Zebra Stripes - Tangency - Loft

I don't think you have covered this in any of your tutorials. (If you have,
just point me to it.) I know at least three people here at work who would
love to see a presentation on this topic, as we run into issues all of the
time that we suspect are due to changing face and edge IDs.

We have been bitten by this one any number of times. I suspect from the way
you worded this that you don't have any good work-arounds. If you do we
would love to hear about them.

Mutual trims also tend to "forget" some of the surfaces. We suspect that is
due to the face/edge ID issues, but perhaps there are other reasons. Other
than not putting too many surfaces in a single mutual trim (trims with two
or three surfaces don't seem to fail as often as those with five or six),
have you come up with any other techniques to minimize problems?

I haven't been bitten by this one yet, although I think at least one of my
co-workers has. I will try and remember to stick with the old tried and true
master and multiple child sketches that I probably learned from you so long
ago.

I suspect that you or someone like you (not that I know anyone else like
you!) could do a full presentation just on how show and hide work or don't
work. Heaven only knows how many hours I have spent rolling up and down the
tree trying to get the appropriate bodies hidden and shown. It's usually not
too hard the first time you work on a feature, but going back later can
result in a lot of hair on the floor.

The time you spend on your presentations shows. The people giving you the
compliments aren't just being nice!

Not to me. And I don't think I'm all that different from the average
attendee.

This does seem to be a really good idea. We've got people here who know an
incredible amount about how to drive different parts of SolidWorks. Together
we are incredibly smart!


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

 

Cliff,

Got that simple profile you keep talking about ready yet?
Still waiting for you to post an example of your work to stand up to
peer review. Prove your point.

You have made nearly 1,000 news group posts since we have been asking
you to post an example profile to prove your point. You insisted my
method cannot produce good parts so it should be easy for you to post
at least ONE example profile to prove your point.

The only parameter for this profile is Keith's SL-1 lathe since that is

the lathe I posted a detailed procedure for him and you still insist it

is wrong. Post a profile that I can't turn and you can with your
convoluted, unnecessarily complex and error prone process will.

Tom

 

without being too analytical...2 comments Ed
1.Some people who give compliments and criticism are actually expressing
hostility covertly and frequently subconsciously because your perceived
ability challenges their own estimations of self worth.
For instance I am actually angry inside that your ability is better than
mine or receiving more attention I might make a compliment about it but then
pull it apart very sweetly with fault finding or better it with advice or
hints.Sometimes the purpose of their response is quite confusing but if at
the end of it you will feel you have failed in some way they have succeeded
in restoring themselves.
It is all about restoring a needy ego at the expense of the other.
Actually it doesn't have a lot to do with your ideas or you it is about the
other person and their need to reaffirm their self worth externally
continuously with overt demonstrations of their own ability.
This isn't a very good thought pattern but some people live their entire
lives inside it....
2.Some people are over identified with conformity to group behaviour and
will attack anything that looks or sounds threatening to that clique even to
the point of being absurd in the defence of the obviously wrong.
This is about gaining and maintaining acceptance and demonstrating belonging
but it also is a power play at your expense designed to restore order to
their harmonious world.Typically these people defend those whose favour they
depend upon.
Again it is actually about the other person and not you and again you will
come out of this feeling you have committed some moral wrong against
society.

So 2 types of people will find your independent thinking disturbing when you
stand up and say things that contradict their perspective.
-those who are actually dread being inferior but find an exclusive knowledge
is a useful vehicle for acting being superior.
-those types who dare not be an individual over belonging.

 

Makes you wonder what happened to jb ....

 

"I am just a man - he is the legend, the institution."

Never imagined that just telling the truth about SaladWorks not having
C2 curves / surfacing would make me an institution. :>)

Now that C2 curves and surfaces are *finally* in SolidWorks 2007 ( 6
years overdue ) perhaps I can retire the SaladWorks moto?

If non-native data isn't dealt with in SolidWorks (like Kubotek is
doing with KeyCreator) then I reserve the right to call it SaladWorks
again after say a 1 year moratorium. ;>)

Jon Banquer
God of all CADCAM
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Tom,

You do realize that after I modeled Bottlebob's part in VX and posted
the screen shots that Cliff never would take the challenge and never
could produce *any proof* that he can use a modern CADCAM system.

What has it been 2 years now since I posted the VX screen shots of
Bottlebobs part?

He's mentally ill, Tom and he has been for many years.

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

SolidWorks Corp. should contract James Carruthers and ask him to do an
extensive surfacing tutorial like he did for Rhino.

http://www.hydraulicdesign.net/advancedtraining.htm

SolidWorks Corp. should try and hire him full time if he's available
and interested.

Jon Banquer
God Of All CADCAM ;>)
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Or CAD designed by Cliff, we can call it Tourette's-CAD or TROLL-CAD.

Tom

 

Tom,
You have a fanclub <G>.
Now he'll be dropping your name for months all over the Net .. give
him your phone number too .... LOL ....

 

"But I get the impression that it is a seriously tough problem and at
some point they have to accept what they can get so they can give us
SOMETHING"

Agree.


A few thoughts additional thoughts:

It is completely unreasonable to expect SolidWorks surfacing to be on
the level of think3 surfacing in SolidWorks 2007. You don't go from
shit to shineola in a release that has just added the basics... C2
curves and surfaces... although it's a big step forward like allowing
disjoint solids was.

It's a damn shame that think3 is marketed so poorly in the U.S. because
their Global Shape Modeling is far ahead and will continue to be far
ahead of SolidWorks.

It's very clear in CADCAM that the best technology does not win. You
need to know how to market that technology and companies like think3
and VX are not very good at marketing their superior technology.

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

Jon,

Thanks for the warning, I am aware as I am sure most people are that
Cliff has for sport been cyberstalking you for years.

Tom

 

Cliff,

I have managed a cordial online relationship with Jon for years even
when I disagree with him. Sometimes he is right on and other times not
but as far as I am concerned we can agree to disagree.

I wish you would post your profile so we can have an intelligent
discussion on that profile and programming but finally I am coming to
the conclusion as hard as I try I can't get you to carry on a rational
intelligent discussion. I have tried nice cop, bad cop with you and
nothing has jogged you into posting a real response with a sample
profile to prove your point, stand up to peer review and discussion. So
I will have to back off , you may be my very first Killfile, I have
lowered myself to your level recently but I refuse to become you, a
troll and I will stop.

Tom

 

Tom,

Cliffys mental illness is very hard for most people to accept and
understand. No doubt in my mind that Cliffy is getting worse every
year. Cliffy still sends me e-mail even when I have made it clear I
don't wish to hear from him by e-mail so he uses fake names... typical
of his stalker behavior.

Cliffy tried using fake names to post to the MMS Online CADCAM Forum in
an effort to stalk me and they deleted all of his posts. Still laughing
my ass off over that one.

Cliffy has done so much damage to alt.machines.cnc that I got sick of
his shit and requested and got a CAD/CAM Web Forum on
www.practicalmachinist.com and it seems to be doing very well.

I wish MMS Online should follow Practical Machinists lead but for some
reason A.J. does nothing about their crappy web software and tries to
moderate the entire thing himself. Maybe A.J. had no funds available
but in the mean time American Machinist Magazine is just kicking Modern
Machine Shops ass with its Practical Machinist online forums and making
Modern Machine Shop look like fools.

I had high hopes for CNC Zone but the owner Paul turned out to be a
total asshole who is only interested in making as much money as he can
from on-line advertisers and will suck their cocks even when it's not
in the best interest of the forum as a whole. Chris Corbel ( A lying
little **** if there ever was one) of BobCADCAM basically got Paul the
owner of CNC Zone to rim his ass in an effort to protect BobCADCAM from
legitimate criticism.

Many of the regulars on CNC Zone got sick of Paul's phony ass, said
**** you, and headed to the Practical Machinist Web Forums.

A former long time poster to alt.machines.cnc is the moderator of the
CAD/CAM forum that I requested and got. He no longer posts to
alt.machines.cnc like many of us no longer will do.

IMO, if you or others want to try and save what little is left of
alt.machines.cnc then a moderated newsgroup or web forum should be
started.

It's unfortunate that say Anthony, Black Dragon or Steve Mackay won't
or can't create a moderated newsgroup or web forum for
alt.machines.cnc.

One last note. You gave me credit for saying that SolidWorks sucks at
large assemblies. I don't work with large assemblies and I never said
this. That SolidWorks sucks at large assemblies has been stated by
SolidWorks users like Paul Salvador and others.

Salvador has also stated that SolidWorks does not work very well for
top down design. Salvador and I rarely get along or see eye to eye and
he can feel free to correct anything that he feels I got wrong in
regards to Solidworks handling of top down design or large assemblies.

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

I think the BREP (used by parasolid and all of its licensees and the
competitors that I am aware of) is a technology with an expiration date
stamped on it. It is (to me) clearly not what we will use in 20 years
- it has too many limitations.
Will we use it in 5 years? probably. Ten years? Dunno.
All the CAD companies I see (and I don't follow the market as cloesly
as Jon, bless his heart) are flopping around with variations on the
BREP, distinguishing themselves with minor variations on their attack
on it - if you look at UG, ProE, SWx, Inventor, etc, critically, the
main differentiaton is about interface, stability, or neat add-ons like
'global shape modeling' (which is not far from 'flex in SWx, excepting
the fact that it doesn't completely suck) because the background math
is still the same (with some variations on individual face math, like
SWx 'fill-surface' or their new 'boundary surface')
The vast majority of modeilng problems I encounter - my own, or thrugh
others - are a results of the BREP, and that's why I focus so much on
it when I present at SWx world. Here's the big question - what if we
can just ditch it?
I think there is an opportunity to break through with something new,
and these guys (who are starting a new CAD) are breaking through with a
new engine that has that potential. Will it work? I don't know. I
would not personally bet on it. That said, I wish I could say who I
know invested in this product - there are people who's names you DO
know who have put money into this.
I can say I wish these guys luck. Because even if they fail (like the
'apple Newton') at some point someone will succeed with it (like the
'palm pilot' - crappy analogy, but it's what I have so forgive me)
Bottom line, I believe to my core that at some point someone will come
through with something new that does work. Not only things like
automatic G3 continuity between surfaces, but things like faces that
generate 'potential' volumes (like electron clouds) based on their
geometric tolerances so you can check interferences based on the
manufacturing tolerances, not the nominals (like we are stuck with
using BREP)
This WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And I stongly suspect
that it won't be with companies that have to continue to support the
BREP lagacy that they started with (caveat - that last bit is a guess -
maybe they can take that old tech and make it work)
-Ed

 

I just have to say ... <GAK>.

You have (or used to) CSG & BREP.
Constructive Solids Geometry used boolian operations on a "tree"
of simple ("primitives") solids to "create" things called "solids"
Boundary REPresentation defines thebounds and is a bit more
general .. kind of hard to have swoopy-faced solids if all you have to
work with are those "primitives" & boolian ops.

With BREP any point is either on a surfce ("face"), inside the solid
or outside. The surfaces that make up the boundary sort of
constrain things to be one of those three.

Neither BREP nor CSG depended on kernels or anything really
similar back in the day ... just on being closed volumes at some
point.

ANY solid is going to have bounding surfaces and be either
BREP or CSG .... with simple surfaces bounding the CSG form,
if it's ever in wide use again.

Even polygon mesh surface solids are BREP .... the polygons
are the bounds.

 

Count the lies <G>. And watch the confusion ...

 

Mike Payne's new startup.

http://www.spaceclaim.com

Jon Banquer
Phoenix, Arizona

 

.... "what I believe to be Mike Payne's limited vision " .....
- clueless

 

Who the hell is Mike Payne? and does anyone besides bankweer and cliff care?

 

i don't much care myself at the moment .... but poor clueless sure
does, even though it's all unknown vaprorware thus far, whatever the
unfried, unseemed & highbread unknown might (or might not) someday be.

More from the archives from the great clueless one:

'My opinion is that the problems don't stem from
Corcoran. The same problems were rearing their
ugly head WAY BEFORE Corcoran took over for Mike
Payne.'

"VX's main architect is a much, much better
software engineer than the people who started SolidWorks...
Scott Harris, Mike Payne, etc."

"Mike Payne is going to give it another try at getting what's so horribly
wrong with what he created .."

" .. Mike Payne look like the wolf at the door. .."

Anyone want to clue poor clueless in?