Why no NURBS in SW

This has probably been discussed a trillion, billion times, but I ask....why
no implementations of NURBS into the SW program? It is not like it is
something new. And I am sure that it can be done. Does SW not look at it as
a useful tool? or am I just asking for the impossible to be done. As an
Industrial design tool, SW works well for me. That new deform feature is a
far cry from being something useful, just my opinion.

I have tried shapeworks, which was not that bad. Place as many points on any
surface and then push and pull them, but should this a third party tool or
something SW has from the get go?

 

"This has probably been discussed a trillion, billion times,
but I ask....why no implementations of NURBS into the SW
program?"

Because the initial concept of Solidworks was to be a solid
only modeler. This has now been proven to be the wrong way
to go. It is something I have said was the wrong way to go
for many, many years in this newsgroup.

It takes time to change from the wrong concept to the right
one. Allowing disjoint solids was the first step to becoming
a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler. There is still a long,
long way to go for SolidWorks.

"It is not like it is something new."

It is for SolidWorks.

"That new deform feature is a far cry from being something
useful, just my opinion."

ROTFLMFAO. The brain trust at Spatial sure can't do what
this man can:

http://www.think3.com/company/management05.htm


"but should this a third party tool or something SW has from
the get go?"

Extreme sarcasm mode on:

Na, just keep shelling out the cash for all the basic
functionality stuff SolidWorks should have but doesn't and
just keep bopping back and forth between a ton of separate
applications. That's the way to go !!!


jon

 

Yeah, it would be nice, especially with the curves and control points
being driven.

Personally, I do not think SW Corp knows how to implement this and they
have been trying to get a better feel from the other surfacing tools out
there as well as users they like working with on how they can implement
it.

When/if they begin implementing it, they will be stepping on a few of
the addin surface tools.
I can imagine there are a few developers who have and are bidding on
component ideas for that interface?

SolidEdge has already helped with their newer interface but when Ade$k
Inventor starts doing more with NURBS, we will most likely see it.

Then, SW Corp will market it as a user requested enhancement!?

Yeah, right!? Who is following who???????

...

 

: Yeah, it would be nice, especially with the curves and control points
: being driven.
:
: Personally, I do not think SW Corp knows how to implement this and they
: have been trying to get a better feel from the other surfacing tools out
: there as well as users they like working with on how they can implement
: it.
:
: When/if they begin implementing it, they will be stepping on a few of
: the addin surface tools.
: I can imagine there are a few developers who have and are bidding on
: component ideas for that interface?
:
Well, could it also be that DSS is using limitations in SW to push people to
Catia?

David Janes

 

Yeah, could be part of the reason.

...

 

"Well, could it also be that DSS is using limitations in SW
to push people to Catia?"

I've seen absolutely no evidence of this so far.

Further, think about this logically for a moment. If
SolidWorks competition implements it how can SolidWorks not
implement it and stay viable ???

The problem is that SolidWorks now only sees Autodesk as their
competition. It's always been Autodesk and PTC. No one else.
When Autodesk actually delivers what they are now getting
increasingly vocal about with ShapeManager then SolidWorks
will have no choice but to follow. None.

SolidWorks Corp. has pretty much dragged their heels on
adding the needed hybrid functionality for years and I
believe that increasing competition from SolidEdge (who has
real surfacing) and from IronCAD (next year) and hopefully
Autodesk will leave SolidWorks Corp. no choice.

Sadly, SolidWorks Corp. has not been the innovators that they
should be in a long time

jon

 

I would not say that solid modeliing is the wrong way to go. Pure surfacing
is not the answer either, so get off that horse quick. Programs like Pro/E,
SW, and the likes are seeing that surfacing IS needed. Rhino, Alias, and
Maya are all great programs, but there are certain things that they lack as
well.

Jon, this is not about what program I want to use, this is just a question
about getting something into the program that I am using.

I dont need to know any more about your think3 sales pitch, I have seen it,
tried it, and it is not for me. The experience that I had with the company
left such a bad taste in my mouth that I would rather go back to drafting
than use it. They offered me a trial version of the program for 3 months and
after the 3 months they wanted to charge me for it, even though I told them
that I did not want to use it. The next month I see a charge on the credit
card from them. Will not get into specifics but damm short of flying to CA
to beat their azz, is alomost what it took to get them to give me the $$$
back.

Done.

 

"I would not say that solid modeliing is the wrong way to
go. Pure surfacing is not the answer either, so get off that
horse quick"

How can I get off that horse when I have never been on it in
the first place ??? My posts over many, many years to this
newsgroup, as well as to alt.machines.cnc, make this perfectly
clear. That you don't read them or understand them is not
something I can control.

"Jon, this is not about what program I want to use, this is
just a question about getting something into the program
that I am using."

IMO, it's about you having to use Rhino for basic surface
functionality instead of you being able to get the job done
with SolidWorks as you should be able to.

jon

 

Yeah adding NURBS would definately step on a few 3rd party toes. Maybe SW
would just have to buy em out. I know there was a big stink raised from when
'03 came out and had a few plug-ins that totally took some 3rd party
plug-ins.

 

"Yeah adding NURBS would definately step on a few 3rd party
toes. Maybe SW would just have to buy em out."

I know for a FACT that one of the major 3rd party surfacing
vendors for SolidWorks would just love for this to happen.
Perhaps one of the major reasons why they created their add-in
in the first place.

The Harold Bowers / Cadkey decision should give 3rd party
vendors some comfort in knowing that their stuff can't be easily
copied / reverse engineered.


jon

 

You've seen.... what?.. in the demos you have run??

Yeah,... let's think about this logically???

Pro/e actually has had tools for nurbs editing for years!!!

And, MDT had nurbs tools!!!!! (mdt is basically dead)

And, let's see,.. Cadkey also had nurbs tools... and were one of the
largest 3D based users!?

....so, where is your LOGIC!???

SW Corp "should" have/had been more than capable of implementing nurbs
tools and you are right about dragging their heels.

but... you are so full it!!!!!!!

Otherwise, no shit sherlock... at this point in time, if/when Inventor
gets nurbs edit tools, SW Corp will most likely implement nurbs tools,
because IV is the next generation and they still has a huge user base
linked with Acad/MDT!
Regardless, SW will most likely put in nurbs editing tools because of
SolidEdge pushing their tools, which btw, are most likely past
disfranchised Cadkey and Acad users!?

...

 

FACT = WHO, WHAT and WHY?

...

 

And, let's see,.. Cadkey also had nurbs tools... and were one of the

Nope.

Just got them in the latest version.

If you wanted real surfacing you had to purchase FastSurf.

Did you miss that in the demo ???

LOL

See above. ;>)

See above on who is full of it. :>)

Have a nice day,

jon

 

Ya know, I just threw this in as an example but as always your twisted
logic or should I say, twisting/spinning things around continues.

Anyhow, from what I remember, it was a fully integrated addon by
FastSurf for CADKEY, acquire in 1998, and has been sold as a integrated
tool bundled with CadKey since then (yes, it did cost extra).
I'm sure this is a near and dear subject with you so.. weren't the guys
who wrote FastSurf also ex-CadKey people.... and BayState screwed all
you users over!? Oh, maybe you were not a user but a demo user? Yeah,
don't you luv it!!

Put that in your BS spin cycle...

Hey, if you want to spin this as well.. Inventor will most likely sell a
separate add-on for their nurbs functionality or I think (not sure) it
will be Inventor Pro for a extra few $$$?

...

 

"Anyhow, from what I remember, it was a fully integrated
addon by FastSurf for CADKEY, acquire in 1998, and has been
sold as a integrated tool bundled with CadKey since then
(yes, it did cost extra)."

Your way off base and wrong again.

In recent versions of Cadkey up until the last two versions
FastSURF files had to be *converted to ACIS files* that's how
poorly Cadkey was integrated with FastSurf. In the latest version
of Cadkey FastSURF functionality is built in and included in
Cadkey's price.

LOL

"I'm sure this is a near and dear subject with you so..
weren't the guys who wrote FastSurf also ex-CadKey people"

Well I do care about lots of things like this, so.... I'm
very sorry to tell you but your wrong once again.

FastSurf was Robert White and Dave Reyburn. Neither worked
directly for Cadkey at that time or before that time.

At this point Dave Reyburn does do work for Cadkey out
of his home in I believe Indiana.

jon

 

Actually, I'm not off base. It was sold/marketed as a fully integrated
package, before and after... just like their take on the word "hybrid"?
I could careless if they lied or twisted the users around and someone
like you figure it out after doing demos what did and did not work and
what maybe hybrid.

And, as far as not being direct employees, that I'm not sure about and
that's why there was a "?", but I'm sure they were close and paid
well. Ah, but more names of people for you to print...

But they did screw those 250K+ users over, didn't they,... don't you luv
it?!

...

 

"Actually, I'm not off base. It was sold/marketed as a
fully integrated package, before and after..."

They lied.

"just like their take on the word "hybrid"?"

SolidWork is hybrid. It's just does not deliver seamless,
unified, hybrid modeling. This is why I have used those
words to describe what is needed for so very long.

Right now SolidWorks is all "hack and whack" baby. ;>)

"I could careless if they lied or twisted the users
around...."

I was always a caremore person rather than a careless
person. :>)

"Ah, but more names of people for you to print..."

Always nice to give credit where credit is due.

"But they did screw those 250K+ users over, didn't they,..."

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and
statistics...

Benjamin Disraeli

"don't you luv it?!"

Nope. I don't. Hopefully I helped some to not get screwed
/not get screwed so badly.

jon

 

Personally, I can get 99% of what I need done in SW surfacing. And the horse
that I am talking about is that you are said solid modeling is not the way
to go. And that is a wrong conclusion to come to.

So in your world, do you only drink coke? Wait no you only drink
Pepsi....because you are a one program kinda guy. I, OTH, understand that
there will never be, and probably shouldnt be a one stop shop program.
Competition helps to make everything better, otherwise companies would rest
on their laurels.

 

....more bs...

SolidWorks a hybrid modeler?? NO, it is NOT a hybrid modeler.
Is it doing more to integrate different methods, yes.

The idea behind hybrid "was" the integration of the different modeling
methods.

Hybrid seems to have turned into a word for anything to any marketing
twit or demo user who likes to skim over what it could be or what it
isn't or what they hope it to be?!

"hack and whack" = people who demo software and use a combination of
words from companies marketing those words - seamless, unified, and
hybrid to generalize what modeling could be to someone who does not
model, in hopes to impress others.

In the past, and currently now, most so called hybrid modelers are "hack
and whack", and I repeat, that is what we use to call them!

Over the years you have pulled together some of what is right and wrong
to reinforce your moshposh marketing bs!
And sadly, I believe some of the marketing idiots are using these bs
words, because they don't have a clue and they need words for their
bs! It's insane to say the least!!

Cadkey/BayState must have really screwed your brain good!?

If you cared more, you would actually add something of value, not
cut/paste marketing BS!?
Add something of value, something to share and something tangible to the
ng.

How did you help when the dialog is based on a next release version?
Otherwise, where are your examples from this next release?

...

 

"Personally, I can get 99% of what I need done in SW
surfacing."

I enjoy reading your posts in the Rhino newsgroup. ;>)

"And the horse that I am talking about is that you are said
solid modeling is not the way to go."

If I said anything I said solids should not be your only
tool. I subscribe to the Edward Eaton philosophy that basically
says solids are just surfaces with macros.

IMO those macros will not be smart enough to eliminate the
use of traditional surfacing anytime in the foreseeable future.

"And that is a wrong conclusion to come to."

Absolutely the wrong conclusion.

"I, OTH, understand that there will never be, and probably
shouldnt be a one stop shop program."

Yes but there is a major difference between what you wrote
above and not having the basic seamless, unified, hybrid
tools that should come with a base CAD/CAM package and NOT
be extra. An extra add-in to edit imported NURBS is as
ridiculous as an extra add-in to handle complex filleting.

"Competition helps to make everything better, otherwise
companies would rest on their laurels."

Applying what you wrote above to SolidWorks Corp, who
now only see Autodesk as their competition, perhaps we
should hold a daily prayer session in this newsgroup and
pray for Autodesk to implement what they are saying they
are going to do with ShapeManager.


jon