Surfacing questions

Havin' a bad day?

Using Relative Accuracy?

Tried to resolve the first problem before compounding it with approximations and tiny offsets?

I can sympathize (or is it "empathize"?), but without seeing a data set all I can do is laugh.

What version of Pro/E you usin'?

I'm thinking of doing a standup routine at the next World Event.

"Whaddabout when you try to merge/intersect 2 quilts and it works side1side2, side1side1, side2side2 but not side2side1? What's the deal with that? I mean, does it intersect or not? And if it does what does it matter what side is left? And why is side2side1 always the one you want? And never the other 3? How does it know? It's a 25 percent chance and it always takes the long shot! What's the deal with that?

And why is it when you get your quilt to work, you can't make a cut/use quilt? what's the deal with that? It intersects the solid perfectly! You can make an intersecting datum curve and it's a closed loop! Nothing wrong with it! No failed geometry, no clue as to why won't do it!

And why is it, when you finally massage the f***ing thing, inserting an approximate curve and offsetting its edge 0.1mm instead of using the original edge, and changing some section dimensions by 0.1mm here and there, and you finally get half your symettrical part.....then you want to mirror the thing and it won't let you copy the solid surface (because we all know Mirror Geom is, ahem, "problematic" so you need to copy the solid and do a surface tranform/mirror/copy) even though the geometry is THERE but is says the geometry is overlapping but all you are doing is copying it! What's the f***ing deal with that?

Think I'd get some laughs?

Oh, yeah, but you'd have to do all the facial gestures (bug eyes, tight lipped, frothing at the mouth would help), all the physical essence of frustration, and you'd have to spice it up a little, belittling the intelligence, competence, honesty and manhood of all the PTC programmers (we're sure they're all guys, who else could be so religiously, fanatically, anally short-sighted and comically self-foot-shooting). Finally, you'd have to give it a tragic cast, or maybe, a comeback story (I was beat down by Pro/SURFACE but I didn't let it get me down, I didn't give up...etc). Or maybe play it angry ~ I paid $20 grand for WHAT!!!!! For this shit!!!! I don't know, that might be hard to get a laugh out of. I think you should try it out on these guys first, they seem like a jocular bunch. If you get a laugh here, go for the big time:

Do you think they open their own mail?

I'm using 2001. Yeah, I know, but we ain't jumping until most of our clients do.

Stick with it as long as you can. We've had a lot of trouble with WF2.

We'll probably jump when WF3 comes out.

I want to post an image to the group but to do that I need to know the email address of the group, which I didn't realize it had. I can't attach an image to a google groups posting, I have to email it to the group. According to google groups the group's home page displays the email address of the group, but I can't find a home page for this group. Anyone know?

Well, don't do what we did with 2 and assume it'll be fine. Rather than messing round with the interface and making it slow & clanky, I'd like to see it ported to 64 bit so we could use really big models.

We'd all need new computers for that, or at least new CPUs.

We took a hefty performance hit with WF2, and are upgrading our machines anyway. If you aren't on XP with 2.6GHz+, 2Gb you may wish to stick with 2001. Plus, because it has a bigger kernel, some assemblies we could use with 2001 we can't use with WF2. Bah.

Stress test it before you deploy it. Make sure the biggest models you have will still run at decent speed.

Suggestion not intended. Just trying to get some pertinent info in the event you want to try to resolve some of the problems (other than making the software better; that's not my field).

This is supposed to be (?) a text only group. I think you can attach some binaries via a news reader (OE, etc.) but at risk of raising hackles (?). Try mcadcentral.com if you can release any of the data set or somehow illustrate what the problems you are having involve. Might find someone that can offer some suggestions.