C1 and C2 according to
the degree of contin-uity (smoothness) of the surface.

A C0 surface has one or more breaks in its continuity. A break in continuity
of a surface is an abrupt change in surface direction. For example two flat
sheets of metal joined at right angles have an abrupt change in continuity
at the right angle. They form a C0 surface.

A C1 surface has one or more changes in curvature that could cause serious
problems to the cutter of a machine tool. For example, the cutter could
gouge into the metal surface when the curvature changes. You might ask what'
s the difference then between a C0 and a C1 surface. Well, a C0 surface has
no tangency at the discontinuity, whereas a C1 surface does have tangency.
For example, a C1 surface could be made by joining a flat sheet of metal to
a curved sheet of metal, such that the flat and the curve are tangential
across the joint. Gouging can still occur where the sheets join, especially
if the curvature is too much for the machine tool.

C2 surfaces are, as you have probably guessed, the bee's knees. C2 surfaces
have continuous curvature."


jon

 

As explained by Joe Greco:

"C0, C1 and C2 Surface Conditions

Generally, there are three kinds of boundary
conditions in a surface model. C0 refers to surfaces
that are just touching but could potentially have a
shape corner or crease; possible manufacturing
problems can result. C1 refers to a tangent (smooth)
condition, and C2 to a consistent continuous tangent
curvature. With C2, the boundary is imperceptible to
the eye-you can't see were one surface begins and
where on ends."

jon

 

www.caddigest.com times out for me as does the link below.

 

"Coincidently, I just signed up for the free month trial a
week ago and was able to enjoy the entire article."

Hmmm.... seems like a good idea. However, if you don't
mind, I'm going to skip ALL the Alan Christman CIMDATA "CAM
reviews" that companies have to *pay* to have done. Pretty sad state
of affairs that scam is and it has been frequently discussed on
alt.machines.cnc

One gets much better CAD/CAM advise on alt.machines.cnc or
at www.cnczone.com for free !

I wonder if Solidworks deform feature is compared to Pro/E
Wildfire ? If it is, that should be an very interesting
comparison !


jon

 

"SolidWorks' Deform is immature and often can't achieve the
desired results. For example, if a designer tries to deform
a SolidWorks model too much, the feature will fail,
producing an error message. Sometimes deformations fail even
when the graphic preview suggests they should work."

Might be interesting to discuss the reasons behind *why*
Mark Biasotti did this review. :>)



jon

 

I should add that Alan Christman of CIMDATA use to work for
Control Data which was the parent company for ICEM. Alan
Christman use to be a fairly sharp guy but his knowledge in
recent years has not kept up and lately he seems to really
have "sold out". At one point, you could get some useful
info out of what he wrote. I find very little of use these
days.


jon

 

Jon,

Cadcamnet is the web site for Steven Wolf's stuff "Computer Aided Design
Report". It's probably the "only" non biased publication of it's kind. It's
not affiliated with CIMDATA or any other similar organization.

Regards

Mark

 

I did copy and paste it. Did word wrap mess it up on your reader? If not, I
don't know what the problem is.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

Hi Mark,

"Cadcamnet is the web site for Steven Wolf's stuff
"Computer Aided Design Report". It's probably the "only"
non biased publication of it's kind. It's not affiliated
with CIMDATA or any other similar organization."

If you follow this link you will see that cadcamnet has a
whole bunch of reports done by CIMDATA :

http://www.cadcamnet.com/Sections/cadcam/cam.htm

I think the idea is to broaden their appeal.

As for Steven Wolf's stuff:

I use to read his Computer Aided Design Report years ago. I
agree it and he were excellent. I always enjoyed how they
ripped PTC to shreds for many of their practices. I also
remember how favorably they treated SolidWorks as a viable
alternative and supported SolidWorks when IMO SolidWorks
Corp. deserved to be supported. They were also very honest
in describing the constant BS from Autodesk.

I have an opinion on why Mark Biasotti helped / basically
wrote this comparison and I hope it does some good. I don't
feel, however, that this comparison will get properly
discussed and analyzed in this newsgroup... which IMO is
very unfortunate.

jon

 

Thanks Mark B. for sharing this info!

Yes, but the real question now for you to decide is:

How can the body of the powerful "Mach 5" be CNC machined to
"Pops" satisfaction without the needed C2 tangency and
curvature continuous surfacing tools being in SolidWorks ???

How will your client, "Pops" and his driver "Speed" feel
when Racer X shop is using a seamless, unified, hybrid
modeler that can get the job done ??? I would not want to be
in your shoes bro when "Pops" stuffs you in the trunk with
"Spridle" and "Chim-chim". ;>)

Your probably not going to be in favor with "Trixie" either,
dude. :>)

The next episode featuring Racer X taking the long deserved
glory and win (Lets face it Rex always got the shaft just
cause he did not take any crap from "Pops"... what a
dysfunctional family. :>) ) will probably rub it in when you
see the seamless, unified, hybrid modeling VX Vision sponsor
sticker on the Racer X car. No doubt, in the background will
be all the fans cheering madly for Racer X.

The moral of our story:

You can't win when you don't have the proper seamless, unified,
hybrid modeling tools to get the job done.

jon