Decisions, decisions....

IronCAD 6, with patch no 2, is not all bad for modelling, but I get 5-20 minutes waiting (depending on hardware spec) for "updating all views" in the assembly drawing of a close to 1000 parts model with IronCAD. The drawing includes three sections and a 75 parts bom on the drawing. It's not a very large machine to our standards and this get's us kind of worried for the future. We have hoped to model machines at least ten times this complex, and then combine them too. What waiting times for updating all views would you expect in Solid Works or Solid Edge for a 1000 parts model size? Or for 10,000 parts for that matter? /per

"Sporkman" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@bigfootYETI.com...

per, As for your question about performance in SWX, I have worked on 4000+ assemblies with 6+ section views. While it is certainly no speed demon, I was happy (it could always be faster). My BOMs tended to be fairly small (100 parts at the most) because I used lots of subassemblies.

If I had to guess, I would say SWX would be faster than IC given your above statement.

Just curious as I have never used IronCad and you seem to be pretty familiar with it, I have a quick question: How do the parametrics in IC work? Looking at the on-line demos, it looks to me like the 'TriBall' is just used to position parts and features in space, but there is no dynamic link or mate constraint (in SWX terms).

For instance, say you place a bolt in a hole, then the hole moves. Does the bolt move with the hole?

I am just unfamiliar with the product and was hoping to get a quick answer.

Thanks.

Well, IronCAD is basically non parametric. Despite that, there is the possibility to use a command called the ?mate align constraint tool?. Moving a hole then carries the screw with it, if it was constrained with that tool. This is an alternative positioning possibility that many IronCAD users may not use, since the Triball moves everything so swiftly to where ever you want it. And then there are those "smart dimensions" too... In my opinion there are too many copycat parametrical cad systems, and too few constraint free cad systems on the market. The ?up? side with no-constraints, is that it never stalls because you haven't put in the last constraint. This speeds up conceptual work tremendously. And you can always change or remove any part or feature from anything in the assembly model no matter what?s in the history tree, before or after the changed part or feature. The tree will never get those ?red berries?. And with parametrical, it may be close to impossible to foresee what a change will bring, especially when someone else has set those parameters up. The downside with all the freedom is very much the same as the upside. It?s very (maybe too) easy to make changes in the parts, and also unlink them, from within an assembly. Just like when somebody else explodes all your blocks in an acad dwg. Anarchy could prevail if you don?t watch out carefully. For companies making small series of machines, all very different with a few hundred parts or so, a non-parametric, constraint free cad (read IronCAD) would probably be the best way to go, but for companies designing a range of products with similar and a foreseeable layout, a parametric cad system is of course superior. Then there are all the different shades of grey between. This is when choosing the right CAD system becomes so very difficult. One thing I really miss with IronCAD, aside from large model drawing performance, is a mechanism movement simulation module. /per

"Arlin" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

Definitely check out Solid Edge. SE's sheet metal capabilities are excellent. UGS PLMsolutions provides direct software support as well as support through the VARs for the best of both worlds. They also produce UG NX, SDRC NX, TeamCenter products as well as the Parasolid modeling kernel that is used by all of UGS PLMsolutions products as well as SolidWorks (Yes, every sale of SolidWorks lines their competitors pocket with cash) I believe that you can get an eval copy of Solid Edge if you contact them. Here is the link to their site:

Ken

Jon, You should probably research your facts a little better, as the one about Parasolid not supporting surfaces is untrue. As you probably are aware, UG uses the Parasolid kernel and has some of the best surfacing in the industry and is unmatched by anything except for IDEAS and Catia in this area (none of them use ACIS, and two of them use Parasolid). I have also includes a link to a UGS PLMsolutions web page for Parasolid that states that it does indeed have native support for surfaces.

A correction to your erroneous post:

Solid Edge does have a user base, just not quite as big as SolidWorks... yet! As far as support, Solid Edge offers the best support of any system I've seen. You can call SE directly and talk with the Application Engineers or you can work with your VAR. For small organizations without dedicated support personnel, the VAR might be the way to go, while organizations with dedicated support can call UGS PLMsolutions directly. Thing is, you can choose what is best for you. Their support group has also been ranked on of the best in the industry. Remember, EDS is a services industry and prides itself on taking care of it's customers, and that shows through in the UGS PLMsolutions division.

Ken

Thanks for the claification. That is pretty much what I thought. I use (and move) mechanisms quite a bit and really like it when an assembly automatically updates when component dimensions change, so it looks like IC would not really fit the bill for that.

I understand how lack of history tree and constraints can be a good thing. It can also be extremely useful.

Ken,

"You should probably research your facts a little better"

I've researched the *FACTS* that I posted *extensively!* My research includes talking to software developers who chose ACIS over Parasolid because Parasolid does not have the high level surfacing routines than make it easy to implement hybrid modeling. They even stuck with Spatial / ACIS during the dark days when the ACIS kernel could not even compare with the solid model functionality of Parasolid.

"As you probably are aware, UG uses the Parasolid kernel and has some of the best surfacing in the industry"

I agree that Unigraphics does. The problem is that the Parasolid kernel does NOT give a developer the high level tools to easily create a seamless, unified hybrid modeler. Now please read the following very carefully....

There is no one besides UGS PLM Solutions that has used Parasolid to create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler...

What CAD/CAM developers who choose Parasolid are forced to do is marry separate surfacing routines outside the Parasolid kernel to Parasolid. It does not work, Ken. You end up with a something that is far from unified and certainly not seamless.

"I have also includes a link to a UGS PLM solutions web page for Parasolid that states that it does indeed have native support for surfaces."

Having support and giving software developers the badly needed high level tools are entirely two different things !!! The tools do NOT exist in Parasolid so that a CAD/CAM company could much more easily create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler.

There not there !!!

UGS PLM Solutions is a very smart and a very talented company. I'd say the smartest in the business. Answer this question for me, Ken:

Why would UGS PLM Solutions give away the farm by putting high level routines in Parasolid so that others could easily build another Unigraphics ???

I'm very impressed with how UGS PLM Solutions controls the CAD/CAM market. First they did it with Unigraphics and Parasolid. Now UGS PLM Solutions will try to do it with Unigraphics and SolidEdge. Their smart and they see the hand writing on the wall. It's an entirely new game now that ACIS is more robust, now that Autodesk has the code to the ACIS kernel and has D-Cubed on board to develop what was ACIS and is now called Shape Manager, and finally now that Dassault Systems owns Spatial / ACIS.

These conditions are forcing UGS PLM Solutions to rapidly improve SolidEdge. In one release SolidEdge blew the doors of SolidWorks surfacing. Just one. In the soon to be released new version of SolidEdge, according to the person who published Mark Biasotti's comparison of surfacing in SolidWorks vs surfacing in Pro/E Wildfire, SolidEdge blows the doors off of some of IX Speeds advanced feature stuff.

Why ???

LOL

First better sheet-metal functionality in SolidEdge and now better plastics design functionality in SolidEdge.

The rules of the game have changed, Ken. It's an all new game now.

If you e-mail me I would be glad to give you a developers name and a way to contact him and he will be happy to tell you why he / they chose to use ACIS rather than Parasolid.

jon

Indeed he should, but then ignorance is bliss.

Not quite, Missler Software has bested the IDEAS product functionally for some time and has gone head to head with UG and Catia in Europe for years. Should you ever wish to see EDS drop their drawers, just mention TopSo;id during the course of a sale. As for SolidWorks, well, less is less, and you actually pay quite a premium to end up with a competetive dissadvantage.

Jon,

I do not think any of us are going to listen to you so just get Michael Crown and Timothy Olsen to directly comment about your "shared" claims regarding SolidWorks surfacing and Parasolid not having those tools.

I know you are going to spin this around so, "NO COPY/PASTING ANYTHING", simply get your buddies Michael Crown and Timothy Olsen to comment on the claims you are making.

Then, after that, if they do comment, we will try and have SolidWorks or someone from Parasolid to comment, ok?

Otherwise, the "Wizard of OZ" is on, so spin around a few hundred times and hit your head with something, get a mirror and take some notes while watching the Scarecrow.

Cheers.. ;^)

Paul,

Mike Crown has not been with Varimetrix now VX in years.

No offense but I don't really care what you want or what you believe. I haven't for many years and you don't and never will dictate what I post on or the conclusions I reach.

I have spoken to too many developers and seen the results of too many attempts to develop a seamless, unified hybrid modeler with Parasolid.

The high level tools that are needed by developers to easily create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler simply don't exist in Parasolid.

Why don't you do your own research like I have and figure it out on your own ? I'm certain some CAD/CAM software engineers don't know who you are and the demands you make and will talk to you. ;>)

If I were you, I would skip SolidWorks Corp. and Autodesk, though.

Perhaps you can make a contact at IronCAD and they will tell you the truth ? Perhaps not. You could always try Mike Payne at Spatial. I've talked (more like listened) to Mike Payne before and I was very pleasantly surprised. To bad Mike Hanson is not with Spatial anymore. He could easily handle your attitude and have a good laugh. :>)

On the other hand, you could just continue to do what you normally do... make no real effort and stay totally ignorant on what the real problems are behind the curtain.

One last suggestion, Paul :

Don't demand that the person willing educate you on the difference between ACIS and Parasolid *pay you* because you are willing to listen to what they have to say. This would probably go over about as well as your demands that SolidWorks Corp. pay you to beta test.

Hope this helped,

jon

You might also want to see if Alibre will talk with you. The seem like very nice people to me. Always responsive to anything I ask for.

Naturally, Alibre uses the ACIS kernel and they plan on making Alibre a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler in the second quarter of next year.

Hope you finally decide to do the work,

jon

Nah, don't think so, everyone wants to see your FACTS, Jon. Educate us with FACTS, Jon.

And/or have your name dropping developer buddies (now on the list, Mike Payne and Mike Hansen) explain publicly to all of us about your parasolid claims!?

You keep mentioning FACTS, so, show them.

Spin the SUHM wheel... and see where the avoid-o-rama indicator points..

..

j>

Avoid-o-rama.... nah, we all just want the FACTS you claim...

..

j>

Paul,

I could find nothing productive in your posts so I'll just add this:

It's very unfortunate that you won't grow up and start having adult conversations with people like software developers so that you would have some idea why products don't work like you would like them to work.

Instead, you remain hopelessly lost on why the products you use don't work like they should work. I've noticed this about you since the days in the autodesk newsgroups.

I think your the only user that I know that alienated Dominic Gallello who was truly a nice man and very helpful to both me and the company that I was doing consulting for at the time. Dominic once called me on a Sunday morning at home to let me know that an issue that concerned my client had been resolved.

Here is hoping you realize that your approach is failing you and leading you to much frustration because you don't know what really causes your problems and that you actually do something about it as I have suggested to you.

Should you decide to do something please make sure that your research is through like mine is. I accomplish this by talking with multiple sources. You should too !

Best of luck to you in your effort to find out why your having so many problems with SolidWorks surfacing / splines. I think it's high time you did the work and got some real answers to your problems with SolidWorks.

Hope your enjoying Concepts !!!

Concepts should have a user newsgroup in the next few months, perhaps sooner. In the mean time feel free to use their toll free number.

jon

Try and change the subject and drop all the names you want, Jon.

We all are waiting for your FACTS, Jon.

..

The FACTS have already been shown. You have offered nothing to refute the FACTS because you can't.

The FACT is that it's not my problem that you wish to remain ignorant of the issues.

Here are the FACTS restated for you once again:

The FACT is that no one has been able to create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler with Parasolid with the exception of UGS PLM Solutions.

The FACT is that you have proven for many years that you don't understand why SolidWorks has the problems it has.

The FACT is that you are unable to communicate with software developers so that you have an idea where the problems lie.

The FACT is that Concepts at $995 is a better pure modeler in many ways than SolidWorks.

The FACT is that Concepts is built on ACIS.

The FACT is that Concepts offers a seamless, unified, hybrid approach to modeling that is not in evidence in SolidWorks.

The FACT is you can't show any proof of a seamless, unified hybrid modeler built by someone else besides UGS PLM Solutions that is based on ACIS. Not a single one !!!

The FACT is that Concepts makes a product like Rhino unnecessary.

The FACT is that Concepts is an excellent way to translate CATIA files.

The FACT is that you have not offered up a single FACT in any of your last four posts in this thread.

The FACT is until you offer up PROOF that any of the above is NOT true that I'm done responding to your nonsense.

jon

Again, prove that the tools do not exist in parasolid.

..

j>

...snip side stepping bs...

They fired the janitor I assume.