Jon, where should I start.. I will try to be polite but "Grinchy" feelings come up whenever i see Jon on the screen. I do look forward to see the 86 video although. But, you should be a salesman, you have it in you. Or is there an other explanation that you roam here making adds for systems you think are better? Wireframe... Wake up.. SW is a hybrid modeler if you use it correctly. How can one come up with the idea that follows: Hmm, I hate SW, let's go into the most attended forum and try to convert them to god knows what.
This is my first post to you Jon, and even though it is not so nice, you have to get the message.. And right now, looking back what I wrote, I see you writing back.. I dont understand at all, who are you ? What drives you, must be the bribes from not SW companies?
Jon, If I would meet you in person, I think you would be quite nice. But in here you dont show who you are. Or, is this you, the real Jon. God help us. And who am I you ask? Only 33, 15 of those in 3D in the biggest variety of systems you can think of.
Jon, the text you see above is not friendly, but informative and descriptive. (Sounds US enough)
So do lots of others but I still have not found a place to post it. : (
This video just might help you understand what a true hybrid modeler is and where SolidWorks badly needs to improve.
Others might gain an insight into what a CAD system should allow and how the tools that this system has can unlock creative expression.
"Wireframe... Wake up.. SW is a hybrid modeler if you use it correctly."
I'm wide awake. Unfortunatly you don't really seem to understand what a user should expect from a real hybrid modeler. Can you tell me how you import wireframe geometry created in another modeler into SolidWorks and use it in model or assembly mode to create a solid ? Can you tell me why in the world wireframe geometry should be limited to sketcher mode ?
Your right it's not. It's does show that you are ignorant of what hybrid modeling is, though. Hopefully you can open your mind and learn. A mind is kind of like a parachute.... it only works when it's open.
Your right again. You don't understand who I am. Unless you change your approach you never will.
I'm nice right now in this post to you. :>)
Just checked.... it's really me. ;>)
I didn't but you did show me part of who you are. Can you show me your more objective side now ? :>)
Open that parachute, Mike !
BTW, Got any server space for a large video file ? ;>)
This sentence intrigues me. Could I trouble you to maybe expand on this a little? Because I'll admit that my experience with SWx has defined my thinking about CAD, and I do not see this as a limitation.
I think of wireframe as curves, whether as a bunch of separate curve features or all living inside a single 3D sketch. Then the curves are used to create sheets or solids, and the edges of the surfaces/solids can then became additional wireframe data. It is back and forth as I wish, depending on what defines and what is being defined
I would be very itnerested to hear a workflow that shows how wirrframe data is managed differently - I like to find out what my blind spots aren't allowing me to see.
The kindest and politest way I know how to say this Ed is that one is very, very limited in scope when SolidWorks defines how they think about CAD. I have done everything I know how to encourage you to download VX and see how true hybrid modeling tools work.
Have you done this ?
I don't feel you will have to spend massive amounts of you time on VX to see how things should be.... most of what you know in SolidWorks is directly transferable to learning and understanding VX. Knowing how hybrid tools should work will give you a *much better understanding* of how to push SolidWorks and where SolidWorks needs to improve.
I also think the 86 meg video that I'm sitting on would be very helpful to you in how you think about CAD. E-mail me and I will make sure you get it if you have a way to receive it.
The choices are yours and yours alone, Ed. Like I said to you before, I don't want you to switch but I do want you to open your mind to what is possible and where SolidWorks needs to go in order to be a much better tool with a much wider appeal.
I do not disagree with either of these statements.
I am sorry that the workflow about wirframe mdoels cannot be described in writing.
I will not be downloading a software package to 'play with' because I simply do not have the time to do it justice - I might be able to start and get an introduction, but the only way to truly evaluate something is to do real design work, where the geoemtry has to be exact and the models go through many changes. This takes more time than I have, especiallay since I will not be using it professionally anytime in the near future.
I will contact you offline about the video - that sounds like a way to get a decent taste without biting off more than I can chew (how about that for not mixing metaphors!).
Okay, I will try in terms of an example I relate to, which is probably very different than what you relate to and does not give the reasons for wanting to mix wireframe, surfaces and solids justice.
Sometimes all you need is wireframe to describe what you want. Why not have this option in assembly or part mode and not just in sketcher mode.
If one is working in a machining job shop why not allow one to stay in assembly or model mode and create the lead in / lead out wireframe geometry for their toolpath? Why force them into sketch mode ?
Time is everything in a small machining job shop, Ed.
This whole modal nonsense does not sit well with me. I don't like to be forced to work going through one room at a time to get where I want to go. I like taking the roof off the house and choosing what room I will start in.
Sometime in life one has to "settle" for less than one hundred percent. Sometimes there are massive benefits to not having to feel you have to totally master something in order to benefit. I would argue your insistance on being a total perfectionist in this regard is hurting you very badly.
Once again, you don't have to use VX professionally to gain a massive benefit from understanding how VX approaches hybrid modeling. You also don't have to spend massive amounts of time trying to understand every part of VX to realise how much better VX's approach is to hybrid modeling.
Without a doubt it is. I also think using Camtasia would be a good way for you to convey what you wish to convey instead of using / in addition to using, MS Powerpoint.
I have not stopped thinking about what you asked for and I'm going to keep trying to give you what you wish... specific wireframe needs (what you call workflow) in writing.
Here is another example of why I think wireframe tools are critical tools to have when constructing or editing a model or an assembly.
Lets say I'm working with legacy data and creating a solid model from the legacy data. I might need to add to or modify the existing legacy wireframe data. I don't want to go into sketch mode to do it. I want to stay in model mode and fix / modify what I need to. To do this quickly I need wireframe tools at my disposal in model mode. If I was working on an assembly I would want the same thing.
BTW, there is very little difference in VX's object oriented database between part and assembly.
Here is how VX describes what they offer:
"The VX data hierarchy allows root objects such as parts, assemblies, sketches, drawing packets, and CAM plans associated with a design to be stored in a single manageable VX object file. When you are running VX it is referred to as the active session. The active session is a temporary work area into which portions of VX files are loaded as needed during a design or revision.
The active session stores only the modified data. The session concept allows large complex parts and assemblies to be worked on as efficiently as the simplest part. You can view and manipulate the entire design while only the objects and entities being edited are retrieved thus requiring less system resources."
"Assembly modeling is not considered an add-on or adjunct application. Support for efficient definition, manipulation and management of assemblies was a fundamental consideration in the design of the VX architecture. For example, the VX OVERDRIVE (TM) Object Manager loads only the display data for an object into memory unless the object is activated for edit. This minimizes the memory footprint for a given assembly and maximizes the assembly size that can be effectively worked with. The VX OVERDRIVE (TM) Object Manager also allows thr user to decide how the assembly is to be distributed into files --- each component in a separate file, the entire assembly in one file, or anywhere in between."
"With VX, true in-context assembly design is now a reality. Selecting a component for edit is a simple double-click. Of course, VX provides tools to manage the scope of the assembly display and a browser for viewing and manipulating the assembly using it's tree graph. Simplified and alternate components can be defined. Support for creation and recall of alternate assembly configurations is integrated into the core VX modeling system. Controls for object sign-out/sign-in and management of revisions are built into the VX OVERDRIVE (TM) kernel of VX, as are assembly level features and the ability to easily create part variations and derivations."
I'll keep thinking and try and give you more specific examples like the two I have given you.