SolidWorks World 2007 - Call for Papers

http://www.solidworks.com/pages/swworld_cfp/call_for_papers.html

 

Richard,

It would be interersting to find out what topics people want see
presented.

TOP

 

It would be interersting to find out what topics people want see

When I ran into McEleney in the hall at SW a few weeks ago, he said
people are asking for more advanced stuff to be presented at SWW. In my
user group travels, the popular topics are usually the general ones like
Tips and Tricks. I'm always surprised at the things people find
interesting, and sometimes how presenters at SWW take a great topic and
squander it. There's a reseller employee who does a filleting and a
working with imported geometry presentation. I think these are great
topics and in the hands of another presenter could be interesting, as it
is, it just winds up being a session where we look at a couple mildly
interesting special cases this guy came across.

What gets me most about SWW is how the vendors turn presentations into
mindless sales pitches. So many of the presentations on FEA, PDM, PLM,
Implementation, ETC were just corporate boilerplate presentations full
of the jargon you come to expect with no specific technical merit
whatsoever. I'm pretty sure people aren't asking for Enterprise
Enablement Babble. You can get that for free in your own facility
without missing out on a worthier presentation with some content.

I think if someone has a special talent in a particular niche, they
should present it. To me, those are the most interesting and valuable.
I would like to see you, Paul, present something on Design Tables or
automating with Excel, I'd go to that. You have a way of going deep
into a topic that reveals functionality that isn't obvious. I'd like to
see Mike Wilson present on creative problem solving, or what happens
when aliens abduct people. Rob Rodriguez and Photoworks. Sean Adams
and sheet metal. Keith Pedersen and multi bodies. Anna Nicole Smith
and Probate Law.

 

Thanks for the words Matt. I would attend the Anna Nicole presentation!

Seriously though, I'd love to see Mike Wilson do a session. I've learned so
much from his website. Keith Pedersen is also another excellent presenter,
I try and attend his stuff whenever he's in my area (luckily he works for my
VAR).

I have to agree with what your saying here. I was at SWW in Orlando a
couple years back and attended a session on design tables given by a local
(Florida) business owner and SW user. The session was 60 minutes and I bet
30 minutes of the content was about himself and his business. A slide or
two of self promotion is acceptable but I felt he carried it a little too
far.

The best sessions I've attended at SWW or UG meetings are always given by
the guys who are "real" users. They are in there getting their hands dirty
everyday and they typically have useful tricks and information that works in
the real world.

Having said that, it's tough and time consuming to develop a good (great)
presentation and I have to give someone credit for at least making the
attempt.

I hear Matt Lombard gives a great "tips & tricks" presentation. I haven't
had the chance to attend it but hopefully he'll be in New Orleans for 2007.

 

It will be interesting to see what people decide is worth talking about
this year. I hope that the committee deciding what to include will not
just decide on the papers in a closed room of SWx employees, but, with
Richards guidance, will send papers out to select users to get their
opinions too. I remember that I had to lobby for a while to get a
rebuild errors session into the agenda, and (as Richard told me) after
I gave it the attendees of an LA user group they said it was the best
presentation they saw (of course, to be fair, this was before Phil
Sluder went on).

I would also like to hear SWx dig around for topics, but not broad
categories like 'sheet metal' or 'design tables' because when
folks respond by creating presentations for those request we end up
seeing a lot of VAR quality step by step stuff that just regurgitate
the help menus and training material - or go into incredible detail on
a very specific problem that doesn't extrapolate into anything that
can be used outside of that case.

Personally, as a presenter for five years, I would most like to hear
where peoples pain points are - what they struggle with most and
where they will get the largest return on that investment they put into
a breakout session (and lets face it, to go to SWx world it costs each
person about $200 a breakout session when you factor in fees, airfair,
and lodging, let alon lost work time. It can be intimidating to know
you have to give $50,000 of value to a large room or your investment in
your presentation is wasted).
'Doing Top down design work' isn't as interesting a presentation
as 'how to do top down design work with multiple configurations and
where components move relative to one another' (talk about a ticking
time bomb that blows up on a lot of people, that is actually kinda easy
when you get a few tricks under your belt). presenters need to focus
on the pain potns that cost companies money (and ultiamtely cost users
jobs) This is why I did 'rebuild errors' and 'surfacing for
blockheads' (which is really a backdoor way to teach how SWx works
internally, so even if you never use a surface feature in your life you
still know why your solid features are failing and how to get around
it), two areas of proficiency I consider mandatory for anyone using the
software. But its ironic how relatively few attendees take advantage
of them.

I have always tried to listen to folks when creating presentations and
focus where I hear the most problems from users or see the most
problems in customer models. These presentations take a lot of time
- at least 100 hours each, and one took 300 hours - to produce,
test, debug, and destill. It's not worth it to do something that is
already covered elsewhere.

But an interesting thing happens - the more advanced the topic or the
more money it is designed to save the user, the less the immediate
response. Tips and tricks are popular because people 'get' it
right away - oh, neat trick. But when you go home a lot of those
tips and tricks are so specific or so basic that they really don't
have a huge impact on the bottom line. I spend a lot of time coming up
with new stuff I know from my work experience will save some guys ass
in 3 months if they remember (I had one guy come up to me a year later
and tell me how I saved his job, and others have told me that they
totally had to rethink they way they used SWX) or save some company a
lot of rework, but at the time of the presentation I get a lot of
'neat, entertaining presentation but I don't know if I will ever
use it'. The last three years my 'Curvy Stuff' work has gone
into the stuff that I see causing the most problems in my consulting
work and in whatever private training I do (where to start, how to
break a design into faces, how not to think in features but to think in
faces, understanding the background mechanics of the geometry, how to
work between disciplines, etc) but I feel much less love than when I
kept it more basic. I was sorta down after this last year (even though
i am especially proud of what I presented) and didn't even announce to
the newgroup when the new presentations were up on the Dimonte group
website, something that I always looked forward to in past years.

So, for instance, next year I am thinking about going back to the root
and doing a 'loft boot camp', partly because so many people still
have problems at this level, partly because there is a lot of bad or
extremely erroneous information out there that people screw themselves
up by trying to follow, and partly because no one else is covering it
in the detail the topics deserve (seriously, who have you seen talk
about how significantly you can change a loft from an edge-profile just
by changing the angle of the adjacent edge that is roughly
perpendicular to that edge-profile, let alone the internal 60° cutoff
that dramatically changes your results? Who talks about how
compromised many - if not most- lofts get when selecting 'curvature
continuous' as a start tangency, or even how to confirm for yourself
that the results are rarely even C1 tangent? And why isn't EVERYBODY
talking about UV lines, the most important consideration in a loft).
This is advanced stuff, even on a basic topic, but it is like threading
a needle to try to figure out how to present the real ins and outs and
quality of a function, especially when in the same day they will attend
a general survey course like the Biasotti 'advanced modeling'
presentations where he says 'just press this button and it will be
curvature continuous' even though a simple deviation analysis will
show that in most cases its not even tangent. You either come off as
bashing SWx or bashing Mark (who is a genuinely nice guy who doesn't
have the time to go into detail due to the format of his session) and
the audience turns cold to you even though, bottom line, they need to
know these vagaries in order to get any real work done and work through
the problems that are causing them to want to go to Rhino instead.

I wish it were simple. I have found it isn't.

Ed

 

"Rob Rodriguez and Photoworks"

You know what would be a hot presentation? "Tips and tricks from the
PWx photo contest".
We already learned from the first month that filleting sharp edges
makes a big difference in render quality (see Paul Salvadors model vs
some of the others) a critical tip which I have never seen in a PWx
tutorial or session. Last month we also learned how important shadows
are when compostiing with a photographic background (and how important
hot chicks are to include in your scene when you want to get engineers'
attention)
Who knows what else will come up in future contests?
I bet by December you will have plenty for an hour, and it will be an
easy one to put together because all of your samples will already be
done for you, and it will have some objective authority because people
vote for the one they think is best (so its not just based on the
presenters subjective opinion).
I like this and would be willing to help if you want (not that you need
it)
Ed

 

....NEW presentations...
you mean they have been there all this time? arghhhh!!
- -> downloading now...jes man don't do that again ya hear!
goodness....

 

hey these are great presentations Ed! ) ..refined to be almost elegant...
thanks a lot for making them available for non SW world folk.
I will pick through these very carefully for vital clues - could be ID life
but not as I know it in there.
....of course now I'm looking forward to the SW2007 World ones already so get
busy and don't be a droopy draws again and hide them away like that (

 

Think about the differences you found in the methods for the contest you
sponsored. A presentation using those models (with permission,of course) to
show different methods, and most importantly when to use each method vs.
another, would be interesting. "Here's one object, modeled several
different ways, let's look at the pros & cons of each method." Something
like that.

WT

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me there was a certain tone you
struck in your presentation this year which didn't add to what you had
to say. My advice would be to stick to the technical content and leave
the politics and interpersonals alone. I had thought taking potshots at
named individuals from the stage was something you had too much class to
do. Everyone makes mistakes or glosses over details from time to time,
and assassinating Mark from the stage and thereafter I think is uncalled
for. The other thing that got me was some of your concepts of how the
design process works might better be prefaced by "at DiMonte group..."
because they are not universal or even predominant. I have never seen
an ID guy calling shots, they are just one of the competitors in a
system of compromise.

I don't want to start a grudge match, I just thought these things were a
little out of character for you, and definitely distracted from your
message.

Still, the quality of the information you have put out previously is
undeniable, and I am grateful that it exists.

Matt

 

Actually, thanks. It is interesting to hear how people interpret what
you present - it is also very interesting to hear what folks attending
a presntation miss.

As I recal, the only things I said about Mark on a personal level was
he had a lot of good information and I recomend making up your own mind
about how to use it. I agree that using such a forum to make potshots
is a bad idea - its rude and it can turn people off when what you want
to do is turn people on.

When I referred to Marks CONTENT it was to clear up things I have seen
him present that I know not to be true or know to be risky (split part)
in the hopes that i could help some folks who might take it as gospel
without critically evaluating it before incorporating it into their
work. I also repeatedly ask people to check out my stuff suggestions
for similar errors or omissions - as I said in Vegas, everyone makes
mistakes and there are only two presenters that I have seen, Phil
Sluder and ketih Pederson, who give info that checks out 100%. (I did
not add my name to that list, and even said there are things in my old
presentations that no longer apply due to changes in the software). I
think that is hugely important to keep in mind when you are at SWx
world or a user group - take nothing on faith, test it for yourself.

I did use a slide of Marks to demonstrate a common misconception about
surfaces vs solids that actually has to do with face geometry
(analytical vs algorithmic). When I have talked to Mark about it in
the past he said he intends it as a sample of how surfaces allow you to
think about edges while with solids you think about masses and the
edges come from the intersection of the masses, and I believe I
explained that and even said it was a good message - hardly a potshot.
I have even urged Mark for years to revise his sample because I know
people who make the same mistake. However, he continues to use those
slides as a sample explaining the difference between surface and solid
modeling. I have seen him say, year after year since New Orleans, that
you can't make the 'surface' one in solids and that just isn't true..
I believed (and still believe) it is important to note that his example
doesn't communicate his edge intent well becasue he overshadows it with
the surface/solid thing, and anyone who looks at the shape difference
has to note its because he lofts one and revolves the other - that will
be hugely important when they get home and do their own work. I opened
my presentation in 2004 with a sample that I beleive more successfully
communicates this message about thinking about target edges because it
is such a good message.
I am not sure if I referred to Mark when talking about splitting master
models, but the approach he presents is definately evaluated,
thoroughly, with its minuses AND PLUSES, along with a number of other
approaches, and the conclusions that we made at DiMonte group. I have
talked to a lot of advanced users who have gone through the same
process and came to the same conclusion as we have - that split part is
a train wreck and insert part has all the benefits without the
liabilities.

Those are the only two things I can think about that could be seen as
potshots. But i hear you - correct the misconceptions, communicate
that it is my experience that things go better with the approach I
suggest, AND GO HOME AND TEST IT to find your own conclusions, all
without mentioning someone else by name.

About ID -
I talked about integrated ID/Engineering approaches (clearly stated as
a Dimonte group exerience) and over the wall approaches (which I have
seen and read about everywhere, and which in my experience is so
pervasive that it has to be evaluated), and discussed case studies
showing how integrated worked and fessed up to failures in the 'over
the wall'. I even spent a fair amount of time talking about how
integration, where there is a system of compromise, worked much more
successfully. Heck the thesis of the entire 'part one' is how we ought
to strive to work together and how we have learned at DiMonte group to
do that with respect to both disciplines and the general
responsibilities of both disciplines. I have seen the ID guy call the
shots in our work with ID firms outside of Dimonte group, while inside
Dimonte group that is never the case (though nicolai, a pure ID guy
that is no longer with us, would have liked it otherwise).

Ultimately, any failure in communicating the message I want to convey
is my fault. Its easy when we are just punching buttons in a
presentation and saying 'this is how you model X'. But higher level
stuff - strategy stuff - is a bitch, and I struggle with it endlessly
to figure out the best way to wake the audience up, get their
attention, and make a case for thinking about things differently.
Sorry I got that wrong in a couple of areas, and I will work on it next
year. More jokes, fewer pokes

Again, thanks for the input. I don't want a grudge match either adn
find it odd that you would suggest that this could turn inot one -
without criticism, I can't improve. And I don't mind it public, either
- anyone who reads these presentations needs to know that there are
other ways of thinking so they can come to their own conclusions.
But, just so you know, I am always right (that is a joke, not a poke)
Ed

 

I love it - only those that read to the very end would find the nugget of
humor in this thread. But, I may hold you to it!
Made my day.

WT

 

I get uncomfortable when anyone passes judgment on something like this
so absolutely, especially when there is another valid side to the story.
There are two major drawbacks to insert part that don't exist with
split, which are the ability to access the child from the parent and the
ability to control where in the tree the body is split out. If you
insert one part into another, you don't have an indicator or a path to
the child. With Split, you've got that reminder that this part is
linked to something, and you know where the child is. I think I
demonstrated before the ugly workaround for fixing broken links with the
Split feature. Ugly or not, it works. Even so, with the poor body
handling in general in SW, the insert part is as likely to get the wrong
body as anything, although it is easier to fix. The "where in the tree"
question is partially answered by configurations.

Anyway, I'm definitely with you on the jokes vs pokes deal. If you
were in my tips session, it was more jokes than anything, although I did
also take a few pokes at the software, with many of my examples
exhibiting bugs rather than neat demo bits. I think if you're rather
light about things in general, criticism doesn't come off looking quite
so critical.

People don't necessarily remember the detailed logic you use to arrive
at a conclusion, but they will remember the toes you stepped on to get
there. Capt Kirk an ID guy?!? Sulu maybe... ;o) I work in a lot of
situations with ID, and I either have yet to encounter your scenario or
see the same thing from a different view. I generally find myself both
an engineer and the translator for the ID guy. Sometimes I push
designers to think about other shapes than what they can model with just
lines and arcs, or I just ask them to draw by hand on paper or make a
clay model because they are good at that, and let me translate it into a
computer model. Sometimes we introduce more tricky ID to *solve* an
engineering problem. "Revenge of Scotty" seemed to address a rarefied
2% niche or the most idealized stereotypes, not the trenches where I
know I work. Not a criticism, just an observation from a different
point of view.

Demonstrating pros and cons dispassionately and allowing intelligent
folks to apply to their own situations as appropriate is my favored
approach.

 

Ironic that you say its a rarefied 2% niche when even YOU say that you
have the ID present a sketch and you translate into a model. The ID is
telling you what his direction is and you are making it work (the exact
relationship between Kirk and Scotty, and the exact rleationship I
presented from beginning to end) And in the same post you say 'I
either have yet to encounter your scenario or
see the same thing from a different view.' I think it must be a
different view, because if you are asking for a clay model you are
trying to figure out what your ID guy intends you to do. You are
scotty, he is the decision maker

I have worked with dozens of companies and in every single case the ID
creates the design vision for the product (the Kirk role) and the
Engineer (or Engineer and ID) makes it work. Sometimes the Engineer
has provided a framework for the ID guy to sculpt over, but next the ID
guys provides a direction and the Engineer is the last to deal with it
and is responsible for making it work (and try to retain as much of the
ID intent as practical). Every case.

I have also talked to hundreds of Engineers and Designers and in every
case THEY have represented to me that is the flow of information - ID
gives a styling direction, Engineer tries to make it work or tries to
work with ID guy to make it work (sorry captain, we don't have enough
for Warp speed, but we can get a few phaser shots off). Some are
jealous of the more integrated approach we take here - they hate being
stuck with 'over the wall. I even had a long conversation with you a
few years back where you were trying to figure out how to work with an
ID guy because he was giving direction that you couldn't make work and
you wanted advise on how to get him to accept reality (you CANT have
warp speed you moron).

I would love to hear your basis for saying that what I presented is not
real, because I have seen it over and over and over again, and had a
number of people come up to me and tell me how much I captured their
work environment. I can't even figure out which rarefied niche you
could possibly be referring to because I presented SEVERAL work
scenarios, not just one.

I am really having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to get
at and would like to offer you the opportunity to clarify. Because I
will say that I got a little offended to hear you represent that I
have presented a rarefied view that is only represented by 2% of the
real world (how do you even arrive at 2%?) when I have over a decade of
personal experience with dozens of companies throughout the nation and
contacts and anecdotes from hundreds of people, let alone all of the
articles and books on the design process that I have read, and what I
pressented fits with ALL of that.

 

" I was sorta down after this last year (even though
i am especially proud of what I presented) and didn't even announce to
the newgroup when the new presentations were up on the Dimonte group
website, something that I always looked forward to in past years."

I just went through Curvy Stuff V and you have reason to be proud! The
amount of effort you put into your presentations shows. And it's not just
the effort; it's the way you think things through and get to the heart of
the matter.

"So, for instance, next year I am thinking about going back to the root
and doing a 'loft boot camp', partly because so many people still
have problems at this level, partly because there is a lot of bad or
extremely erroneous information out there that people screw themselves
up by trying to follow, and partly because no one else is covering it
in the detail the topics deserve"

I really hope you do this. There are a lot of us out in the trenches who
could use the help.

"You either come off as
bashing SWx or bashing Mark (who is a genuinely nice guy who doesn't
have the time to go into detail due to the format of his session) and
the audience turns cold to you even though, bottom line, they need to
know these vagaries in order to get any real work done and work through
the problems that are causing them to want to go to Rhino instead."

I'm pretty sure Mark understands. I don't envy him his job, though I am
really glad he is there.

"I wish it were simple. I have found it isn't."

Yeah, but you do a great job of showing the rest of us the most critical
elements. Don't give up the ship!


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

One thing I noticed this year was that there were a number of presentations
on almost identical themes. I think it would help if someone at SW either
guided people into slightly different topics or helped them put sufficiently
different spins on their presentations.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

No, Ed, we really do see this differently. It's definitely more the
relationship between Bones and Scotty. Bones is the touchy feely guy.
Kirk is the pointy haired guy who runs MS Project and carries a coffee
cup, to mix character metaphors a little. The ID and the engineer are
at the same level charged with different tasks, I routinely tell Bones
to get a grip. Kirk settles disputes and drives overall cost and
schedule issues. ID doesn't do any of that. Engineers work with ID,
not for ID. It's the same relationship as between design engineers and
manufacturing engineers. In a collaborative environment, such a
hierarchical view is counterproductive.

I suppose if you look at the entire design as being the "styling", then
what you say could be the case, but there are many more elements to a
design than styling. Vision for the product is a team effort, coming
from Marketing, Sales, Mech Engineering, Electrical Eng, Mfg and ID.
Styling is the realm of ID, but assembly, process, function are at best
shared responsibilities.

I'm sorry you're getting worked up. I have worked with only a couple
other ID folks who were able to express complex shapes in CAD
adequately. Rubbermaid, Fisher-Price, Hasbro, Tyco, Crosman, Amerock,
many medical manufacturers, furniture mfgs, even ID firms. Most of what
I get from ID is hand sketches, photos, or line-and-arc solid models.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 ID guys who I've worked with
for whom surfacing is a regular design practice. That's not many.

Maybe I'm coming at this from the populist point of view because having
worked for resellers, I've seen a lot of real world users up close, and
know what they struggle with. When viewed from an IDSA perspective,
these issues probably seem much larger, but from an ASME point of view,
they look a little, well, rarefied. Still interesting to me, but still
quite a small niche.

You know, I don't doubt any of that, and if that view of things works
for you, then that's ok. My experience is no less substantial, and it
has led me to different conclusions. We're going to have to settle for
agreeing to disagree on this.

 

Matt,

You gave me the craziest idea. I wish I could walk through the halls of
SW for couple days, watch what people are doing, grab a person here and
a person there and put together an Ed Sullivan Show of SW acts. Every
time I have had a sit down with SW people (even Joe Dunne) I find these
little wells of knowledge that somehow never get out to the rank and
file in a way they can use.

The real benefit of SWW seminars is getting a) rubber meets the road
howto information and b) getting under the hood information. Item a)
answers come from the likes of Phil and many others whose names I can't
remember. Item b) answers come many times from SW employees doing
presentations especially API stuff but also drawings, modeling, etc.
Wilkinsons "Inside SW" of yore was the great inspiration that got me
into really examining what goes on inside SW.

But you are right Matt, I need to present because I am at the point
that teaching others teaches me more than I would learn otherwise.

 

Dude, I said it right up front. Kirk comes up with ideas (lets try out
this manuever) and Scotty is the poor bastard who has to make it
happen. I think you are getting Kirk mixed up with Starfleet command
(which is marketing, management, etc). Check Scottys pay stub - its
from Star Fleet, not a personal check from Kirk. And anyone watchign
star trek would see that it is a collaborative environment, with the
Kirk taking input form everyone and offering suggestions to everyone.

Not my fault or problem anymore that you are fositing on the 'Kirk
metaphor' stuff that I never said. Hell, the next half an hour I went
through the repsonsibilities of the Industrial Designer, including
concept development, and the Engineer (as part of the process to bring
that concept to development) just to make sure that no one got it
wrong. Too bad I failed with at least one guy - everyone else I talked
to got the gag.

 

Well that's an interesting comment to make because my impression of SW
people is not that good - certainly I would like to wander the halls and
grab them but mostly for strangling...
something to do with a CEO who couldn't be found at 05 sp1 time...
something to do with no interaction on the forum...
something to do with not fixing things and breaking others...
something to do with stupid mistakes or negligence...
blah blah...
In short I don't think it matters a tinkers poo to any SW employee what goes
on for customers provided the shop front looks nice and we have a podcast to
numb out on.
Really I judge SW by what comes out the door and I sit in front of not
flights of fancy and flunkeyism -is that a word?
Good on Ed for being honest with his views and experiences and pointing
things out. More independent thought less mantra.