Free Yourself from Parametric Programming

When I drop your name, I'm quite certain he'll respond the same way HSMWorks did.

Now proclaims:

"Free Yourself from Parametric Programming:

Build sophisticated 3D models without having to learn feature-based CAD with entangled relationships that are often impossible to understand or edit."

Note to blow-hard liars, Tom Brewer and Joe 788:

Call SpaceClaim and tell Mike Payne he needs more training on how to use a rollback bar. Let us know how Mike Payne responds.

ROTFLMFAO

For those who have no idea who Mike Payne is: He's one of the founders of PTC / Pro-E and of SolidWorks and he's also one of the founders of SpaceClaim.

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

I already have. Iv'e regressed back to node based modeling.

Why? For some things it is a tool worth using.

Wes

Hey name-dropping retard: you don't know know Mike Payne any more than you know the Pope. Get a life you loser!

Complaint:

CAD program automatically constrains model based on how it was built. Takes skilled labor and is hard down the road to determine how the model was built, what the design intent is/was & to make future changes due to those constraints.

Fix:

CAD program strips model of constraints & design intent so changes are easier to make. Constraints are not automatic any longer. To input design intent each and every critical dimensions must be MANUALLY locked by the designer to insure someone (or himself) in the future doesn't accidentally change something critical they shouldn't.

Conclusion:

Sync-Tech looks to be a double edged sword, until I see it I reserve judgment however I have concerns:

1) Manually locking critical dimensions. I see issues where a lazy, inexperienced or hurried designer doesn't lock all applicable critical dimensions. 2) Skill level, if true that all critical dimensions need to be manually locked when using ST it seems a more experience person is needed rather than the advertised "anyone can make changes". 3) Qualifications, maybe anyone can make changes with Sync-Tech but should they be able to? 4) Control, does anyone in any of these newsgroups really want someone like Jon Banquer given tools to easily make arbitrary changes to their design? Tom

Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for working with other people's designs, parametric programming, as it stands right now, really sucks. Can parametric programming be made a lot better? You bet it can. See all the posts I put up in the past regarding what SolidWorks need to do.(something very similar to Solid Map).

As tools like Solid Edge with S/T get stronger and better parametric programming might not be needed at all for anything.

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Very true. For others things, like working with imported data and for working with other people's designs, parametric programming, as it stands right now, really sucks. Can parametric programming be made a lot better? You bet it can. See all the posts I put up in the past regarding what SolidWorks need to do.(something very similar to Solid Map).

As tools like Solid Edge with S/T get stronger and better parametric programming might not be needed at all for anything.

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software. Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors seem to agree is best left unresolved."

"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing what he should be doing $B!>(B designing, not doing book$B!>(Bkeeping of parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same software that he is using."

"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software others are using."

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

LOL You have been blathering about "Parametric Modeling" Jon, not parametric programming. Thank God Qualcom sent their core design function to India. CDMA is what puts money in the bank for them, not your pathetic efforts.

You can apply at Cubic when you get cut. They'll love your BS.

"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software. Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors seem to agree is best left unresolved."

"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing what he should be doing $B!>(B designing, not doing book$B!>(Bkeeping of parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same software that he is using."

"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software others are using."

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

jon_banquer wrote: Nothing but ten year old nonsense. CATIA, UG, Missler and a host of others have been able to constrain imported geometry for a long time Jonnie. You must be new or something.

Could this be Synch-Tech at work?

Maybe some machinist decided it was too much trouble to make and just deleted that safety lock out feature from the customer supplied solid model.

+++++++++++++++++++=

Three planes collide on the ground at Baton Rouge Metro Airport

Posted: July 21, 2008 05:48 PM PDT

Updated: July 22, 2008 10:22 AM PDT BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - A three-plane ground crash at the Baton Rouge Metro Airport could have become an explosive disaster.

It happened at the new regional maintenance hangar for Atlantic Southeast Airlines, or ASA.

The total value to the three CRJ commuter jets is $100 million and it looks like the most expensive one is a total loss.

The entire incident reportedly took five seconds.

A young mechanic pressed a starter switch to slowly spin the compressor blades for cleaning.

Instead, her action sent the engine to immediate takeoff power, hurling the fragile aircraft at 90 degree angles.

Witnesses say it's a wonder the entire hangar wasn't sent up in flames, not to mention injury or death to the 14 ASA mechanics and cleaning crew members working inside.

"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software. Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors seem to agree is best left unresolved."

"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing what he should be doing $B!>(B designing, not doing book$B!>(Bkeeping of parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same software that he is using."

"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software others are using."

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

It's not that he's "new", it's just that the press releases he's read haven't done a good enough job covering those topics.

Notice how he instantly resorts back to damage control copy/paste mode the second you humiliated him with actual product knowledge?

"It is a well known fact that CAD software vendors use their proprietary file formats to lock users into using their software. Parametric solid modeling systems make it impossible for their solid models to be worked upon in another parametric system without losing parametric information. They cannot even save to an earlier version of their own software. Users wanting to achieve interoperability between two parametric modeling systems can do so only using neutral file formats suh as IGES, STEP, SAT, etc. wherein the solid models come in as dumb solids, making it impossible to edit the parametric features of such models. And this is a big problem. A problem which CAD vendors seem to agree is best left unresolved."

"A CAD 2.0 system user is free from the headaches that come with conventional parametric modeling systems and can spend his time doing what he should be doing $B!>(B designing, not doing book$B!>(Bkeeping of parameters, relationships and constraints in a feature tree or wondering whether another user will be able to modify or even view his mode in another software, or even in an earlier version of the same software that he is using."

"Moreover, proprietary file formats no longer tie down the user of a CAD 2.0 system. He is free to move to any other CAD 2.0 system at any time and he will be able to directly work with his models right from day one. He is not forced to use the same software as others he is collaborating with, and neither does he need to bother what software others are using."

Jon Banquer San Diego, CA

Parrot Alert! Jonnie gets another cracker!

gk