You can see one of the first public showings of SolidWorks 2004 at the All-Texas Conference in Austin. Greg Jankowski of SolidWorks Corporation will present a special "Sneak Peek" preview on Monday, July 14th. This session is free and open to all SolidWorks users and partners. You MUST pre-register by email, see the website for contact information.
There is still time to register for the entire conference. Registration fee is only $50.00 now, $100.00 at the door. The conference starts on Sunday, July 13th and runs through Tuesday, July 15th. A partner exhibit, technical sessions, food and more are all included in the admission price. We are also pleased to have Jeffrey Rowe, a top CAD industry researcher and analyst as our keynote speaker.
For more information, visit the conference website at
Sure would be nice to be a fly on the way at some places just to see what the heck they are doing that causes reactions like this. Perhaps it isn't so much the software as it is the use of it. Now we can hear all the "this stinks" email from, what 10, maybe 20 folks who have a REAL issue with it. We had a real problem when 2001-plus came out. We fixed our problems to work WITH the software, instead of continuing to fight it.
I use to use Pro/E and what a real treat it was when they went to the wondermous windows icon interface instead of the simple flop down design. Hey, remember when AutoCrap went and did the Windows thing? What a massive (negative) improvement in speed that provided huh? How about that awesome (awful) version 13...
AutoCrap is great. Go back. Everybody ought to go back to the only version of software that still needs it own "special" print drivers. Awesome stuff that is...
"Alex Spath" wrote in news:3f04cec0$0$ firstname.lastname@example.org:
If you are having the kind of trouble you describe with SW, then I seriously would recommend one of two things:
1) Buy a different CAD package that you think you can be more successful with
2) Hire a professional to troubleshoot your SolidWorks installation and practices.
There is no reason why you or anyone should have to put up with problems with your tools that get in the way of doing your work if there is a better option. I'd be willing to bet that the second option would work wonders for your company.
That is supposed to be SolidWorks job (fly on the wall).
Reply: That reply sounds like something our VAR does say. Yet with all the files we have sent them they haven't been able to pin the fault on our software abilities. The users in our department have been continuously using the software since SW99 and would hope we have a reasonable level of knowledge and skills with this software.
Reply: We work with files that may have 100-5,000 parts, multiple configurations and design tables. Our computers are top of the line business machines with plenty of ram, high end graphic cards and used by experienced SolidWork users (all things being relative).
Reply: Your commentary and responses elude to some of the conversations that have taken place in our company! Do we know each other? Got a real name you would like to share?
Now we can hear all the "this
Reply: Out of 250,000 user's only 10-20 you say? How scientific or factual is that statement (1-10 with ten being most factual)? Not everyone uses the software the same way and therefore might experience different problems and issues.
Reply: What kind of problems did you fix to work with the software? How much time do you spend "fixing" the software? Have you experienced any problems with configurations reverting to default, lost mates, drawing sections, bom, and converstions to AutoCAD dwg that turn on all the OFF layers assigned in SolidWorks?
Reply: How did AutoCAD (correct spelling) get dragged into the conversation from my comment switching from SW to Inventor?
Reply: We have customers that still demand the deliverables be in AutoCAD format. Would you tell your customers to go back from whence they came because they still prefer AutoCAD to SolidWorks? Good luck
Reply: Many of the original users migrated from AutoCAD to SolidWorks because of some of the issues you mentioned and others (including myself). Least we forget AutoCAD was the leading technology at one time and has its place in history. Dissatisfaction is a driving element of ingenuity and progress (founders of SolidWorks case in point.)
problems 2003 have created sometimes generate more hours for me. When a company is well into a major project where tens of thousands of dollars have already been spent, it can't very well say "lets switch packages" or "stop work". So, living in hope that the next service pack will fix all the problems, the company continues, albeit slowly.
line? Or the vars who are lightning quick to come up & install the latest wizzbang bit of software you've paid for, but strangely mute when you show them problems. Matt we've spent thousands on IT and network expertise since 2003 because of the suggestions by SW reps that it's not SW that's the problem. You can't honestly tell me that there wasn't a degradation in the product when 2003 came out. The only yardstick to use is PRODUCTIVITY, not the variety of skins available or displaying gradient backgrounds or any of the other useless crap that has been added over the years. Nobody in their right mind would want software that isn't constantly being improved on but those improvements must increase productivity. Most engineering design is nuts & bolts, bread & butter stuff. I use SW to make a living. The company uses it to make a profit. As far as I know, you only sell it. Enough said
"Alex Spath" wrote in news:3f11d971$0$23596$ email@example.com:
Maybe I look at things a little bit differently. I see two basic ways of approaching problems with software:
1) Expect the software to lay it all out at your feet in black and white, and blame the software when you can't make it work. Believe that whenever you have a problem with the software, it is automatically the software's fault.
2) Understand that software is a tool, and there are usually many ways to use (or misuse) a tool. Some of them are by the book and some of them require more imagination. Problem solving always requires imagination.
You still haven't been specific about what your problem is, so it's impossible for anyone to point you in a useful direction.
No. I mean someone who really knows what they are doing. Not every reseller has people who fall into this category, and ironically the people answering the phones are not usually the people who know the software best. I don't just mean someone with a CSWP, or 7 years on the software, I mean someone who also has a bit of intuition with the software.
I do mainly plastics and mold design, and some sheetmetal. In my use of the software, I have not seen a degradation in productivity with SW03. What I do see is that I have new tools at my displosal that I didn't have before, and I try to understand when to use which tool to my best advantage. When I have a problem, my first assumption is that I have done something the software didn't expect, and I try to figure out what it did expect so that next time I don't go down that road again. Sure, I report plenty of bugs and enhancement requests with the software, and haggle with tech support about how things are "supposed" to work, but I know in the end, as you say, "productivity" is the yardstick.
I don't think you'll find any arguments there, but there are two sides to the productivity equation, and it may turn out that you don't understand one of the sides as well as you think you do.
I'm not saying this just to be an ass, I've seen it happen with good SolidWorks users, where one little switch (not in SW or the OS) that tech support and IT missed caused a 60% improvement in load times of large assemblies.
Some people on this newsgroup call me a SolidWorks apologist, and SolidWorks and reseller folk think I hate the software. Really my goal is just to know the software well enough to use it efficiently, and to help other people do that too. SolidWorks and its resellers have the tendency to not acknowledge the negative, and I think that there are some users who won't acknowledge the positive, or don't know the software well enough to be able to find it when it is not right on the surface.
The possibility exists that you're completely correct, and there is nothing you can do that you haven't tried already. There are plenty of bugs in the software, and plenty of places where the advertising and even training and tech support will unintentionally mislead you (because in some cases, even SW doesn't understand how best to use the software). But I find that most of the time there is some sort of a rational explanation that doesn't require a SolidWorks Corp. conspiracy or incompetence theory when things go badly wrong.
Where are you located? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, are you?
bob z. has plenty of scars on his hands and body from using the wrong tool for the job. :~)>
a lot can be said for having the right tool for the job. anybody here ever see a chrysler (rear-wheel drive) upper ball-joint socket? well, they (nascar) use the same ball-joint on their cars. it is round with 4 flats. the socket will cost you about $45 at your FLAPS. try removing one of those without that socket. oooooh-weeeee!!!
does bob z. have a point with this? yes, but he will not say what it is. bob z. doesn't want to take sides in this. everyone reading this can just assume good ol' bob z. is on their side. you know what? he really is. he really likes all of you. he wants to be your friend.
bob z. had an algebra teacher in 9th grade that wanted to be everybody's friend. he called everyone, "my friend..."