Quit your surface whining!

I design automotive automation equipment and I like Solidworks. I don't care much about surfacing, for what I need it works wonderful. For the
price and what it can do I think it's a wonderful program. Yes, there are programs that can do more surfacing stuff. So what? If you need that, buy other software!! It is called SOLIDworks, you know! I am eternally thankful that I don't have to work with autocad anymore!!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok, if that were all the world needed was just solids, that would be fine. and if that is all SW wants to offer, then fine. BUT that is not the case, SW is offering. Solidworks IS offering surfacing. And you dont just give something that is 1/2 assed and not as good as other products that can offer the same thing for 1/4 the cost.
My beef, when it comes to surfacing is that, surfacing has been around for years. I stress YEARS. Alias and Rhino alone have at least 10 years under their belts of doing just that. There is NO reason why, by now, NURB surfacing could not have been included in the program. Yes it is a solidmodeler. But solid tools alone cannot and do not rule the world. Maybe in your world that is all you need. But for me, I would like to stay as much in the same program as possible.
Imagine if I said to you, "hey you can build 3D model but when it comes to technical drawings, you have to go back to ACAD"? Just because you dont see why something is needed does not mean that it is not something that can be useful.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Arthur have you looked a Shapeworks?
In time I bet SW will incorporate shapeworks into SW... somehow.
I just started getting into Surfaces in the last year and I haven't seen a problem using the surfaces to get what I was after. Don't get me wrong I have fought it sometimes but I always got what I wanted. My hardest project for surfaces was the mask I did for that Bionicle.
http://www.scottjbaugh.com/Desktop%20images/Bionicle%20Image1.jpg If it wasn't for SW04 I might not have gotten it finished.
Regards, Scott

offer
Maybe
much
see
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know about ShapeWorks but if you mean the proper surfacing routines finding their way into SolidWorks then "somehow" equals one or more of the following taking place :
1. ACIS kernel becomes the main modeling kernel in SolidWorks. Since Spatial lost their suit against Autodesk I don't see the wait being much longer. I also see the ACIS kernel making it's way into CATIA in the near future.
2. D-Cubed making 3D-DCM robust.
3. Autodesk delivering on the promises just announced for Shape Manager and actually implementing them in Inventor... not just talking about them.
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID 3112&id658056&linkID016263
"The Autodesk ShapeManager geometric modeling kernel is a purpose-built, feature-based modeling engine unique to Autodesk, which is fine-tuned for the demands of 3D users in the manufacturing marketplace. It is derived from ACIS®, a generic 3D modeling technology available from Spatial Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of competitor Dassault Systemes. By managing its own geometric modeling kernel development, Autodesk provides its mechanical design software an edge in the market unmatched by competitors and demonstrates the company's commitment to the manufacturing marketplace.
"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 goal of developing a dedicated 3D modeling kernel was to incorporate it in Autodesk design software, particularly Autodesk Inventor, to allow users to design more complex parts and modify more complex virtual models than they could with the generic ACIS kernel, and to provide increasing application stability and performance, all of which require sophisticated mathematical computations to define and communicate three-dimensional design intent. Autodesk continues to support a dedicated development team with substantial experience in solid modeling to develop ShapeManager for the Autodesk Inventor software application and fine-tune it for the demands of 3D users in the manufacturing marketplace."
Without any of the above happening I see no / very little progress becuase SolidWorks Corp. is clearly unwilling to spend the need R&D money.
When SolidWorks does have the needed surfacing this would allow something like a Camaro Z/28 to be modeled so that it is manufacturable / looks real rather than looking like a toy model. When this happens it would be nice if SolidWorks included some of the reverse engineering tools that are included with VX's Vision (no extra charge) as this would also help in producing the above. :>)
jon

fine.
case,
for
under
to
be
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon, your regurgitating all that Adesk marketing ether without some comment on how far it is from reality is cause to question your credibility. I'm rather confident that Autodesk's ShapeManager is not going to be a market driving force in the near future where advanced surfacing functions are concerned. It certainly is not now. So far, for the most part, the only differences I've seen between ShapeManager and ACIS 7(?) is replacing references to "ACIS" with "ASM" in the "Failed to...." feature creation error messages. So, thus far it appears to be another effort to distract the current and potential users from the disappointments of a less than stellar implementation of the ACIS kernel with a change of name and some adroit use of smoke and mirrors.
========================

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff,
"Jon, your regurgitating all that Adesk marketing ether without some comment on how far it is from reality is cause to question your credibility."
The following is taken from my previous post:
"3. Autodesk delivering on the promises just announced for Shape Manager and actually implementing them in Inventor... not just talking about them."
You stated:
"I'm rather confident that Autodesk's ShapeManager is not going to be a market driving force in the near future where advanced surfacing functions are concerned."
1. A SolidWorks user needing decent surfacing better pray your wrong.
2. IMO, Autodesk will deliver because it's a major feature that would distinguish Inventor from most of the rest of the mid-priced crowd.
3. It would restore some of Autodesk's long lost credibility.
Frankly, Jeff I don't see where Autodesk has much of a choice. If they fail to make a major impact to distinguish Inventor, then very soon Autodesk will lose market share that they will never be able to be recovered / will be insanely difficult and expensive to recover.
The window for software vendors who have been delivering half baked / half assed incomplete solid only modeling products is closing. Unfortunately it has not closed by now. By next year the scene is going to be radically different. Much more so than anytime in the last 5 years as powerful hybrid surface modeling finally arrives in more mid-priced formerly solid only products. My money says Autodesk's Inventor will be there.
SolidWorks should have been there at least 3 years ago.
jon

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The nice thing about Jon Banquer's messages, I know I can ignore them without missing anything. I didn't even read this one. I doubt I missed anything.
"At no point in your rambling, did you even come close to an intelligent thought. I award you no points, may God have mercy on your soul."
___________________ Todd Bennett Celerity Group, Inc tbennett<nospam>@celerity.net

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, it's just copied from what someone else wrote somewhere. You don't use it Or ANY 3D system.
You again don't even have a clue..
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[ Don't own one. Can't afford it. I spend *ALL* my money on machinist tools. ]
Not that he seems to know what they are ....
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
See jb at the bank: http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam
(It's been updated a little.) (Not for the kiddies.)
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi! I just discovered on the Internet that you claim Spatial will change the kernel in SolidWorks to Acis - as a result of the lawsuit between Spatial and Autodesk. 1. Where does this info come from? 2. What's your position? 3. How do I know it is true? 4. What will happen to Parasolid in Solid Works? Please contact me immediately. I am presently writing an article about this case and I have deadline today. Best regards, Claes Philipson

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Claes Philipson) writes:

<snip rest of rubbish>
Would someone else like to explain this? Thanks
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Great, a writer of some rag getting information from a freaking troll!?
Ahm,.. clue for the writer, the guy does not use the product or any design tool for that matter.
What he typically does (for the past ~6 years) is copy/paste articles and then acts as if he is in the know about those tools. He also drops names of people in the business to build another facade of being in connection with the industry.
So, writer, why would he do such a thing??? For shame, getting footnote information to build credibility... using buzz words to attract interest.... writing about stuff you know nothing about.... makes one think.....
Hmm, yeah... makes one think... but then again, why are you on a deadline getting information from a troll??
Sad reality is, in many ways, this guy and you are very similar, no? What mold did you guys get injected out of??
How much do you all want to bet that this writer or other will someday quote the troll about continuous tangent continuity in some rag??
Ask him writer,... Where does this info come from? "I copied/pasted truthful rag info" What is his position? "Ahm,.. well, I'm a troll, I regurgitate stuff" How do I know it is true? "The articles said so, I copy/paste them" What will happen to Parasolid..? "It will go to kernel husk heaven"
..the insanity and BS continues......
(sorry, my coffee is not kicking in yet)
Claes Philipson wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought Claes would step in to clarify things but I just wanted to pass along something since he hasn't. I had some of the same concerns as Paul about someone assuming that the information source was worthwhile. Clae's inquiry in the NG was just one step in his validification process. He just hadn't yet completed his due diligence when he made that post. Anyway, he told me that he had checked out the source and got a snoot full of the Jon and Cliffy show. Needless to say, he recognizes them for what they are and does not plan to include anything from them in his article.
JJ

be
the
just give

can
around
years
NURB
world.
stay as

comes
dont
that can

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

JJ, I posted nothing for any such inclusion so don't blame me <g>. I post *warnings* about clueless jb ..... LOL ....
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oh, if this is you, Claes, the troll you might feed and get info from is an american who loves to copy/paste press releases...
Re: Press Releases "I don't understand why so many American companies don't understand the difference between a press release and advertising material. In our country, such excessive superlatives are usually counterproductive since it hides the real news behind a curtain of advertisement statements. If companies would understand that, our job [as CAD journalists] would be considerably easier." - Claes Philipson Sweden
..
Claes Philipson wrote:

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"1. Where does this info come from?"
Applying common sense... which is often not in evidence on usenet would be a good start. :>)
This tread "Quit your surface whining!" is an excellent example.
"2. What's your position?"
Right now I'm sitting down. I spent most of today on my feet. ;>)
"3. How do I know it is true?"
The same way others found out that I was correct because I stated for years in this newsgroup that support for disjoint solids was necessary and that SolidWorks would implement them. SolidWorks Corp. actually had been working on redoing their database in SolidWorks for years prior. Disjoint solids was just not a priority for SolidWorks Corp. management. It was for the software engineers who code SolidWorks, however.
"4. What will happen to Parasolid in Solid Works?"
It will no longer be the main modeling kernel in SolidWorks.
My turn to ask you questions: :>)
1. Name a Parasolid based system that has anything close to a unified, seamless approach to using surfaces and solids besides Unigraphics ? Why is this ?
2. When you talk with developers what do they have to say about why they elect to go with ACIS rather than Parasolid ?
You have made the effort to talk with ACIS developers who have a long track record of producing innovative products like FastSOLID / FastSURF (Dave Reyburn) Ashlar Cobalt, and now Concepts (Tim Olson), Cimatron, etc. right ?
What do they tell you ? ;>)
3. What does Parasolid lack that ACIS has got that makes it much easier to create a seamless, unified, hybrid modeler ?
4. Why did Autodesk choose to base much of their future on further development of the ACIS kernel and elect to go this route ? Why was Parsolid never even considered ?
jon

give
can
around
world.
as
comes
dont
can
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since exactly when would ANY system use multiple kernels for it's part database topology structure?

This will be good, I promise <G>.
A)

And UG works does it? Ever actually see it?

$$$ ? What's a kernel? Do YOU know? Nope, nary clue one. Just buzzword # 2107 ...

Names from ads & press releases. AFAIK They will not answer his calls or his Email <G>.

Rather snoopy today, are you not? Would you understand the words?
B)

You tell us, oh great self-proclaimed diety of CAD/CAM.

How would you know if it was or was not?
Now consider A & B ..... UG is great and uses ParaSolid but ParaSolid is the problem ....
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oh, goodie. Reconstruction time. Always amusing <BSEG>

(I snipped out the usual clueless stuff copied from ads & press releases.)
Is that about right? LOL
--
Cliff

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
somtimes i start with a solid then i turn it into a surface and back to a solid. other times i start with surfaces and turn it into a solid as the final step. i find these kinds of design methods are better then just working with solids. you should look into surfaces they are there for a reson. i also think solidworks is a awsome product. ill put all my eggs in there basket.
who are you addressing this thred too?

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.