SW2006 tour?

Hi Martin,

One thing that comes to mind from reading your post is how actually
short a year is. If you folks to have been using solidworks for a
year, that is a pretty short time in cad-years, nothing at all taken
away from your skills or abilities.

I think that it is so common to see people using this software
successfully and it seems like a breeze. I have suffered from this
syndrome in past lives. I spent many years as a toolmaker and then
became a tool designer - a very nice combination. I knew what I
needed, why I needed it and how to document it with the cad system. I
worked years to get skills in autocad (I started in 1990 and still use
it based on the given activity) and learned to design tools, fixtures
and so on, whatever I could get my hands on. I took on solidworks in
98 or so and spend hundreds if not thousands of hours developing a
proficiency at that.

People were often "amazed" at what I could do with cad and design and
blah blah blah . . . . (yes I do love myself) . . .

What I finally realized is that this stuff is actually very hard to
manage, make behave and get good output with - some folks are great
tube jockeys but have not a clue about good design, many people have
design skills and can't document it in any cad system to save their
lives. What the people were seeing was the output of about 10,000+
hours of career experience in given disciplines, bringing it all
together, and yes, we did make it look easy. What the beginner did not
have was the 10,000+ hours of anguish, learning and second-gussing of
what they had to do in anticipation of the outcome. I even inherited a
few really "smart people" in my design group that "should be able to
become tool deisgners in a few months, with your training". The boss
was only seeing the output of the 10K hours and he was used to seeing
what we did as simple, because from his perspective it was (that was
our job after all).

I agree with the general tenor of your message. When real work is
going on, the last thing one needs in the middle of the road is the
"buggy software" boulder. The activity is about what you can create
(what you can deliver or ship) not all the trouble you go through
getting there - nobody cares about that, nor will they pay you for it.
I do think that too often SolidWorks is touted as "easy to use" and
generally it is, especially if you already know how to use it (grin),
kind of like unix.

In general I was just pondering how short a time, in cad-years a year
was. Keep plugging. I will likely get better - and no this software
is not perfect, but it is a good tool when used knowledgeably - the
trick is getting that piece of the puzzle, which can only be gotten
thru time (the foresight you mentioned).

I like your crystal ball statement - I need one of these for myself.

Later,

SMA

 

Where do you get the idiot pills?

 

I'm sorry to hear that no one gave you a heads up, but resellers are
interested in maintaining the illusion that the software is magical.
They aren't likely to point out the land mines for you. These people
are there to take your money, not be your friend.

The truth is a lot of resellers don't even know, or if they have an
inkling they usually deny it. SolidWorks direct is the same way. I'm
sorry that giving you solid, free advice is taken as an attack while the
folks who failed to tell you the truth get off scot free.

No, actually, I don't expect new users to know this at all, which is
kind of my point. I had to make the mistakes myself to learn this after
years of using the software, which is why it always strikes me as odd
when a person thinks they know it well after one year and a training
class.

Well, if you drive a car, you either learn to change a tire or call AAA.
Do you really need all that technology just to drive to work and get the
groceries? Probably not. Software setup and maintenance is kind of
similar. Some of the smarter resellers these days are offering
"implementation" assistance, usually as an extra cost service. If you
don't choose to pay for it, you never know what you're missing.

I agree with what you said about bad software, but I don't write it or
defend it. I saw companies with needs, so I stepped in and filled the
need. The guy who digs the graves doesn't kill people, he just deals
with the affects (ok, bad analogy).

I apologize if I came across too strongly. There are a lot of companies
who are losing money and wasting time unnecessarily. Your particular
post came up in another discussion, and I guess I just used it to make a
point. The point was that there is a lot of capability in the software
which is hidden from view, and not just hidden from the view of newish
users. It was the whole "educating frustrated users" bit that triggered
it, I think. Plus any chance I get to drum on Toolbox a little is just
too hard to pass up. I could have picked one of the other topics you
went off on, but Toolbox is certainly low hanging fruit.

So, if you get a chance to go talk to Mr. Garcia, maybe you can ask him
why there is so much functionality which is left uninterpreted (answer
why instead of how) for especially new users.

Best of luck,

Matt

 

All I can remember is that is was south of Brigham on the west side of
89. And it has been almost 20 years. Things might have changed.

 

Seems like six months is a CAD year sometimes.

 

No need to. I didn't take any of it personally. One can't be on USENET
without a thick skin.

I just wanted you to understand that true and non-trivial effort was
expended before any newsgroup help was sought. And that, no real guidance
was received from the vendor in terms of some of the very important issues
we've been discussing.

That they do very well. The problem is that we are not dealing with cooking
recepies here. The man-hours put into the CAD portion of product design
dwarf, by far, the cost of the software. If a vendor does not understand
this and act with respect for the time and effort the new customer is about
to expend...well, they might as well be selling cookbooks.

Oh, they don't get off scot free. I think SW deserves a nice class-action
lawsuit. If they continue along the path they are on, it will happen.

As for your advice. I didn't consider it an attack at all and appreciate
any an all help you and others provide in this NG. I hope to be able to
share some of my experience with others as well.

The only problem I had with what (and maybe how) you were saying is that it
didn't address the reality of "Oh, shit! We just got this thing that was
supposed to save us time and here we are up to our ass in alligators."

Now that I finished five designs with SW that have gone to manufacturing I
have a little bit of a calm in the storm to look back and try and make some
decisions. I'm looking into PDM, for example. I'm also looking into
writing some VBA routines to help with some application-specific needs.

Understood. However, without any information to be had (divine or
otherwise) I'd be willing to bet that most SW users wrap themselves around a
pole on all the issues that are known to anyone following this NG for a few
weeks.

That's the interesting part. Just about the only way a new SW user is going
to figure out where the holes are and how to deal with them is through this
NG. Most people can't afford to (and, respectfully, shouldn't have to) hire
a consultant such as yourself.

I'll have to disagree on this point. Prior to starting my company I spent
twenty years in the motion picture industry as a R&D and Systems Engineer.
Our task was to design, build and support special effects and editing
facilities and systems with tens of millions of dollars in equipment. Some
of the software was highly complex, ran on million-dollar SGI supercomputers
and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. These systems required a capable
engineer on staff due to the complexities and support load they represented.
And so, I've seen and managed more than one type of software/hardware
marriage that most definetly and absolutely fits your viewpoint. CAD,
however, and particularly at this level, is --and should be-- a different
beast.

SW is, in reality, very easy to use once you take the time to educate
yourself a little bit. The only problem with SW is in some of the outright
dumb decisions they've made (Toolbox, in my opinion) and how buggy or
temperamental it can be.

Take SW machine/hardware dependency, for example. Software such as Maya and
Lightwave or even 3DS is just as intense, if not more, in terms of squeezing
performance from the machine. And, as far as I know, none of these packages
are as problematic as SW can be. Sure, you'll get less performance on the
wrong machine, but, for the most part, you don't have to worry much. Anyone
doing serious work with these packages will surely purchase a top of the
line machine with lots of memory and a good graphics subsystem.

I think it is fair to conclude that Solidwork's hardware dependency issues
are the result of bad programming or bad choices made during the design of
the program. There is no excuse these days for a major corporation placing
a product in the market with such issues. Bugs are one thing. Bad design
is an entirely different matter.

The car analogy isn't really the best. A CNC milling machine might. Most
newcomers to CNC wouldn't just buy a mill and start making chips right away.
There's a lot to learn there. If you are not careful the result could be
beautiful artwork carved right into your table, not to mention severed
fingers, etc.

Let's stipulate that this buyer is not a greenhorn, he's made chips before
with other non-CNC tools and has twenty years of experience in mechanical
design and fabrication using these sorts of tools. He's also quite
proficient at using advanced software tools. In other words, a capable
individual and not the cook from the pizza joint down the street.

So, let's say that you buy the mill, get the VAR to install it, go through
all the tutorials the manufacturer provides AND take a class designed and
sanctioned by them.

Should you expect to be able to get started using this tool safely and with
relative efficiency? I think so. At least with small basic projects?
Definetly.

Should you also expect to have been told about hidden dangers and/or issues
that might tear your work apart or damage the machine? I think so.
Absolutely. And that's where the whole SW thing is a complete disaster.

A professional user needs to know what to do and how to setup SW --without
the need to hire a consultan-- after making a sensible initial investment in
education. This doesn't have to be that complicated.

I would say that the sensible time to expect to have to bring in a
consultant is when you have a design team scenario. Multiple seats and
maybe even multiple tools.

Let's separate the operation of the software from mechanical design
proficiency and experience. Two separate things. Not too different from
when desktop publishing tools first became available. I've seen mechanical
designs with no allowance for reasonable fabrication tolerances, for
example. Or thermal expansion. Lots of other examples out there.

Anyhow, I think we are in agreement for the most part.

I'm not sure that a chance meeting with Garcia in the context of a
presentation has the potential to make a difference. He'll be in "sell"
mode.

Maybe the class-action idea isn't so bad. Any takers?
It'd sure wake them up.

-Martin

 

I've been scrubbing BOMS, cleaning CAD and getting our cost master in
line for a new large product.

A day seems like a year lately . . .

 

I just inquired as to what is covered in the Advanced SW class. Keep in
mind that all of this is covered in THREE days. Note that none of the
issues relating to Toolbox and other well-known SW matters seem to be
covered. Also, nothing is said about installation and configuration of SW
for performance and reliability.

So, I guess that a consultant, crystal ball or divine inspiration might
still be Solidworks necessities. I'd certainly recommend that anyone
embarking in anything serious as a new SW user hire someone like Matt to get
them going. I can see some pretty sad scenarios of whole teams getting
wrapped around posts if the company doesn't take this step.

Hey, maybe they have a "really-really, no bs, hold-on-to-your-socks advanced
class"?

If you have a few months on SW and a few designs under your belt you'll
probably know most of what is covered here. I'm not sure whether it is
worth attending other than for the potential to extract a few nuggets of
information here an there.

In terms of setup, configuration and "standard" problems, most of it is
covered infinitely better on this NG by guys like Matt and others.

Listing below.

-Martin




Advanced Part Modeling: Introduction

Multibody Solids
Creating a Multibody
Multibody Techniques
Bridging
Extrude From
Local Operations
Combined Bodies
Combine Tool
Examples of Combined Solids
Using Local Operations to Solve Filleting Problems
Common Bodies
Focus on Features
Solid Bodies Folder Options
Tool Body
Pattern Bodies
Symmetry
Indent Feature
Using Indent
Using Multiple Tool Bodies
Indent with Multiple Target Regions
Using Cut to Create Multibodies
Saving Solid Bodies as Parts and Assemblies
Feature Scope
Splitting a Part into Multibodies
Creating an Assembly
Summary
Using Split Part with Legacy Data
Filling the Gap
Sweeps
Sweeping and Lofting: What’s the Difference?
Sweeping
Sweep Components
Creating a Curve Through a Set of Points
Entering Points “On the Fly”
Reading Data From a File
Editing the Curve
Insert Ellipse
Sweeping
Sweep Dialog
Showing Intermediate Sections
The Label Shape
Library Features
File Explorer
Working with a Non-planar Path
Projecting a Sketch onto a Surface
Variable Radius Filleting
Another Approach to Filleting
Adding a Split Line
Face Fillets
Analyzing Geometry
What is Curvature?
Show Curvature Combs
Intersection Curves
Show Minimum Radius
Show Inflection Points
Zebra Stripes
Curvature Continuous Fillets

Filleting the Label Outline
Selection Edges
What is a Loop?
Multi-thickness Shell
Performance Considerations
Performance Settings
Suppressing Features
Interrupt Regeneration
Modeling Threads
Creating a Helix
Procedure
Using Twist
Align with End Faces
Sweeping Along Model Edges
Propagate Along Tangent Edges
What if the Edges Aren’t Tangent?
3D Sketches
Plane at an Angle
Insert Axis
Multiple Contours in a Sweep
Using the Hole-Wizard on Non-planar Faces
Lofts
Basic Lofting
Merge Tangent Faces
Star and End Constraints
Merging a Multibody with Loft
Using Derived and Copied Sketches
Copying a Sketch
Derived Sketches
Creating a Derived Sketch
Locating the Derived Sketch
Loft Viewing Options
Advanced Lofting
Preparation of the Profiles
Sharing Sketches
Other Techniques
Advanced Face Blend Fillets
Using Flex
Triad and Trim Planes
Flex Options
Surfaces
Working with Surfaces
What are Surfaces?
Trimming Surfaces
Creating a Knit Surface
Advanced Filleting
Multiple Radius Fillets
Advanced Edge Fillets
Deleting Faces
Dome Feature
Propagate to Tangent Faces
Offset Surfaces
Extend Surface
Hiding Bodies
Intersection Curves and Splines
Filling in Gaps
Rounding Off the End
Repairing Imported Surfaces


Core and Cavity
Mold Tooling Design
Analyzing the Draft on a Model
Checking the Moldability of a Plastic Part
Draft Analysis Colors
Positive Draft
Negative Draft
Requires Draft
Straddle Faces
Positive Steep Faces
Negative Steep Faces
Creating New Drafted Faces
Delete Faces that Do Not Have Draft
Create New Drafted Surfaces
Trim the New Surfaces
Thicken the Surface Body
Fixing the Steep Faces
Scaling the Plastic Part to Allow for Shrinkage
Scale the Plastic Part
Determine the Parting Lines
Establish the Parting Lines
Manual Selection of Parting Lines
Shutting Off Holes or Windows in the Plastic Part
Shut-Off Surfaces
Complex Shut-Off Surfaces
Automation
Modeling the Parting Surfaces
Parting Surfaces
Interlocking the Mold Tooling
Interlock Surfaces
Modeling the Interlock Surfaces
Select Partial Loop
Fill in the Gaps With Lofted Surfaces
Completing the Interlock Surfaces
Knit the Interlock Surfaces to the Parting Surfaces
Preparations for the Tooling Split
Creating the Mold Tooling
Automatic Tooling Separation
Other Options for Tooling Design
Smoothing the Parting Surface
Automatic Interlock Surface Creation
Multiple Parting Directions
Trapped Molding Areas
Side Cores
Lifters
Core Pins

Advance Assembly Modeling: Introduction

Top-Down Assembly Modeling
In-context Features
Edit Part
Appearance of Components While Editing
How Transparency Affects Electing Geometry
Propagating Changes
A Note of Caution
Building In-Context Parts
Adding a New Part into an Assembly
Results of Insert, Component, New Part
Building Parts in and Assembly
Using Offsets from Assembly Parts
Assembly Features
Holes Series

Smart Fasteners
Fastener Defaults
Fasteners List
Changes to Smart Fasteners
Fastener Selection
Fastener Changes
Out of Context
Putting a Part Back Into Context
Breaking External References
Breaking and Locking External References
External Reference Report
Removing External References
Editing the Features
Working with Assemblies
Mating Shortcuts
SmartMates
Mate References
SmartMates
From and Open Document
SmartMates from Within the Assembly
Adding Mate References
Primary, Secondary, Tertiary References
Special Case of Mate Reference
Design Library Parts
Capture Mate References
Limitations of SmartMates
Advanced Mate Types
Summary: Inserting and Mating Components
Inserting the First Component
Inserting Additional Components
Inserting and Mating Simultaneously
Mating Existing Components
Configurations of Assemblies
Terminology Review
Adding a New Assembly Configuration
Suppressing Components
Design Library Assemblies
Suppress the Added Component
Using Move Component with Configurations
Assembly Design Tables
What They Can Do
Specifying Components
Controlling Part Components
Controlling Assembly Features and Mates
Comments and Other Headers
Creating and Inserting Design Tables
Building the New Design Table
Component Headers
Mate Headers
Extra Columns
Editing the Design Table
Configuration Properties
Changing Component Mates
Completed Configurations
Component Sub-assemblies in an Assembly
Adding Sub-assembly Configurations
Other Ways of Creating Configurations
Assembly Patterning

Assembly Editing
Editing Activities
Finding and Repairing Problems
Information from an Assembly
Design Changes
Converting parts and Assemblies
Parts into Assemblies
Assemblies into Parts
Parts into Parts
Replacing Parts with Assemblies
Replacing and Modifying Components
Working in a Multi-User Environment
Replacing a Single Instance
Mates Folder
Troubleshooting an Assembly
Mate Errors
Viewing Mates Using the PropertyManager
Visual Display of a Mate
Replace Mate Entities
Over Defined Mates and Components
Mate Diagnostics
Replacing Components Using Save As
Time Dependent Features
Parent/Child Relationships
Reorder and Rollback
Controlling Dimensions in an Assembly
Link Values
Assembly Equations
Dimension Names in an Assembly
Adding Equations
Mirroring Components
Mirroring or Copying
Large Assemblies
Efficient Assemblies
Errors When Opening an Assembly
Designing with Sub-assemblies
Modifying the Structure of and Assembly
Dissolving a Sub-assembly
Promoting and Demoting Components
Creating a New Sub-assembly with Components
Opening a Sub-assembly
Information from and Assembly

Large Assembly Mode
Lightweight Components
Creating Lightweight Components
After the Assembly is Open
Best Practice
Comparison of Component States
Indicators of Lightweight Status
Taking Advantage of Configurations
Detail Features
Comparative Savings
Mate Considerations
Sub-assembly Configurations
Drawing Configurations
Using Component Patterns
Sub-assembly Solving
Editing Sub-assembly
Advanced Selection Techniques
Advanced Show/Hide
Advanced Selection
Use with Configurations
Property Options
Custom Properties
Saving the Criteria
Envelopes
Using Envelopes
Layout Sketches in the Assembly
Sketch Appearance
SolidWorks Explorer
Window Layout
Operations
File Management Options
Using SolidWorks Explorer
Renaming Components
Where Used

 

From the quality of your questions here and the description of the stuff
you've been doing, I suspect that you wouldn't get much out of it. I ended
up taking the class over a year after I had my initial training and
shouldn't have bothered. As you said, I did pick up a few nuggets, but not
enough to be worth the time lost. If you bought the advanced class when you
bought the software, like we did, you might want to talk with your VAR about
taking another class that might be more useful.


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

 

It's interesting that your reseller groups it that way. You may be able to
go to a different reseller and at least get them to take a couple steps
back before they turn the information overload firehose on you.

When I taught those classes, what you listed was a combination of 2 days
"Adv Part" (really an Intro to Mid-Level Modeling if you ask me), and 2
days "Adv Assy". The Adv Assy was my favorite class. It does have some
good information in it. They usually skip the mold creation for two
reasons: 1) it is not NEARLY detailed enough to be of benefit to anyone
who might use it 2) most users are simply not interested.

Actually, other than the new self-paced books, there isn't any mention at
all about how to set up Toolbox in the training materials.

If they had a class like that, users would be teaching it, not resellers.

One of the things I'm doing in the course of my consultant work is offering
specialty and custom training. One of the pre-written courses I teach is a
"Swoopy Shapes" class. This is two days of splines, surfacing, complex
modeling layout and evaluation.

Thanks, I appreciate that. The check's in the mail.

Yeah, that kind of thing happens. I prefer to go in for two days and get a
company off on the right foot rather than going back later to help them
clean up a mess. Although I admit, troubleshooting is kind of fun.

Matt

personal site: http://mysite.verizon.net/mjlombard/
consulting site: http://www.dezignstuff.com/ **still under
construction**

 

One step at at time is cool. Just remember the remaining 11 steps are
the most effective way to deal with product loyalist syndrome.

I'm sure Chris Garcia is relieved to know your not going to be asking
the tough questions.

jon

 

Could it be Maddox? Heard its good, but never been there personally.

 

Martin,

Read the EULA that you had to agree to before the software would work. This
type of agreement wouldn't stand a chance in any civil court if the product
"wasn't" software. I guess software companies have one set of rules, and the
rest of us,,,,,,

Good Idea though

No,, not really. The data structures of these programs are not nearly as
complex as SW, or any other similar system like Pro-E.

These are surface and polymesh modelers. You can create incredibly complex
surfaces in Maya. You can even "group" individual surfaces into a quasi
object, but they're still individual free standing surfaces. In SW you have
several layers of interdependent mathematical relationships that have to
resolve to a solution, even in a simple part. It's kind of like an open loop
vs closed loop servo system. If you were to model in SW using no relations,
dimensions, or constraints, you would have alot more stability. Of course,
you wouldn't have any control of anything, and things wouldn't fit

A few years ago there was an article published in "Computer Aided Design
Report" (Wolf Publications). The article was titled "Why Parametric Solid
Modelers Crash". In it, they describe many of the reasons why this type of
software is inherently unstable. I'm not defending SW, they could do a much
better job. To some extent though, it's the nature of the beast.

If you lower the achievable performance to the lowest common denominator,
you'll end up with something no one will be happy with. If your making a
living designing things with a modern CAD system, you should be able to
afford a capable machine. There are lots of hardware configurations that run
SW very reliably and fast. There are also others that can be problematic,
Dell comes to mind, so do many laptops. Unfortunately SW Var's tend to tell
customers it will run on anything, this just isn't true. Pro-E, UG, and
Catia are also picky about hardware.

Ahh,, but you can't cut your hand off with a software program. The risks and
liabilities are completly different, even if the wasted time and money
isn't.

Hey, maybe we should try suing a few Var's !!! That might work.

P.S. A "slow" CNC mill might be OK for a sensible novice. The newer machines
are so fast you can't push the red button fast enough to do any good. Even a
slow CNC lathe can be scary if it makes an unexpected move, especially if it
has a three jaw chuck on it.


Regards

Mark

 

I'm seriously considering buying one of these
http://www.datrondynamics.com/velociraptor.htm sometime this year. It looks
like it can chew through metal at a pretty nice clip.


-Martin

 

Martin,

Looks interesting, but way too expensive for what it appears to be. Unless
of course it's extremely fast, and accurate. The posted numbers don't seem
to be anything out of the ordinary, but the polymer concrete base and 60K
spindle seem to indicate otherwise. This type of machine doesn't really
qualify as a general purpose "do everything" type of tool. Looks to be more
suited to fast light work with teensy endmills. Probably be pretty good at
small core/cavity finishing, or EDM electrodes. Those high speed spindles
are also high maintenance. You need to consider replacement cost, (probably
about 8 to 10K a pop), as part of the operating costs.

For that kind of money you can get a real machine with a Siemens 840D high
speed control and servo system.

What do you plan to do with it


Regards

Mark

 

Looks interesting, but way too expensive for what it appears to be. Unless

Good feedback, thanks.

My problem is that I need a large XY working area. Possibly up to about 35
x 24 inches or so. It would be rare to cut anything significantly thicker
than 1/4 inch 6061 Aluminum. The current part is about 16 x 32. It's a
bezel for a special-purpose LCD display. One large rectangular cutout in
the center. Beveled and chamfered edges. holes for mounting studs. Some
pocketing for optics. That's about it.

I think the problem with "real" machines (which I will probably get
eventually for other work) is that, in order to get this work envelope the
machine becomes the size of a small truck. These mini-gantry type machines
are space efficient and are certainly fast enough for our purposes. We are
not talking about thousands of pieces a month here.

Part of the advantage of having your own machine is that you can add
complexity to the design and not take a big hit in terms of fabrication
cost.

But...you are not supposed to manufacture anything in the US any more right?
What the hell am I thinking!

-Martin

 

One thing to watch is the accuracy of the gantry style machines.
Manufacturers state good numbers, but when you wish the guarantee in
writing, unlike a full mill, the numbers aren't as good.

A friend was looking at a Haas ( not picking on the brand, I acutally
like them, just using as an example ). The literature stated accuracy of
something like +-.0015" which was fine for his purposes. But when ask to
guarantee the accuracy in the purchase agreement, that same number was
+-.004" which was not acceptable.

Get the accuracy you need guaranteed in the purchase agreement.

 

Martin,

I advise you to be a cautious buyer. That's an awful lot of money for such a
limited machine. Two horspower and nine inces of "Z" travel isn't much. You
won't be able to cut aluminum with much more than a 3/8" endmill, and you'll
have to take shallow passes at that.

Find out the availability and price of tool holders and other accessories.
Make them machine a test part. The part should represent close to a worse
case as far as what you expect to do. It should also have key features that
can be measured. For that kind of money, and considering the obvious intent
of the design, it should be able to mill a "round" (< .0005 TIR) 1" hole, or
boss, at over 100 IPM. If it can't it's just average, but very expensive.

My experience with PC based controls isn't very encouraging. One of the
biggest problems with Windows is "real time execution". The good Windows
based controllers, like Siemens, have the real time sub system in hardware.
Others attempt to do everything in software. This can cause all types of
problems that they don't advertize about.

Regards

Mark

 

Thanks for the advise. I'm not in a hurry. I'll probably wait until the
next machinery trade show (missed Westec) to get a sense of everything that
might be out there.

I actually studied what it would take to design and build one (a
metal-cutting CNC gantry) a while ago. One of the key problems seemed to be
rigidity. Lots of very heavy metal and very expensive linear
bearings/tracks would be required. The spindle drive problem was
interesting. Colombo is a name that kept coming up. It was more of a
learning excercise than real intent to build. My background is in robotics,
so it wouldn't be a problem. Still, it makes no sense to even attempt it.
I rather build LEGO robots with my son.

-Martin

 

Sw often knows about the problems, they are more interested in new
users, than existing users. My issue with the above is this. Most of the
dealers, and nearly all of the so-called SW application engineers are
much more interested in working with potential new sales, than
maintaining relationships with existing/paying customers. It would
require a "competent" app engineer to actually spend some time with me,
and the files I am having problems with to address the issues. I have
been a SW user since Feb 1996, and I have yet to have a dealer,
engineer, or otherwise come spend any time whatsoever on location,
dealing with things that don't work regarding SW software. why? Because
they don't see it as a productive use of their time. The subscription
fees roll in every year regardless, the dealers can't fix the SW
problems, nor do they understand them, sometimes. It can take me half a
day, to an entire day to compile all the information necessary to submit
an SPR report, that is generally ignored. Ignored because there is no
interest to get to the bottom of the problem, and is already understood
as an existing unresolved issue. It is also extremely easy to blame the
problem on hardware/configuration/application etc... I certainly agree
with you that sometimes the problems are user generated, and that
misapplication or poorly communicated procedures are a root cause. but
the only way to address either of these is on-site, one on one. Exactly
what you do. extremely difficult to do via e-mail/telephone.

I used to do what you do, and it was relatively easy to address the
problems that new users are struggling with. But as they became more
savvy with modeling etc... I couldn't help much, other than to say
"don't use that feature, or there isn't a workaround, or re-create the
part/ delete all the external references. Delete and re-create all the
mates etc...

It is amazing to me, to load a new version, only to find that part
features that failed to work 8 years ago, still don't work today. And
worse, features that worked consistantly in SW1997, don't work at all now.

It is so easy to moan and complain, rather that come up with solutions,
as you suggest. Don't get me wrong, I am continually impressed with the
stuff that occurs between major releases, But I would REALLY like to see
a new version rollout, where there are no new features/dialog boxes/new
buttons whatsoever, only fixes to age old issues, and a fundamental at
least 3X performance increase. I think the current trend of a new
04/05/06 version of ALL software is nothing more that revenue
generation, attracting new users, and forced upgrades. It severly
hampers good software development, or any manufacturing development
cycle. Henry Fords dream was to get you to buy a new car EVERY year,
the closest they have come is Leasing every Two years. But they are now
introducing new product every 1/2 year. The consumer electronics cycle
is now every 1/4 year.



ca