Quit your surface whining!

I design automotive automation equipment and I like Solidworks. I don't
care much about surfacing, for what I need it works wonderful. For the
price and what it can do I think it's a wonderful program. Yes, there
are programs that can do more surfacing stuff. So what? If you need
that, buy other software!! It is called SOLIDworks, you know! I am
eternally thankful that I don't have to work with autocad anymore!!

 

Ok, if that were all the world needed was just solids, that would be fine.
and if that is all SW wants to offer, then fine. BUT that is not the case,
SW is offering. Solidworks IS offering surfacing. And you dont just give
something that is 1/2 assed and not as good as other products that can offer
the same thing for 1/4 the cost.

My beef, when it comes to surfacing is that, surfacing has been around for
years. I stress YEARS. Alias and Rhino alone have at least 10 years under
their belts of doing just that. There is NO reason why, by now, NURB
surfacing could not have been included in the program. Yes it is a
solidmodeler. But solid tools alone cannot and do not rule the world. Maybe
in your world that is all you need. But for me, I would like to stay as much
in the same program as possible.

Imagine if I said to you, "hey you can build 3D model but when it comes to
technical drawings, you have to go back to ACAD"? Just because you dont see
why something is needed does not mean that it is not something that can be
useful.

 

somtimes i start with a solid then i turn it into a surface and back
to a solid. other times i start with surfaces and turn it into a solid
as the final step. i find these kinds of design methods are better
then just working with solids. you should look into surfaces they are
there for a reson. i also think solidworks is a awsome product. ill
put all my eggs in there basket.

who are you addressing this thred too?

 

Arthur have you looked a Shapeworks?

In time I bet SW will incorporate shapeworks into SW... somehow.

I just started getting into Surfaces in the last year and I haven't seen a
problem using the surfaces to get what I was after. Don't get me wrong I
have fought it sometimes but I always got what I wanted. My hardest project
for surfaces was the mask I did for that Bionicle.
http://www.scottjbaugh.com/Desktop images/Bionicle Image1.jpg If it
wasn't for SW04 I might not have gotten it finished.

Regards,
Scott

 

Scott, yeah I tried shapeworks. I loved it. I have been trying to get the
company I work for to purchase it but hey red tape galore. Plus they dont
see the reason for it when I get 99% of everything done that they send my
way. I just tell it, it would make my life a whole lot easier.

 

Well, Mart, since your solids are made of surfaces... you actually have
always used surfaces.

That is, you are and always have been a surfacing user. And, SW did
ship it's first release with some basic surface features.

Makes you want to go..... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, doesn't it?

Anyhow, the issue has been about adding surfacing tools or editing
surfaces or nurbs as well as curve/spline tools (which are the
foundation for the surfaces and the foundation for solids). SW Corp
knows by now what is needed and SW is actually behind the curve for
adding these tools. Unfortunately the users will have to wait until the
competition begins making SW look bad and have more examples they can
rip-off and more users start asking for these tools.
(btw, imho, the majority of you prismatic users are the ones slowing
down this process.)

I agree most users do not use surfacing tools but I will wage that when
most users experience the advantages they can offer to their design or
feature content, it's only a matter of time. Then,... years later,...
you'll say, how could they have not included these tools? Sad thing is,
I know most of you 9-5's would not know the diff and don't give a rats.

Otherwise, regardless, because SW has not had enough competition and the
majority of their users are prismatic users, the release of the tools
has been very slow.
Ah, but when sales weaken... and sales/marketing twits get challenged
more,... they will have to push it. It's already happening, finally.
It's always a good sign when prismatic users complain about surfacing.

We surfacing users have to thank the competition demons for what they
can offer... which of course will later be marketed as user requested
features = BS!

.....the next release, sp and annual subscription games continue...

...

 

Sounds like making your life easier isn't very high on your manager's
priorities. (Why am I not surprised?) Tell him you can get your work done
faster. Take a couple of designs you struggled with and estimate how much
time you would have saved. Estimate how much time you would save in the next
year.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

Different strokes for different folks. I don't have to do fancy drawings,
but I don't get upset when other folks in the group complain righteously
about how poor SW does compared to AutoCAD or any other software. Try not to
take it personally when I complain that SW surfaces are a pain in the ass.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

In time I bet SW will incorporate shapeworks into SW...

I don't know about ShapeWorks but if you mean the proper
surfacing routines finding their way into SolidWorks
then "somehow" equals one or more of the following taking
place :

1. ACIS kernel becomes the main modeling kernel in
SolidWorks. Since Spatial lost their suit against Autodesk I
don't see the wait being much longer. I also see the ACIS
kernel making it's way into CATIA in the near future.

2. D-Cubed making 3D-DCM robust.

3. Autodesk delivering on the promises just announced for
Shape Manager and actually implementing them in Inventor...
not just talking about them.

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=3658056&linkID=3016263

"The Autodesk ShapeManager geometric modeling kernel is a
purpose-built, feature-based modeling engine unique to
Autodesk, which is fine-tuned for the demands of 3D users in
the manufacturing marketplace. It is derived from ACIS®, a
generic 3D modeling technology available from Spatial Corp.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of competitor Dassault Systemes.
By managing its own geometric modeling kernel development,
Autodesk provides its mechanical design software an edge in
the market unmatched by competitors and demonstrates the
company's commitment to the manufacturing marketplace.

"ShapeManager gives our customers the power they need to
create higher quality designs," said Robert Kross, vice
president of the Manufacturing Solutions Division at
Autodesk. "With each release of the Autodesk Inventor Series
we increase functionality of the ShapeManager kernel to
boost performance, robustness, and overall quality so our
users reap more advanced benefits from our software. Because
of the rich development of our ShapeManager kernel,
competitive products that rely upon generic modeling
technology are now at a disadvantage."

"The goal of developing a dedicated 3D modeling kernel was to incorporate it
in Autodesk design software, particularly Autodesk Inventor, to allow users
to design more complex parts and modify more complex virtual models than
they could with the generic ACIS kernel, and to provide increasing
application stability and performance, all of which require sophisticated
mathematical computations to define and communicate three-dimensional design
intent. Autodesk continues to support a dedicated development team with
substantial experience in solid modeling to develop ShapeManager for the
Autodesk Inventor software application and fine-tune it for the demands of
3D users in the manufacturing marketplace."

Without any of the above happening I see no / very little
progress becuase SolidWorks Corp. is clearly unwilling to
spend the need R&D money.

When SolidWorks does have the needed surfacing this would
allow something like a Camaro Z/28 to be modeled so that it
is manufacturable / looks real rather than looking like a
toy model. When this happens it would be nice if SolidWorks
included some of the reverse engineering tools that are included
with VX's Vision (no extra charge) as this would also help in
producing the above. :>)


jon

 

somtimes i start with a solid then i turn it into a surface and back

Well stated.

jon

 

"I design automotive automation equipment and I like
Solidworks. I don't care much about surfacing, for what I
need it works wonderful."

Ever wanted to design something that had smooth flowing
lines ? Would it not be nice to have the tools to be easily
able to do this ? What if your next job required this ?
Do you want to be forced to learn a new tool just because
SolidWorks Corp. was remiss on giving users the
proper tools ?

"For the price and what it can do I think it's a wonderful
program."

Unless your doing large assemblies, basic solid modelers are
going to sell for 1,000 to 1,500.

"Yes, there are programs that can do more surfacing stuff.
So what? If you need that, buy other software!!"

SolidWorks is now promoted and sold as an Industrial Design
tool. Why should SolidWorks not do what an Industrial
Designer needs it to do ? Why should they have to "buy
other software" because SolidWorks does not have the
needed tools ?

"I am eternally thankful that I don't have to work with
autocad anymore!!"

If SolidWorks Corp. does not broaden and expand their
limited market you will have less choices in the future. The
program will die and you might just end up back on AutoCAD.

You view of SolidWorks and the world seems to be very limited.
Consider taking a broader approach rather than your extremely
narrow view.

jon

 

Jeff,

"Jon, your regurgitating all that Adesk marketing ether
without some comment on how far it is from reality is cause
to question your credibility."

The following is taken from my previous post:

"3. Autodesk delivering on the promises just announced for
Shape Manager and actually implementing them in Inventor...
not just talking about them."

You stated:

"I'm rather confident that Autodesk's ShapeManager is not
going to be a market driving force in the near future where
advanced surfacing functions are concerned."

1. A SolidWorks user needing decent surfacing better pray
your wrong.

2. IMO, Autodesk will deliver because it's a major feature
that would distinguish Inventor from most of the rest of the
mid-priced crowd.

3. It would restore some of Autodesk's long lost
credibility.

Frankly, Jeff I don't see where Autodesk has much of a
choice. If they fail to make a major impact to distinguish
Inventor, then very soon Autodesk will lose market share that
they will never be able to be recovered / will be insanely difficult
and expensive to recover.

The window for software vendors who have been delivering
half baked / half assed incomplete solid only modeling
products is closing. Unfortunately it has not closed by now.
By next year the scene is going to be radically different.
Much more so than anytime in the last 5 years as powerful
hybrid surface modeling finally arrives in more mid-priced
formerly solid only products. My money says Autodesk's
Inventor will be there.

SolidWorks should have been there at least 3 years ago.

jon

 

The nice thing about Jon Banquer's messages, I know I can ignore them
without missing anything. I didn't even read this one. I doubt I missed
anything.

"At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent
thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul."

___________________
Todd Bennett
Celerity Group, Inc
tbennett<nospam>@celerity.net

 

Hi!

I just discovered on the Internet that you claim Spatial will change
the kernel in SolidWorks to Acis - as a result of the lawsuit between
Spatial and Autodesk.

1. Where does this info come from?
2. What's your position?
3. How do I know it is true?
4. What will happen to Parasolid in Solid Works?

Please contact me immediately. I am presently writing an article about
this case and I have deadline today.

Best regards,
Claes Philipson

 

Great, a writer of some rag getting information from a freaking troll!?

Ahm,.. clue for the writer, the guy does not use the product or any
design tool for that matter.

What he typically does (for the past ~6 years) is copy/paste articles
and then acts as if he is in the know about those tools.
He also drops names of people in the business to build another facade of
being in connection with the industry.

So, writer, why would he do such a thing??? For shame, getting footnote
information to build credibility... using buzz words to attract
interest.... writing about stuff you know nothing about.... makes one
think.....

Hmm, yeah... makes one think... but then again, why are you on a
deadline getting information from a troll??

Sad reality is, in many ways, this guy and you are very similar, no?
What mold did you guys get injected out of??

How much do you all want to bet that this writer or other will someday
quote the troll about continuous tangent continuity in some rag??

Ask him writer,...
Where does this info come from? "I copied/pasted truthful rag info"
What is his position? "Ahm,.. well, I'm a troll, I regurgitate stuff"
How do I know it is true? "The articles said so, I copy/paste them"
What will happen to Parasolid..? "It will go to kernel husk heaven"

...the insanity and BS continues......

(sorry, my coffee is not kicking in yet)

 

Oh, if this is you, Claes, the troll you might feed and get info from is
an american who loves to copy/paste press releases...

Re: Press Releases
"I don't understand why so many American companies don't understand the
difference between a press release and advertising material. In our
country, such excessive superlatives are usually counterproductive since
it hides the real news behind a curtain of advertisement statements. If
companies would understand that, our job [as CAD journalists] would be
considerably easier."
- Claes Philipson
Sweden

...

 

"1. Where does this info come from?"

Applying common sense... which is often not in evidence on
usenet would be a good start. :>)

This tread "Quit your surface whining!" is an excellent example.

"2. What's your position?"

Right now I'm sitting down. I spent most of today on my
feet. ;>)

"3. How do I know it is true?"

The same way others found out that I was correct because I
stated for years in this newsgroup that support for disjoint
solids was necessary and that SolidWorks would implement
them. SolidWorks Corp. actually had been working on redoing
their database in SolidWorks for years prior. Disjoint
solids was just not a priority for SolidWorks Corp.
management. It was for the software engineers who code
SolidWorks, however.

"4. What will happen to Parasolid in Solid Works?"

It will no longer be the main modeling kernel in SolidWorks.

My turn to ask you questions: :>)

1. Name a Parasolid based system that has anything close to
a unified, seamless approach to using surfaces and solids
besides Unigraphics ? Why is this ?

2. When you talk with developers what do they have to say
about why they elect to go with ACIS rather than Parasolid ?

You have made the effort to talk with ACIS developers who have
a long track record of producing innovative products like FastSOLID
/ FastSURF (Dave Reyburn) Ashlar Cobalt, and now Concepts
(Tim Olson), Cimatron, etc. right ?

What do they tell you ? ;>)

3. What does Parasolid lack that ACIS has got that makes it
much easier to create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler ?

4. Why did Autodesk choose to base much of their future on further
development of the ACIS kernel and elect to go this route ? Why
was Parsolid never even considered ?


jon

[/QUOTE]

 

I thought Claes would step in to clarify things but I just wanted to pass
along something since he hasn't. I had some of the same concerns as Paul
about someone assuming that the information source was worthwhile. Clae's
inquiry in the NG was just one step in his validification process. He just
hadn't yet completed his due diligence when he made that post. Anyway, he
told me that he had checked out the source and got a snoot full of the Jon
and Cliffy show. Needless to say, he recognizes them for what they are and
does not plan to include anything from them in his article.

JJ