Poke at SW....if not, the shoe certainly seems to fit.

From your lead in, you seem to infer that Huxley is referring to SolidWorks as being at the other end of the spectrum from UG but he never says that. Therefore it seems kind of unfair to back up your opinion with this reference. I, like you and many users in this NG, have had plenty of issues with SolidWorks. I've complained and read lots of complaints here.

I've also used many other products (including some from EDS) and read the content from other News Groups. It is pretty much all the same in that they all have their problems and the respective News Groups highlight them. It is my studied opinion that, for me, SolidWorks is among the best out there. That means it does what I need it to pretty well and better than the other products I've used including those that cost much more.

Venting is a time honored tradition on this News Group. I just think that you should base your comparisons on first hand experience rather than some article that you read (I could cite many which say SW is the best thing since sliced bread but what would be the point.). Otherwise you just wind up sounding like Banquer.

JJ

Count me as one of the "sliced bread" folks.

I think you're right, Huxley probably isn't referring to SolidWorks in the article, evidenced by a couple of past reviews he's done:

As for complaints in this newsgroup, yes there are lots of them. There are also plenty of posts where SolidWorks users help each other, share tips and tricks, pat each other on the back, and even (shudder) exclamations of how good SolidWorks is. To categorize the "majority" of users here as being forced to use SolidWorks is completley unfair. Plenty of us "choose" to use it.

Richard Doyle

He clearly did not use UG and was just complaining that GM would not do a corporate-wide and vendor-chain-wide switch to Solid Edge just so he could use what he sort of uses (for *his* purposes) (or sells) even though it clearly is what UG (who owns it) considers their "entry level".

BTW, Please note that I have not promoted one system over any other (too much depends on too many factors anyway) .... ever AFAIK ... just pointed out some *very* biased or clueless trolls .

There is such a thing as fairness ...

HTH

"At one end of the CAD spectrum is code that seems like it was written in someone's garage, then turned loose on the masses, who in turn act as beta testers as long as they can endure it"

The author has obviously used both SolidWorks and Inventor.

All I can say is that it becomes more and more obvious with every release of SolidWorks how lost SolidWorks Corp. really is without the proper tools to apply from third party component vendors such as Parasolid (no surfacing) and D-Cubed. (3D DCM badly lacking in needed functionality.)

Autodesk, think3, VX are now all saying the same thing..... you must control the kernel in order to produce a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler. Autodesk has not come close to implementing it but more and more they are starting to talk the talk.

"ShapeManager gives our customers the power they need to create higher quality designs," said Robert Kross, vice president of the Manufacturing Solutions Division at Autodesk. "With each release of the Autodesk Inventor Series we increase functionality of the ShapeManager kernel to boost performance, robustness, and overall quality so our users reap more advanced benefits from our software. Because of the rich development of our ShapeManager kernel, competitive products that rely upon generic modeling technology are now at a disadvantage."

The solution for SolidWorks Corp is to do what I have posted needs to be done for a long time.... implement ACIS as it's main modeling kernel rather than Parasolid. Parasolid does NOT contain the surfacing routines that are in Unigraphics !!!

The best a SolidWorks user can now hope for is that Autodesk delivers on the talk (ShapeManager) because you can bet your last penny this is when surfacing in SolidWorks will stop being the mangled, non-intuitive, "hack and whack" piece of garbage that it currently is.

Excellent post. I just hope your not holding your breath in regards to many of the Solidworks loyalists in this newsgroup gaining an understanding of what the problems with SolidWorks really are and what really needs to be done about them. Some of these loyalists even contend that it's not SolidWorks Corp's fault and it's best to use multiple programs to do surfacing and solids. :>)

jon

Why? Does he sound like an idiot too?

Has anyone mentioned clueless idiots lately? "Clueless Idiot".

Have YOU ever actually used it? Nope. Buy clues or shut up.

And where, exactly, did they say that? LOL .... you clearly still don't have a clue what a kernel is or does, after all these years of ceaseless yammering about them.

IRC They use the ACIS kernel YOU keep touting. Has anyone mentioned clueless idiots lately?

Got rid of NURBS did they?

Which YOU just said (see above) is a POS.

Why should it? YOU don't even have a clue what a kernel is. But you are pretty funny.

Still no clues .... why not make 3dinkies SW? Better yet, WHY are you NOT posting to THEIR NG? Or one of the Autodesk ones ? Banned? LOL ....

A) They use it every day.

B) YOU do not and never have AFAIK. Even seen a canned demo?

C) When was the last time you saw a vendor? Did you see stars too?

D) Got any clues? Even one? Nope.

Ask someone with a clue? Most trolls know at least *something* about their chosen subject. YOU have to copy from others and from ads.

And who, exactly, recently went on many rants about buying "components" as the wave of the future? Are you saying that that clueless idiot was a moron?

BTW, What's the purpose of having an API? What's a kernel?

I'll back you up on this... in spirit. I don't care about the accuracies or inaccuracies of anyone's interpretation of the article. Solidworks is where they are today because of one simple thing (maybe two... but more on that later).... price. Back in the late 90's when we were all starving for 3d because we saw it as a better way, the "vast majority" of employers wouldn't pay for more than a seat or two of Pro/E or SDRC, etc, if we were that lucky.

Autodesk talked about 3d but it was so friggin far from reality that we just laughed. Solidworks came on the scene and we (come on, admit it) screamed that we could *all* have 3d for the same price as the lowly 2d package we were all using. In a way we did it to ourselves. Solidworks took a few years but now their falling into the same rut as Autodesk was back then (still is?)... releasing software because it's "time for a new release" but before the bugs get worked out.

It's a reality today that no software will ever be released with proper testing. Beta testing after SP0 will still occur because that's how the market works now. If you want to be the software vendor that delays your product because you're not happy with it... well it's just not gonna happen. The cat's out of the bag. Everytime a new release of SW comes out we all get excited. Partly because in the beginning they listened to us (I said I'd mention reason #2), partly because we're ticked off about some failure that we hope they'll address, and for some because you want to feel like your still part of the grass roots movement that was Solidworks proliferation of the entry level 3d market. For some reason, software loyalty runs as deep as Chevy vs Ford. Everyone just knows that what they "chose" is the absolute best (I own an engineering design business and actually did "choose" it). I still must admit that at this price point, SW is still the best, even if arguably. And there's not a damn thing anyone of us is going to do about the software getting slower with each release or having frustrating bugs that effect some and not others. They don't do it on purpose, it's just the nature of the market. That's why all the newsgroups will sound familiar. Problems with "XXXX" fill in the blank. If someone ever tells you UG was/is at the head of the food chain I'd bet they're thinking back to the early 80's when all the mainframe software cad companies could take as long as they wanted to release code (and for any price they wanted to charge), because there was only one of them. Well, ok maybe two.

Solidworks in the late 90's reminded me of Intellicad... 80% of the functionality for 10% of the cost. That was actually an Intellicad marketing statement. At the time, Solidworks was trying to swim in the Autocad pond and they were, by my estimation, offering 60-80% of the functionality that we would use from Pro/E for about 25% of the cost. That's how they got everyones attention. Now they're swimming in the Pro/E pond and we're not sure if we should be happy or sad. It changes from day to day.

- Eddy

"Jay C." wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I hate to do this. I really do .

Press release: September 4, 1998 "Unigraphics Solutions Becomes First CAD/CAM/CAE IndustryPlayer to be Awarded ISO 9001/TickIT Certification"

Does this mean that there will never be bugs discovered? Nope. But they do have extensive testing ... even to the point of certifying hardware configurations.

Also remember .... one guy's enhancement request for a new feature can be someone else's new complaint when implemented. Add enough requested features and many will complain that all the options needed to allow their use makes it too complicated .... for the novice user ...

All our software is tested before we buy it. How does it make you feel knowing that the bugs you find were actually looked for before you bought them. I don't call that "proper" but it's a fact of life now. I don't mean to sound bitter about any of this so sorry if that's how I come across.

As for enhancements... the problem for us, and many users here, is not that it makes a package overcomplicated for the novice. The problem is that ehancements that are not optional, like the Cosmos insert, serve to slow the package down for the expert. Make them optional, make them add-ins that can be turned off, whatever, but don't slow me down because you need a new glossy brochure selling point. Not to mention the fact that we pay for these slow downs, every single year. Ok, we're entering into another religious war here.

Let me just say this... fixing the slow sketcher problems, the drafting slow-downs when you have numerous cross sections, he display clipping problem, the "I can't select any edges" problem... these are not enhancement requests... these are bugs. Bugs in a package at SP5.0. In SW defense, the other guys still have bugs too, even with ISO vertification.

- Eddy

I knew this would start a religious war. Hey, I'm in the SW (life) boat. Yep, I got shoved into it when some of the other great software ships started sinking into the depths of obscurity (not that they weren't superior to SW in many ways). It was due primarily to market share and customer usage.

Look at it this way, competition is good but until someone can justify why we/employers pay maintenance fees so that we can essentially remain beta testers, I will continue to be pissed off.

Market driven knowledge acquisition is forced upon us. Just do a job search for Solidworks under Monster.com or Careerbuilder.com as opposed to say, IronCAD or Think3D and see why we have to go the SW route.

For the CAM folks out there, do the same thing for MasterCAM as opposed to Surfcam and see why one still has to use a CAM program that looks like it never came out of a DOS shell.

Now for a real argument!.....Nah.... I won't bring up how nice and smooth Cimatron is or most of the Delcam modules are... ;-)

Jay C.

Hardly a war. I think you are making too much of the responses. I agree that SW has shortcomings. What I really disagree with you about is that it is worse than most offerings. I say this because of my experience since the early nineties with the other main stream 3D CAD packages and not because of some zealous dedication to SolidWorks. I think all of us in the CAD industry are basically in the same (life) boat. We will all probably continue to be pissed off when bugs arise.

I honestly would like to know what fully functioned packages out there don't have quality problems especially when new releases come out. Just please tell me what you really know and not what you read in some article. Every CAD package can point to some gleaming article that extols its virtues above its competitors.

JJ

Just about even now....

"all I know is what I read in the papers"... ;-)

Jay C.

Don't bring up that both Cimatron and DelCAM PowerShape allow a user to work on non-native imported geometry as if it were created natively, either. :>)

Turn on U, V points.... NO PROBLEM.

Manipulate NURB splines..... NO PROBLEM

Solidworks..... BIG PROBLEM, as you can't do it.

Of the three (Cimatron, DelCAM PowerShape, Solidworks) which would you rather use for fixing screwed up imported surface geometry.... never mind I already know the answer. :>)

If geometry is not created natively in SolidWorks then obviously that geometry isn't really that important and can be relegated to illegal alien status. ;>) Yeah, this concept makes lots of sense... NOT.

SolidWorks Corp. motto:

Just say no to imported surface geometry and do the "right thing"...

Recreate it !!! ;>)

jon

Well stated JJ. We have problems we can be upset about but try some of the others. Each has its weaknesses. Every year I evaluate what's out there to make sure that I've still got the best choice for my business. FWIW, I've been around this stuff since the mid 80's with some level of experience with UG, tons of Autocad, Cadkey very briefly, Pro/E, SDRC I-Deas, and for the past 4-5 years Solidworks. I just tried the latest demo of SolidEdge. I couldn't believe it. I thought SW sketcher was getting slow. And I thought modular 3d software went out with I-Deas, guess not :)

I can give you a list of problems we have with SW.

- slow view performance within fully resolved assy's

- slow sketcher

- slow drafting, sporadic (related to sectional math it seems)

- display clipping when zooming

- sporadic "can't select" anything within the modeler (very frustrating)

- occasional file loss when toggling between RO and RW on parts and assy's

- there's more but this is enough for now.

Ok, these qualify more as enhancements I guess...

- poor network performance over 100mbit, including file rights and access issues w/o pdm

- toolbox running over network very poor performance, because of its access database

- toolbox not being able to create missing configs (even though it knows what you're missing)

Give me two hours with any package and I'll give you more lists :)

- Eddy

Any reason you haven't tried the latest demo of VX's Vision ? I would like to see your list on what's wrong with their part modeler as enjoy reading very short lists. ;>)

jon

No I have not. Have you ? I can certainly think of some questions I would like to ask about it. How long has it been available ?

I took a look at their website and the product does look to be well thought out. If it is, then I would suggest SolidWorks Corp. cuts a deal with them and starts giving FormatWorks away immediately. If FormatWorks as well as it shows on their website then this should be a no brainer because no one should have to purchase a third party add-in for what should be *basic functionality* in SolidWorks !!!

Lets take a look at some other products and see if they require a third part add-in to turn on U, V surface points on imported surface geometry. Same goes for points on a NURB spline.

VX's Vision: No third party product needed to do this.

DelCAM's PowerMill: No third party product needed to do this.

Cimatron: No third party product needed to do this.

think3's thinkdesign / thinkshape: No third party product needed to do this.

McNeel's Rhino: No third party product needed to do this.

Gestel's solidThinking: No third party product needed to do this.

Ashlar's Cobalt: No third party product needed to do this.

Concepts Unlimited: No third party product needed to do this.

MasterCAM: No third party product needed to do this.

SURFCAM: No third party product needed to do this.

If the product really does work well perhaps SolidWorks should hire it's developers and have them work directly for SolidWorks. After all these years, it's beyond obvious that SolidWorks Corp. needs more good help and most likely a much bigger R&D budget.

jon

Someplace there's a paper on testing the software that runs Nuclear reactors and such. Simple things, really. Not nearly as many possible IO states (or failure modes) as a CAD, CAD/CAM or CAM system running on an MS OS .... Little is more tested ....

Try subsets of this (I don't remember where I read it .. long ago ...)

HTH

Nice parametric history based modeler & CAD system is it? How much memory does it need for a 1000 part assembly?