matts blog ( again) 14 Feb - destined for Walmart

I see matt is having a wee rave on his blog again about SW development.
I thought I should counter this just for balance and to stimulate thought.
Not that we ever get much of a discussion going about these things here.

Some time ago when I posted to this group more often I suggested that SW
could be picking up game technology for use in CAD.
At that time SW had achieved quite a lot with the product and was facing
uncertainty about where to go next.
It was apparent that the largest innovation in 3d was being done in other
graphics sectors.
To my mind there is no reason why this borrowing should not take place
provided the look and feel is tailored for technical use.
I suggested that there was no good reason why a digital calculator should
look like an abacus and no fixed requirement why CAD should remain rooted in
AutoCAD type icon swatches
I have also made other suggestions including emerging technology like MS
SeaDragon in CAD which many people would find even more incongruous.
Indeed extrapolating this notion you could actually completely re arrange
the engineering mindset to be more about information exploration and
refinement than carefully controlled sequential projects executed by
specialists
Far from being junk crammed in to a CAD program I see it may well be that
the junk is going to be the real tool and that CAD is only going to be a sub
module of it
We will be taking advantage of automation not only to take the donkey work
out of projects but to make them self propagating and adjusting.
I see CAD as such to be less important in the future of design than
traditionalists would like
In fact I am going to throw in a new idea and state that the next pursuit
should be a move to a more holistic approach where the design process is
replaced by a readily re-orderable database of information, images and even
sound and where drawings become largely museum pieces
I think the real items destined for the bargain bin are the people and
businesses who don't reach forward with an open mind as to what part
technology can play in their endeavours

have a nice day all

 

the design process is

Sounds a lot like SolidWorks does already--or if you want easier to
use interfacing, add in say Driveworks and a decent PLM or PDM
package.

After all, it is a model driven environment already, the database
ability is there with or without an addin, (toolbox for an example)
and if you want you can add images and sound into the Design Binder.

Just needs a fancy GUI and you have what you mention, no?

It might be possible for the GUI to happen without SolidWorks being
changed at all, and simply hook the GUI and file accesses portion into
SolidWorks from Vista.

All in all the biggest hold backs to drawingless design is third party
vendors and customer wants for documentation.

--Matt

 

Not that we ever get much of a discussion going about these things here.

I believe that at the core of the problem is that SolidWorks users
won't admit that they don't have easy control / an easy way to
understand parts and assemblies they receive from others.

http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/68359/HowwasthatmodelbuiltSoftwaretellsall.aspx

"Designers often rebuild designs from scratch rather than spend time
to understand how models were built."

If your interface ideas help a SolidWorks user more quickly gain
understanding of parts and assemblies they receive from others I'm all
for them. If this doesn't happen it opens the door wider for products
like SpaceClaim.

Also, is there some reason that some of the ideas that SolidMap has
for displaying relationships can't be adopted by SolidWorks? IMO, this
should be the main focus of SolidWorks 2009.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

Sounds a lot like SolidWorks does already - exactly so - its there, its

now that they have arrived perhaps they can restate the tools to work in a
more useful way -
rather than have paths to specific detail with CAD at the centre perhaps
something like SeaDragon can take us in to the creative engineering process
or interrogate it through multiple entry points
so rather than being presented with a 'blank screen' ( I am sure he didn't
actually mean that cos its very funny) we are actually in need of a portal
to an engineering mindmap - that is ,not 'blank' but 'open' to the users
definition
depending on who you are the information is presented to suit your
requirements
in this way the interface can appear as a particular discipline prefers it
and provide an on the fly translation service.
hmmm...food for thought anyway

 

It wouldn't surprise me if this was something they might implement but
not without catching hell from the general base of users.
We all know how interface changes seem to bring out the squeeky
wheels. It's a tough row to hoe for SW who no doubt knows they have
to progress in overall look and feel and keep modern and applicable
yet limit the pain to users who have a different agenda--namely
producing designs.

--Matt

 

[
Let me know if you want some
URL's for companies that make first rate spreadsheet components. If Bill Gibbs
used such a component, BOTH the use of internal and external spreadsheets could
....
] - Dec 16 2000 by jon_banquer

"The D- cubed components handle the solving while Solid Edge
handles the shape presentation. " - jon banquer on Oct 23 2003

[
The Spatial Deformable
Husk shows that software components, from various
vendors, will drive the innovation. As a user, I feel the
more you understand about the various components
that are available and that are in you software, the better.

I was driven to understand this when imported IGES
always failed when using an ACIS based modeler.
] - Jon Banquer on Oct 21 1998

"I am a big believer in component technology. GSSL is doing some of the most
incredible stuff I know of." - Oct 22 1998 by Jon Banquer

"The flexible architecture also allows the stand-alone DM library (known
as the Spatial Deformable Modeler) component to be integrated into" - Oct 21
1998 by Jon Banquer

"They want to be in the software component business. These are math guys, not
interface guy's I think AeroHydro has had to go this route to prove what they
can do. ..." - Nov 10 1998 by Jon Banquer

"I am a big believer in component technology." - Jon Banquer

"Who company recently spun off this 3rd party component because it does so
well ?" - Sep 25 2003 by jon banquer

"Interchangeable components are a radical new concept started by people like
Eli Whitney a few years ago. I think this radical new concept has a chance of
catching on."

"Sandy, I am all for component software. Anyone who thinks they have
to make every part of their software themselves is acting like a 6 year old" -
Sep 27 1998 by Jon Banquer (I think)

"third party components? ... thinkdesign / thinkshape, etc.
do... which is rely less on the third party component developers to come up with
all the needed solutions. I have no problem with using third party components.
...." - Sep 22 2003 by jon banquer

"Needless to say we live in a component world. How long is it going to take
PTC to understand what Eli Whitney helped pioneer ???" - Oct 19 1998 by Jon
Banquer

"I'm a big supporter of component software" - Jon Banquer Feb 2 2000

He's got hunderds of posts on how great third-party components are ...

Jon Banquer / got his head handed to him
in autodesk.mcad.marketing <G>. I'd never spotted that before.
He was utterly clueless & full of copied buzzwords & BS & they saw
it right away it seems. Pretty funny.


http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...keting&start=0&scoring=d&lr=&safe=off&num=10&