"Martin" wrote in news:RIige.1360$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
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.
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.
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"
"Martin" wrote in news:H%uge.1498$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.