hmmmm, is parametric programming so bad?

I see the claims posted lately about freeing yourself from parametric solid modeling. History based, tree based, parent/child...etc..
But, I don't see those things as chains holding me back? They are tools that make solid modeling fast and easy "providing" they are done correctly. I realize that becomes a problem when working on some other persons model, especially if they are a "dumbass". And that's a very real issue, but to throw away those ultra powerful tools just to have the ability to work on models not made by you or your system is too much to lose in my opinion.
I see the constraints of the order in which things were done as a power tool. To lose that would require a totally different approach to modeling, and untill that new or different approach is shown to me I'd have to go with keep the history based stuff. The rollback bar is a machinists best friend, I'd really hate to lose that. And it's not that I need it, never had it before? But it's damn handy if the thing is modeled half ass correctly.
Not slamming solid edge or space claim, or any other different approaches to modeling, it's just that parametric modeling seems totally kickass to me, for everything...again, unless your dealing with dumb solids from imports and built shitty models. But those things can be fixed in other ways, and are being addressed in many modelers these days.
One answer to those issues is for the modeler software makers to offer more direct translators for their software into other brands and versions. But in the name of innovation, different modelers should always have some kind of problem in translation, due to the fact that they are doing things differently...and that's a good thing. It's like not wanting updates to software because of file incompatablilty? The aternative is stagnation. Better to keep moving forward tripping over compatablilty then to suffocate the industry with the "windows" effect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vinny wrote:

I'll agree.. least for me personally, There has only been a handful of times in the last 5 years where someone sent me any type of digital file that I had to make changes to. 99.9% of the time we get sent pdf/dxf/prints of parts. So I just draw it up, machine it and we're good to go.
I actually prefer for our customers to send prints, rather than solids so I can draw it because too many times I get their part and something isn't constrained correctly or mates are off..
It's all user preference. If your in a position where you get sent a crap load of different types of solids, and you always have to make changes to it, then go for it.. get the bleeding edge click and pull software. But to me, its just a new feature on a software set that someone felt would help them sell more seats.
I'll stick with solidworks, and I'll talk it up all the time because its what I prefer. It works great for what I need it for and thats that. I'll keep my maintenance going just for the shear fact that I like having the new and improved, yea, I know, bugs too.. but I don't know of any software out there without some type of bug.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/which-way-would-you-rather-modify-a-part /

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
xT4eMsjuo
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.sycode.com/publications/white_papers/cad_20.pdf
"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 http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jon_banquer wrote:

Parrot Alert! Give Jonnie a two crackers!
gk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.sycode.com/publications/white_papers/cad_20.pdf
"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 http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/which-way-would-you-rather-modify-a-p ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
xT4eMsjuo
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA http://jonbanquer.blogspot.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Vinny, everything you said certainly rings true with people who actually get paid to use and understand the software.
However, certain people are more interested in press releases and sales hype, than actually making money by completing tasks.
Would you take advice on buying a fishing pole, from somebody who's never caught a fish? Would you take advice on buying a car, from somebody who's never had a driver's license?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.