SolidWorks World 2007 - Call for Papers

I have to speak up here on this one. I have talked with too many SW
employees that I feel DO care about how I get along with their software to
make a blanket statement like "...any SW employee...". I would agree that
the law of averages says that some will not, but my experience has been a
very positive one with SW employees. Maybe just me, but I doubt it.

WT

 

I am never likely to talk to one being 6000km or more away.
I get my impressions from the info available on the outside and it isn't
inspiring.
There may well be applied employees in there somewhere but they are well and
truly cloaked by sales and marketing bs and legal advisors..
Sorry your recommendation doesn't reassure me )

 

Maybe I am starting to get the problem here . For instance, in the last
post I say Kirk comes up with ideas but in haste forget to add that
Scotty comes up with ideas. Sometimes one just can't write enough to
make himself clear. And I am starting to feel pretty darn stupid
trying to explain a metaphor that was used in the introduction, as a
gag, and then basically left alone, when the presentation is much mroe
than that
Calm down Ed, calm down Ed...
There, that's better.

The questions I get all the time that I was trying to answer in that
presentation are 'why are ID guys such idiots' and 'how am I supposed
to work with their data'. Of course, I have to approach it with a
tongue in cheek so as not to offend anyone, and it was successful
because I saw Engineers and IDs who work togehter poke each other in
the ribs, laugh together, and compliment me afterwards for the content
and approach. This brings us back to my original point - there are
people (not saying this about you, but others) who are willing to get
into a snit over trivial thigns then close their minds to the overall
truths of a presentation, and it is a delicate needle to thread.

The goals: First, understand what the job responsibilities and
perspective of the disciplines are so everyone knows the other guys
aren't idiots - their jobs are just different.
Then look at common collaboration models used in industry (true stuff,
not just for IDSA perpective but from REALITY - please lay off the
slams on my professional perspective and I will not get hot under the
collar. I have been doing this ofr a long time for a lot of different
people and on this one I know what I am talking about and despise any
inference to the contrary)
Then finally figure out ways to use SWx capabiliteis to aid in that
collaboration and speed time to final design by sharing a common
database, all the time thinking about what the other guy needs. There
is almost no modeling advice in thsi presentation - its collaboration
advice. If your ID problems are because only 3 can do any surfacing,
then it still applies to the ollaboration between sketches, clay, or
whatever.

As a quick and entertaining little shorthand to get started on that
discussion I used a Kirk/Scotty metaphor that was then not mentioned
(instead of in a joking way - 'Engineers are from Mars, Industrial
Designers are jsut spacey', 'one happy ship') for the rest of the
presentation.
Think of the Biasotti thing surface-solid thing when he was really
hoping to talk about how surfaces are easier to go from edges (and
possibly you are messing with me to draw me out on this) - if I said
that design was like the Enterprise and only offhandedly mentioned the
other stuff I did, then I would be guilty of giving the wrong
impression and should get called on it like I call Biasotti on the
surfaces/solids slide which is really a difference in
algorithmic/analytical faces. Maybe I need a better metaphor like he
needs a better, unambiguous sample.

But, here's the rub - the Kirk thing was 20-30 seconds, clearly a joke
that was meant to pander to the Engineers in the audience (Kirk makes
decisions and Scotty is the poor bastard stuck in the Geoffires tube
trying to make it work, which is exactly the kind of problem you AGAIN
mention - ID guy asks for something and you have to work it out. I
need to connect with the audience that I have heard people like them
and understood their pain).
That intro is trivial compared to an hour and a half where I presented
mutliple alternate models and, in detail, covered real problems that I
see over and over again and get asked about over and over again.

I will let this go, but if you do feel the need to respond, please
stick with I statements isntead of you statements. Do not incorrectly
characterise my company or the way we work (hell, you've been here, you
know we collaborate), do not use weighted terms like 'rarefied' that
imply arrogance or lack of connection with the real world - people read
what you write and I will not accept without response any slight on my
professionalism or experience unless it is deserved, and based on the
body of my presentation those statments are clearly not deserved
(again, I remind you of the extensive periods I talked about
collaborationa and working side by side, even ending with a fucking
slide of Kirk and Scotty standing side by side. I am at a loss with
what else I could have done to make THAT point clear ).
And let the Kirk thing go - the joke didn't work on you, fine, we have
different senses of humor.

 

Ed,

I'm surprised to see you lose your cool, I thought we could just have a
discussion from differing points of view and maybe get more out of the
topic. I don't believe I have slammed your professional perspective or
characterized DiMonte in any way, and regret that you feel otherwise.

I think there is possibly a connection you may not have considered,
although I hesitate, seeing how you respond to criticism. The first
thing on your list of traits/stereotypes of id folk in your presentation
was "arrogant", and then you proceed to make the id guy the captain of
the ship, or actually it happened in the other order in your
presentation. Whether that analogy was made flippantly or not, it
seems more than a little telling to me.

Also, to say that the id guy makes decisions contradicts something you
say later on that 80% of his work is thrown out. So it is someone else
making the decisions, since someone else does the throwing out, someone
else is selecting the shape of the product. Since you're setting
yourself up as an authority, I want to make sure that we have this
correct. In my experience, the customer (who seems to have gotten lost
in your presentation) more often than not negotiates some compromises in
the styling and the rest of the design as well.

Ed, there are a lot of people in the world with impeccable experience,
lots of intelligence, loads of ability, a stack of reading and research
behind them, and yet they disagree. It's difficult to see how one can
get far in life or business without allowing for differing opinions.

Matt

 

It is pretty bloody obvious what the thrust of Ed's content was matt.
I appreciate his presentation and I am sure others do as well.
Why you need to be a clingon on the starboard bow escapes me. )

 

Nope.

People use Rhino because after all these years SaladWorks still can't
get the job done in an efficient manner... no matter how many
SaladWorks seminars people take / sit through.

Please let me know who makes a tutorial for SaladWork like is shown in
the following link:

http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/fvs3-sample/concept-a-sample.htm

Do you really think SaladWorks can produce this kind of model in an
efficient manner?

Obviously I don't think SaladWorks can.

Obviously I think SaladWorks fails in many areas besides this one.



Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

" 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."

Then tell McEleney to make SaladWorks into the kind of software that
Joe Dunne use to sell when he was with ComputerVision instead of the
SaladWorks crap Joe Dunne pushs now.

You might need more balls then you have to tell McEleney that though.

See any post to you from the comp.cad.saladworks moderator Black Dragon
for the clues you so badly lack.

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Oops, set up this PC a month or so back and forgot to filter this idiot.

Why would anyone take Mr Banquer seriously when he uses terms like
"SaladWorks", I don't know.

John Layne


Nope.

People use Rhino because after all these years SaladWorks still can't
get the job done in an efficient manner... no matter how many
SaladWorks seminars people take / sit through.

Please let me know who makes a tutorial for SaladWork like is shown in
the following link:

http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/fvs3-sample/concept-a-sample.htm

Do you really think SaladWorks can produce this kind of model in an
efficient manner?

Obviously I don't think SaladWorks can.

Obviously I think SaladWorks fails in many areas besides this one.



Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Thank you for
A) Top posting.
B) Copying the entire thing again.
C) Not firing back a demo or ad.

 

It's certainly more polite than calling SaladWorks the complete piece
of shit that it really is.

Without a doubt SaladWorks is a complete piece of shit when it comes to
high-end surfacing or when it comes to working with non-native data in
a timely manner.

As far as being in your newsgroup filter... like I give a shit asshole.
You and others don't like what I post then put me in your newsgroup
filters and stop bragging about it because no one with any sense of
self worth gives a **** about anyone who brags about who they have in a
newsgroup filter.

Any more fucking assholes with nothing to say besides the usual
suspects or are you all to busy masturbating over what James Carruthers
has done with his beyond awesome tutorial for high-end surfacing using
Rhino?

http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/fvs3-sample/concept-a-sample.htm

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

"Wilkinsons "Inside SW" of yore was the great inspiration that got me
into really examining what goes on inside SW."

Hear, Hear! Great session, and please read the end if you want more
great sessions like that (you can skip the middle of this post if you
want)

I saw Jim presentation in New Orleans, and I see Jims session as a
model of what a SWx World presentation ought to be (along with Keith
Pedersons stuff. Everything I do tries in some way to meet those two
standards, and if I fall short its my own damn fault. My comparison of
shelling problems to lawn mowing in CSV-partII was a direct tribute to
Keith - the simile is true, understandable, and (I hope) helps people
analyze problems in an attempt to parallel his GREAT comparison to C1
and C2 tangecy to driving a car through an intersection).

"Push-the-button demos" aren't nearly as good to my ears as "you should
push this button instead of another because of X background process
that you might not know about and here's why" demos (like Wilkenson's
presentation of yore).
Are they as easy to embrace? No (just take a look at the run-on
sentence I had to write to introduce the concept - when you go into
background processes it feels like a run-on sentence and you lose
people). However, they are the sorts of presentations that allow folks
to really UNDERSTAND how SWx works, and come up with their own
solutions when they get home. The cliche' is" If you give a man a
fish...if you teach a man to fish..."

Dammit, teach me how to fish already.

Is Richard Doyle listening? Paul brings up a GREAT standard for SWx
World.
But, of course, Richard is likely reading this... he's a good egg, and
its a good credit to Swx for hiring him BECAUSE he's from the outside.
Becaus of some wierd twists of fate, I have contact with and have
worked with a lot of SWx employees, and (except for a few who I won't
mention - due to a lesson I recently learned through constructive
criticisism ) they gorge on divergent views, evaluate them
critically, and change their course right away when they learn they
could do things better in another way. And I DO mean right away - I
have presonally had things changed in the next week if I made a
compelling, broad-based case for it (and I make sure its not just for
me, but applies to experience with 80+ clients, numerous contacts, and
the folks in the user groups I have attended). However, I have weird
access that I feel uncomfortable about (alpha tester and all) because
not everybody gets the same shake. With that kind of access comes
responsibility, and I try real hard not to get selfish (sure there's
stuff I would like, but I keep Mum in case they consider that equally
important to the stuff I see that numerous people are yearning for).

That was my little detour to explain that, even though you might not
see evidence of it, SWx actually pays attention. You may doubt it, but
I can personally vouch that its true.

Now, back to topic:

TO THE END_____________________________________________________

Bottom line for this thread - PLEASE say whether you prioritise tips
and tricks (give a man a fish) or would rather a focus on
tips/tricks/strategies with background understanding of why you would
do one thing over the other in a given situation (teach a man to fish).

Because SWx is going to get a number of papers and have to decide what
to allow into the show based on what YOU want. If all they hear is
'more advanced stuff' or 'tips and tricks', that is what they are going
to respond to becasue they really are trying to work to make you happy.
And if that's what you want, that's totally cool - ask for want you
want and you will get it (in the context of SWx World - please consider
starting another thread if you want to do software 'enhancement
requests').
I personally want more 'teach the man to fish' stuff becasue that's
where I feel my greatest personal and professional growth. But I am
just one in a sea of somewhere north of a hundred-thousand potential
attendees. Let Richard know what you want more of, and (because i know
what a great guy he really is) he will listen when it comes time to
evaluating the papers to select the final agenda.

Please take this opportunity to speak up, even you lurkers
-it could matter
Ed

 

How would you know?
You don't use it or ANY CAD/CAM or CAM or even CAM package
AFAIK. They & the free demos & buzzwords from ads just confuse you.

 

Not much, if anything, new to CAD/CAM AFAIK .....
You need to get out of the rubber room more.

 

Neil,
Thank you.

Since matt, always a great guy with lots to add, seems to have gotten
lost on a tangent, and an often unfortunately personal tangent devoid
of ideas (hey, where the heck does that 'my inability to accept
criticism' thing come from when I was asking for criticism, over and
over again in this DOCUMENTED thread???(look it up) And I am actually
dying to find out how he fits in that conclusion with my DOCUMENTED
acceptance and invitation of criticism, my response to criticism, and
comittment to change my ways in this thread? This is almost like
dealing with my ex-wife, where she would make shit up and try to
believe it even though contrary facts were in print. I wish I could
laugh at it, but its hard to get passed being a little peeved when
someone of his gravitas writes stuff contrary to hard-written facts
realtng to criticism).

But let's be fair - maybe he's on to something about the ID/Engineering
collaboration model that we can all gain from, and that would help
everyone out. Or maybe there's a blind spot in my vision that I can
gain from (matt, notice self-doubt... maybe attempt to understand how
to incorporate that into your own life... be a better person).

So, back to the PUBLIC forum:
All I ask from the rest of everyone EXCEPT matt is the following:

If ANYTHING I ever presented at any SWx World is innacuate or flat out
wrong please email me (eeaton - at - dimontegroup, and you know the
rest if it ends with a dot com) or post to this forum under a new
thread 'wrath of scotty is bad because...' (my preference, let's keep
it open) and I will correct it... with the understanding that the Kirk
thing was an introductory joke that was thrown away for the rest of the
presentation (you all got that, right?).

That has always been my policy - open critique of anything I write
about SWx because open critique of ideas is the only way we ALL learn.
ALWAYS. Thats one of the best things about this forum, and why I have
participated here for so many years!

Also, just for the record, contrary to matts last post, I have never
presented myself as an 'authority' (matts words, definately never mine
- not once have I ever claimed 'authority' when it comes to SWx, and
every time someone tried to foist that on me I backed away from it.
I'm just a user who has some ideas to share)
For example, at every SWx World or user group session I give, I tell
people who I am and what kind of work I do so they can evaluate my
credentials and decide if I am even worth listening to. Then, at some
point during the presentation, I encourage the audience to test out
everything I say to be sure its true and to evaluate with the kind of
work they (the people in the audience) do. THAT'S IT. Where matt came
up with that 'setting yourslef up as an authority' thing, I don't
know... and after reading one untrue and out-of-line thing after
another, I've gotten to the point where I can no longer understand this
guy that I used to respect. But thats between me and him (matt, what
gives?), and is of no informative value to the user base, so...

PROPOSAL FOR NEW THREAD....

If ID and Engineering collaboration is an interesting and maybe
controversial topic, and I suspect it is, lets start a brand new thread
so we can hash it out there. I will contribute, but I don't want to
start the thread because it would just be more of me and matt, and how
boring would that be? He, according to his posts, apparently thinks I
work in a 'rarefied' little corner of the world, and if anyone was
interested I would like to discuss that, talk about what the real world
is really like, and, let's face it, who knows which way the ball will
drop (plus I know I have absolutely nothing to fear here,,, reserve
snide comment because I am trying to show just a sliver of class,
though its pretty hard after a few days of trying to softpeddle against
some pretty weird statements).

Any of you who think its something important to talk about, just start
a new thread. That would be a terrific forum (outside of the SWx world
call for papers thread) to hash out this topic.... it would be useful
for anyone for instance, who can't get the point that 80% of ID
concepts are thrown out becasue they don't seem to understand that
both design and Engineering repsond to outside forces - marketing,
sales, vagaries of management, Starfleet comand, etc.


It could be interesting,
Ed

 

Ed,

Here's the deal. This really started out being about what is
appropriate and what is not appropriate in a SWW presentation. I
contend that criticising people by name from the stage is over the line.
You don't recognize that what you did was at all unseemly. So be it.
This would better be handled in an email, but your comments were public,
so I deal with it in that way.

But it doesn't stop at Mark Biasotti. I could give a half dozen
examples off the top of my head where you take other people's work and
use it as a bad example, not limited to the Scotty presentation. Or
take a direct quote from someone, insert a NOT and imply that other
people have it all wrong. Or invent a cute phrase over someone elses
model such as "This is what I call the 'I-don't-give-a-shit' technique".
Training parts, my parts, direct quotes from me, Mark's parts, those
are only the things I recognize, I'm sure there are several others
represented...

Bashing a technique is one thing. I do enough of that, but I would just
ask that you don't have to detract from what other people do to put your
ideas forward. We're not here as competing researchers, we're all
trying to help one another and we don't get much reward for what we do.

And now you're casting aspersions on two more phrases I mentioned, being
"more advanced stuff" and "tips and tricks". I just don't get it, Ed.
You can't get a seat in Phil Sluder's Tips and Tricks presentations, and
my tips presentation this year was standing room only too. Tips
presentations are valid, useful, and very popular. What pleasure or use
do you find in slamming what guys like Phil have been doing for a long time?

In your next SWW presentation, I would like to see you put aside the
criticism, or at least remove the personal references. If you show bad
examples, make them your own. And try to accept that there are points
of view that don't agree with yours which are entirely valid.



Matt

thing come from

"I know what I am talking about and despise any inference to the contrary"

"please lay off the slams on my professional perspective" (there were no
slams)

" I will not accept without response any slight on my professionalism or
experience"

For not presenting yourself as an authority, you've spent a fair amount
of typing in the past couple of days trying to convince someone of just
that, with the "decade of experience" bit and all.

 

I think if you have a specific gripe/grudge about what was said or implied
at SWW matt you should contact Ed in pm.Honestly I am not interested in
reading your petty slagging and sniping over 'professionalism'.
Let those other folks Ed apparently slighted speak for themselves if it is
an issue for them.
Personally I think you have a bit of envy and arrogance mixed in there
leaking out as passive aggression but it is not for me to say is it )
I like to see Ed's presentations and this years is no different.

 

You wrote - " Tips presentations are valid, useful, and very popular.
What pleasure or use do you find in slamming what guys like Phil have
been doing for a long time"

On tips and tricks, I wrote:
"And if that's what you want, that's totally cool"

It looks to me like we agree - if that's what folks want, they should
get it. No big deal there. I like something different and made a case
for why I like it, but also URGED people with different views to go
ahead and make themselves heard. SWx world is for everyone - tell
Richard what you like and he will listen.


You wrote:
"I do enough of that, but I would just
ask that you don't have to detract from what other people do to put
your
ideas forward."

I wrote several days ago:
"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 <encourage the audience to> GO HOME AND TEST IT to find
their own conclusions, all
without mentioning someone else by name

Again, the record shows that I agreed.

Seems simple to me.

 

Me, too! Me, too!

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