VX anyone :-P, lol

Sorry, but I could not help to point you in this direction, after reading
the post about VX, maybe this link might help those into molding.
http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2002/Nov/12/feature6.phtm

 

http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2002/Nov/12/feature6.phtm

Does really say much about VX. According to the article VX had a
problem importing a single IGES file. Very little factual info besides
this is given about VX.

Your post makes me wonder if you have had any experience importing IGES
files into VX and if you have compared the IGES import in VX to
SolidWorks ?

In any case it's good to see more posts in regards to VX. Hopefully we
will see many, many more. :>)


jon

 

If you had read the whole article, it ends with them selecting ProE over
solidworks, because, ProE dropped their very high prices to get the deal.
So it was not a really stab at VX, even though it did fail, just some more
info for the wary among us.
I would just add that if VX had better marketing. I would have given it a
trail run, as I did with ProE, Inventor, solidedge, solidworks and Autocad
when I wanted to buy a 3D package, but I have never heard of it until now.
Maybe it's limited to the USA??
I gave to the reps of the above, 1 sheet metal panel, 1 electrical
terminal, 1 engineered part with a d/cut thread, 1 formed component, 1 piece
of pipework with a check valve and a solenoid.
ProE and solidworks were the only ones to be able to complete ALL of the
tasks with parts, assemblies and drawings in a time, suitable to operate in
our environment, plus the added bonus of edrawings, a great help for our
customers to select a correct replacement part. If you can arrange for a
trial version of VX to be sent to me, I will return with an honest opinion,
as most people on this forum will tell you. If something is bad or good, I
say so.
Solidworks won because of the huge price difference and speed of completion.
Also because of the great help offered here, by some very skilled peeps.

 

Well, we all know that you have none.

And that you have no clues here either.

Missed the bits that the files came from Mechanical Desktop 3
did you? What would you expect, considering the errors in the
model?
What's an "error", jb?

Have a nice day.

 

Poor jb's so totally clueless ...

Which of them are actually full CAD/CAM systems?
The guy needs to produce CNC code in the end, among
other things ... or send models to vendors for them to do it ....
Which work with things like Moldflow? Etc.?

 

I had a run in with VX salemen about a year ago. They were feeding my
management a load of c..p about SW to try and get the sale. They
stated:

1. SolidWorks couldn't do surfaces/surfacing
2. SolidWorks accuracy was insufficient to do CNC for machining.
3. SolidWorks couldn't deal with point clouds/scanner data.
Of those only one is true or partially true and that is 3.

 

p

Now you have got me intrigued!
What is a point cloud and what is it used for??
It maybe a term that I have not heard of, referring to something that I do
know, lol
I am British you know, living in good old England, still with gas lamps in
some places, even though we have upgraded to metric, pmsl
I forgot to mention MDT, we tried that also, cough! cough! Lets just say
that I personally, found Turbocad to be better. :-s
Ps:- Turbocad was the first cad program that I had ever used, then Autocad,
and now hmmm,??? oh yes Solidworks,

 

To me, it seemed like their benchmark process was over-simplified.
Perhaps this was just four journalistic purposes.

 

What is a point cloud and what is it used for??

Usually a set of sample points collected by a scanning / measuring / 3D
digitizing device (Faro Arm, etc.).

 

1. I read the whole article and came away less than impressed.

2. In the tests I ran with VX Vision (now just called VX) it far
exceeded SolidWorks in IGES import capabilities and ease of repair.

3. You claim that VX is not good at marketing was and is to an extent
still true.
Are you aware that this is the case because Varimetrix now VX never
really had to market Vision (now just called VX) because it was
developed for Samsung. It takes time to build a worldwide first class
VAR network. IMO VX has made a good start and is having decent success
with doing so. Is their VAR network anywhere near as good as
SolidWorks.... No. Is the technology in VX far superior in many was to
SolidWorks....Yes.

4. In the last 2 years VX has gotten much better at marketing and has
hired former top people from NCCS and Webber Systems.

5. There was zero discussion of CAM in this article and how SolidWorks
did in that regard. In the area I'm involved most in, machining is
important. :>) See alt.machines.cnc

6. I don't sell and have never sold any CAD/CAM system. If you want
more info, etc. you will have to contact VX yourself.... my purpose
here is to see that better alternatives to SolidWorks get discussed. VX
is just one of those alternatives.

jon

 

Number 1: The surfacing tools in SolidWorks don't come close to
comparing with the ease of use / seamlessness that VX has. SolidWorks
surfacing tools would be the equivelent of using a file to get a block
square where VX would be a integrated mill / turn machine. Can you get
the job done with a file and enough time vs an integrated mill / turn
machine... yes you can if you have enough time and skill. Is the file
the way to go... nope.

Number 2: Is false.

Number 3: VX blows SolidWorks away and offers included tools that one
does not get with SolidWorks. One has to buy a third party package for
SolidWorks to deal with point clouds / scanner data.

Number 4: (You missed number 4 :>) )VX has does not need a third party
add-in for CAM.

jon

 

Over-simplified to the point of being useless.

jon

 

They sent you a free canned demo some years ago?
LOL ....

You don't use it & never have.
Even 2D CAM programming gives you a headache. Just thinking
about it.

He's where? In the UK?

Make up your "mind".

Still confused?

Pretty good at PCB design, is it?
Manuals in Japanese or Korean?

They showed you the door? Which end went first?

Not a clue .....

Bla, bla, bla ... neither are all that good in their field AFAIK.
And you just did a copy & paste of one of your old posts, right?

Where you claim to be an expert & instructor in the use of SW?
But are well known to be an idiot?

In fact, you have been repeatedly told by various firms never to
mention their name again, right? And quite blatently lied about
them offering you jobs ....

As you have no clues.

So is your idiocy.
And probably http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/beaver.html <G>.

HTH

 

And VX ...? No third party software avalable at all?

LOL ...

He's getting free clues from somewhere .... LOL ..... <G>.

Why is it known as a CAM package?

 

Over-simplified to the point of being useless.

After you just used it? LOL .....

 

So what is your point Jon?

The salesmen didn't say VX had better surfacing which it probably does from
what I have seen. They said SW didn't have ANY surfacing and that was a
flat out, categorical lie. When salesmen have to lie to keep from having
their product compared to another it tells you something about the company
and its product.

As far as your #4 goes it really didn't matter because in that case the
company didn't have a CNC machine capable of anything more than what BOBCAD
could produce. Fact of the matter was the company didn't buy VX and ended
up trying SW in that application which for them allowed one person to do
the work of three with no retraining. Since they already had SW buying
another package made no sense at all.

The company didn't have a scanner and frankly didn't need one. Somebody just
had big ideas.

 

To correct what was not accurate and provide a broader perspective.

IMO it's more like they know their own product but don't really know
the competitors product and what it can or can't do. I have found this
to be the case with almost every AE I have ever met.

What kind of CNC machines did they have ? What kind(s)of product did
they produce ? Did they have a product line or were they more job shop
like ? You have not provided enough info.

I can see cases perhaps like this where VX would not make sense.

You would rather they had small ideas and thought small ?

jon

 

Guess it's free clue time again .....

The IGES data was from an AutoCAD part, which uses the
"ACIS" kernel.
It was "bad" data. Corrupt/missing/etc. surface.

The problem was clearly due to a bad model in the first place
in the original AutoCAD source part. A missing surface, bad trim or
something. Perhaps poor modeling practices *were allowed* by
the ACIS kernel or tolerances were too open.

In any case, the problem would have to be resolved *someplace*
to make a part from that 3D model.

Any modeler that "automatically" fixes such errors is suspect.
There is no way it could ever know what the design intent was.
Was a sharp corner intended? A fillet? Some sort of blend surface?

That SW with it's ParaSolid kernel *found the error* is a good
thing. Any modeler that did not is a *bad thing*. This includes
the *original* ACIS modeler that allowed the error(s).

Conclusions:
IGES was not the problem.
SW was not the problem.
Pro-E was not the problem.
ParaSolid was not the problem.
ACIS WAS the problem.
Poor jb is a clueless idiot.

Looked at another way, ACIS & AutoCAD are a bit too
targeted at producing 2D paper drawings as their end product,
probably, instead of valid 3D models with any 2D drawings
as a "simple" byproduct.

But jb remains a clueless idiot <G>.

HTH

 

Guess it's free clue time again .....

The IGES data was from an AutoCAD part, which uses the
"ACIS" kernel.
It was "bad" data. Corrupt/missing/etc. surface.

The problem was clearly due to a bad model in the first place
in the original AutoCAD source part. A missing surface, bad trim or
something. Perhaps poor modeling practices *were allowed* by
the ACIS kernel or tolerances were too open.

In any case, the problem would have to be resolved *someplace*
to make a part from that 3D model.

Any modeler that "automatically" fixes such errors is suspect.
There is no way it could ever know what the design intent was.
Was a sharp corner intended? A fillet? Some sort of blend surface?

That SW with it's ParaSolid kernel *found the error* is a good
thing. Any modeler that did not is a *bad thing*. This includes
the *original* ACIS modeler that allowed the error(s).

Conclusions:
IGES was not the problem.
SW was not the problem.
Pro-E was not the problem.
ParaSolid was not the problem.
ACIS WAS the problem.
Poor jb is a clueless idiot.

Looked at another way, ACIS & AutoCAD are a bit too
targeted at producing 2D paper drawings as their end product,
probably, instead of valid 3D models with any 2D drawings
as a "simple" byproduct.

But jb remains a clueless idiot <G>.

HTH

 

But you had no clues at all.

That of a clueless buzzword king? That has
not and does not use such things and probably never
has?