How Does SolidWorks Plan To Compete With This Technology?

Everything that I've said for several years has now been proven
correct and validated by Siemens / UGS. It is well worth your time to
watch this video. The merging of parametrics and direct modeling is
soon going to be a reality in UG NX and SolidEdge.
formatting link

This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed?
Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does
appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets
hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what
I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens /
UGS is going to
be a lot harder to ignore.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
Reply to
jon_banquer
Loading thread data ...
By taking the CTRL, C, and V buttons off of your keyboard?
Reply to
craig.schultz
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore. =2E
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore. =2E
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Ignorant:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore. =2E
Conclusion:
This technology is claimed to sit on top of Parasolid and D-Cubed? Does that mean Siemens / UGS will license it? Have no idea but it does appear to put SolidWorks significantly behind technology wise. Lets hope SolidWorks has got an answer to this because unlike ignoring what I have posted about this problem for years, Siemens / UGS is going to be a lot harder to ignore.
Jon Banquer Oceanside, CA
Reply to
jon.banquer
You mean they didn't listen when you were not a SolidWorks user and you didn't know anything about the program but keep posing as an expert as you still do to this day?
********************
[ I've been away from SolidWorks for almost ten years. ]- Jon Banquer - Aug 2007
[ SolidWorks is consuming every available minute of my learning time right now. ]- Jon Banquer - Aug 12, 2007
[ The program has changed so much in ten years that I'm still way behind where I need to be. ]- Jon Banquer - Aug. 26, 2007
*********************
[
IMO, you failed for several reasons:
1. Bill and Fred Motz are the only current users of UG NX that I know of that post to this newsgroup.
2. Fred Motz comes and goes and is never willing to put the time into explaining what separates UG NX CAM from say Mastercam. He's rather whine about the state of this newsgroup and then disappear.
3. Bill just started a new job. Explaining how UG NX CAM's Operation Manager is really different from Mastercam X2 Operation Manager in detail requires a lot of time to type out. I've got to believe the UG NX CAM Operation Manager is radically better than the approach MasterCAM X2 users with it's awkward and unwieldy approach using a huge dialog box for it's View Manager and it's Common Parameters Dialog box. From what I could make out from what Bill posted it appears that UG NX CAM Operations Manager has the ability to show different views and include the WCS's in the tree. As I'm sure you know MasterCAM X2 can't do this.
4. I don't have the time right now to get back to UGS (Soon to be Siemens PLM Software) who I contacted a few weeks ago .... and figure out how UG NX CAM Express differs. If you have the time I'll forward you my contact at UGS and a price quote. They would like to make me a VAR but I don't have the interest or the time.
5. Most posters to this newsgroup have no clue where Gibbs, Mastercam, etc. fall apart.
] -Jon Banquer- Chula Vista, CA - Sept. 25, 2007
So they UGS asked you to be a VAR....LOL...so they ate the buzzword salad you fed them and had no clues who the real Jon Banqueer was....ROFLMAO.
Did you ever inform them you were a machine operator, had no intention or ability to buy their product you were inquiring about?
Tom
Reply to
brewertr
See my newly published comments here:
formatting link
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA
Reply to
jon_banquer
To keep your delusion of being a CAD/CAM mover and shaker going here you are implying Siemens/UGS did listen to you.......LOL.
Tom
Reply to
brewertr
The next version requires a net connection and validation. They will not be number one for long.
Reply to
vinny
Jon,
Did you today take a Sick Day off?
The web cam must show you foaming at the mouth with flecks of spittle periodically shooting forward splashing the screen, while one finger slamming the keyboard & posting all over the net while your other hand is working at near light speed pleasing yourself.
Tom
Reply to
brewertr
SolidWorks 2008 offers next to nothing in new tools that machining job shops really need.
If SolidWorks doesn't have an answer for this technology soon and if Siemens/UGS uses this technology to go head to head with SolidWorks in a knock down, drag out battle, Siemens/UGS is going to win market share and be seen as a technology leader over SolidWorks Corp. I feel they need to do this with SolidEdge and UG NX CAM Express package and go for SolidWorks / Mastercam's throat. It's now or never.
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA
Reply to
jon_banquer
SolidWorks 2008 offers next to nothing in new CAM tools that machining job shops really need.
If SolidWorks doesn't have an answer for this technology soon and if Machinists are expected to use this technology, it will be a knock down, drag out battle, BOBCAD is going to win market share and be seen as a technology leader over UG I feel they need to do this with FeatureCAM and PTC Wildfire package and go for the throat. It's now or never.
Jon Banquer Oceanside, CA
Reply to
jon.banquer
I'm published too!!!!! Look at me!!!!
formatting link

Jon Banquer Oceanside, CA
Reply to
jon.banquer
SolidWorks already has equivalent capabilities in Instant3D
Reply to
jimsym
No SolidWorks does not have "equivalent capabilities". It's not even close to having "equivalent capabilities" with Instant3D.
Jon Banquer San Diego, CA
Reply to
jon_banquer

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.