SolidWorks World 2007 - Call for Papers

http://www.solidworks.com/pages/swworld_cfp/call_for_papers.html

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard,
It would be interersting to find out what topics people want see presented.
TOP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I ran into McEleney in the hall at SW a few weeks ago, he said people are asking for more advanced stuff to be presented at SWW. In my user group travels, the popular topics are usually the general ones like Tips and Tricks. I'm always surprised at the things people find interesting, and sometimes how presenters at SWW take a great topic and squander it. There's a reseller employee who does a filleting and a working with imported geometry presentation. I think these are great topics and in the hands of another presenter could be interesting, as it is, it just winds up being a session where we look at a couple mildly interesting special cases this guy came across.
What gets me most about SWW is how the vendors turn presentations into mindless sales pitches. So many of the presentations on FEA, PDM, PLM, Implementation, ETC were just corporate boilerplate presentations full of the jargon you come to expect with no specific technical merit whatsoever. I'm pretty sure people aren't asking for Enterprise Enablement Babble. You can get that for free in your own facility without missing out on a worthier presentation with some content.
I think if someone has a special talent in a particular niche, they should present it. To me, those are the most interesting and valuable. I would like to see you, Paul, present something on Design Tables or automating with Excel, I'd go to that. You have a way of going deep into a topic that reveals functionality that isn't obvious. I'd like to see Mike Wilson present on creative problem solving, or what happens when aliens abduct people. Rob Rodriguez and Photoworks. Sean Adams and sheet metal. Keith Pedersen and multi bodies. Anna Nicole Smith and Probate Law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the words Matt. I would attend the Anna Nicole presentation!
Seriously though, I'd love to see Mike Wilson do a session. I've learned so much from his website. Keith Pedersen is also another excellent presenter, I try and attend his stuff whenever he's in my area (luckily he works for my VAR).

I have to agree with what your saying here. I was at SWW in Orlando a couple years back and attended a session on design tables given by a local (Florida) business owner and SW user. The session was 60 minutes and I bet 30 minutes of the content was about himself and his business. A slide or two of self promotion is acceptable but I felt he carried it a little too far.
The best sessions I've attended at SWW or UG meetings are always given by the guys who are "real" users. They are in there getting their hands dirty everyday and they typically have useful tricks and information that works in the real world.
Having said that, it's tough and time consuming to develop a good (great) presentation and I have to give someone credit for at least making the attempt.
I hear Matt Lombard gives a great "tips & tricks" presentation. I haven't had the chance to attend it but hopefully he'll be in New Orleans for 2007.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It will be interesting to see what people decide is worth talking about this year. I hope that the committee deciding what to include will not just decide on the papers in a closed room of SWx employees, but, with Richards guidance, will send papers out to select users to get their opinions too. I remember that I had to lobby for a while to get a rebuild errors session into the agenda, and (as Richard told me) after I gave it the attendees of an LA user group they said it was the best presentation they saw (of course, to be fair, this was before Phil Sluder went on).
I would also like to hear SWx dig around for topics, but not broad categories like 'sheet metal' or 'design tables' because when folks respond by creating presentations for those request we end up seeing a lot of VAR quality step by step stuff that just regurgitate the help menus and training material - or go into incredible detail on a very specific problem that doesn't extrapolate into anything that can be used outside of that case.
Personally, as a presenter for five years, I would most like to hear where peoples pain points are - what they struggle with most and where they will get the largest return on that investment they put into a breakout session (and lets face it, to go to SWx world it costs each person about $200 a breakout session when you factor in fees, airfair, and lodging, let alon lost work time. It can be intimidating to know you have to give $50,000 of value to a large room or your investment in your presentation is wasted). 'Doing Top down design work' isn't as interesting a presentation as 'how to do top down design work with multiple configurations and where components move relative to one another' (talk about a ticking time bomb that blows up on a lot of people, that is actually kinda easy when you get a few tricks under your belt). presenters need to focus on the pain potns that cost companies money (and ultiamtely cost users jobs) This is why I did 'rebuild errors' and 'surfacing for blockheads' (which is really a backdoor way to teach how SWx works internally, so even if you never use a surface feature in your life you still know why your solid features are failing and how to get around it), two areas of proficiency I consider mandatory for anyone using the software. But its ironic how relatively few attendees take advantage of them.
I have always tried to listen to folks when creating presentations and focus where I hear the most problems from users or see the most problems in customer models. These presentations take a lot of time - at least 100 hours each, and one took 300 hours - to produce, test, debug, and destill. It's not worth it to do something that is already covered elsewhere.
But an interesting thing happens - the more advanced the topic or the more money it is designed to save the user, the less the immediate response. Tips and tricks are popular because people 'get' it right away - oh, neat trick. But when you go home a lot of those tips and tricks are so specific or so basic that they really don't have a huge impact on the bottom line. I spend a lot of time coming up with new stuff I know from my work experience will save some guys ass in 3 months if they remember (I had one guy come up to me a year later and tell me how I saved his job, and others have told me that they totally had to rethink they way they used SWX) or save some company a lot of rework, but at the time of the presentation I get a lot of 'neat, entertaining presentation but I don't know if I will ever use it'. The last three years my 'Curvy Stuff' work has gone into the stuff that I see causing the most problems in my consulting work and in whatever private training I do (where to start, how to break a design into faces, how not to think in features but to think in faces, understanding the background mechanics of the geometry, how to work between disciplines, etc) but I feel much less love than when I kept it more basic. I was sorta down after this last year (even though i am especially proud of what I presented) and didn't even announce to the newgroup when the new presentations were up on the Dimonte group website, something that I always looked forward to in past years.
So, for instance, next year I am thinking about going back to the root and doing a 'loft boot camp', partly because so many people still have problems at this level, partly because there is a lot of bad or extremely erroneous information out there that people screw themselves up by trying to follow, and partly because no one else is covering it in the detail the topics deserve (seriously, who have you seen talk about how significantly you can change a loft from an edge-profile just by changing the angle of the adjacent edge that is roughly perpendicular to that edge-profile, let alone the internal 60 cutoff that dramatically changes your results? Who talks about how compromised many - if not most- lofts get when selecting 'curvature continuous' as a start tangency, or even how to confirm for yourself that the results are rarely even C1 tangent? And why isn't EVERYBODY talking about UV lines, the most important consideration in a loft). This is advanced stuff, even on a basic topic, but it is like threading a needle to try to figure out how to present the real ins and outs and quality of a function, especially when in the same day they will attend a general survey course like the Biasotti 'advanced modeling' presentations where he says 'just press this button and it will be curvature continuous' even though a simple deviation analysis will show that in most cases its not even tangent. You either come off as bashing SWx or bashing Mark (who is a genuinely nice guy who doesn't have the time to go into detail due to the format of his session) and the audience turns cold to you even though, bottom line, they need to know these vagaries in order to get any real work done and work through the problems that are causing them to want to go to Rhino instead.
I wish it were simple. I have found it isn't.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...NEW presentations... you mean they have been there all this time? arghhhh!! - -> downloading now...jes man don't do that again ya hear! goodness....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hey these are great presentations Ed! :o) ..refined to be almost elegant... thanks a lot for making them available for non SW world folk. I will pick through these very carefully for vital clues - could be ID life but not as I know it in there. ...of course now I'm looking forward to the SW2007 World ones already so get busy and don't be a droopy draws again and hide them away like that :o(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I can't speak for anyone else, but to me there was a certain tone you struck in your presentation this year which didn't add to what you had to say. My advice would be to stick to the technical content and leave the politics and interpersonals alone. I had thought taking potshots at named individuals from the stage was something you had too much class to do. Everyone makes mistakes or glosses over details from time to time, and assassinating Mark from the stage and thereafter I think is uncalled for. The other thing that got me was some of your concepts of how the design process works might better be prefaced by "at DiMonte group..." because they are not universal or even predominant. I have never seen an ID guy calling shots, they are just one of the competitors in a system of compromise.
I don't want to start a grudge match, I just thought these things were a little out of character for you, and definitely distracted from your message.
Still, the quality of the information you have put out previously is undeniable, and I am grateful that it exists.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, thanks. It is interesting to hear how people interpret what you present - it is also very interesting to hear what folks attending a presntation miss.
As I recal, the only things I said about Mark on a personal level was he had a lot of good information and I recomend making up your own mind about how to use it. I agree that using such a forum to make potshots is a bad idea - its rude and it can turn people off when what you want to do is turn people on.
When I referred to Marks CONTENT it was to clear up things I have seen him present that I know not to be true or know to be risky (split part) in the hopes that i could help some folks who might take it as gospel without critically evaluating it before incorporating it into their work. I also repeatedly ask people to check out my stuff suggestions for similar errors or omissions - as I said in Vegas, everyone makes mistakes and there are only two presenters that I have seen, Phil Sluder and ketih Pederson, who give info that checks out 100%. (I did not add my name to that list, and even said there are things in my old presentations that no longer apply due to changes in the software). I think that is hugely important to keep in mind when you are at SWx world or a user group - take nothing on faith, test it for yourself.
I did use a slide of Marks to demonstrate a common misconception about surfaces vs solids that actually has to do with face geometry (analytical vs algorithmic). When I have talked to Mark about it in the past he said he intends it as a sample of how surfaces allow you to think about edges while with solids you think about masses and the edges come from the intersection of the masses, and I believe I explained that and even said it was a good message - hardly a potshot. I have even urged Mark for years to revise his sample because I know people who make the same mistake. However, he continues to use those slides as a sample explaining the difference between surface and solid modeling. I have seen him say, year after year since New Orleans, that you can't make the 'surface' one in solids and that just isn't true.. I believed (and still believe) it is important to note that his example doesn't communicate his edge intent well becasue he overshadows it with the surface/solid thing, and anyone who looks at the shape difference has to note its because he lofts one and revolves the other - that will be hugely important when they get home and do their own work. I opened my presentation in 2004 with a sample that I beleive more successfully communicates this message about thinking about target edges because it is such a good message. I am not sure if I referred to Mark when talking about splitting master models, but the approach he presents is definately evaluated, thoroughly, with its minuses AND PLUSES, along with a number of other approaches, and the conclusions that we made at DiMonte group. I have talked to a lot of advanced users who have gone through the same process and came to the same conclusion as we have - that split part is a train wreck and insert part has all the benefits without the liabilities.
Those are the only two things I can think about that could be seen as potshots. But i hear you - correct the misconceptions, communicate that it is my experience that things go better with the approach I suggest, AND GO HOME AND TEST IT to find your own conclusions, all without mentioning someone else by name.
About ID - I talked about integrated ID/Engineering approaches (clearly stated as a Dimonte group exerience) and over the wall approaches (which I have seen and read about everywhere, and which in my experience is so pervasive that it has to be evaluated), and discussed case studies showing how integrated worked and fessed up to failures in the 'over the wall'. I even spent a fair amount of time talking about how integration, where there is a system of compromise, worked much more successfully. Heck the thesis of the entire 'part one' is how we ought to strive to work together and how we have learned at DiMonte group to do that with respect to both disciplines and the general responsibilities of both disciplines. I have seen the ID guy call the shots in our work with ID firms outside of Dimonte group, while inside Dimonte group that is never the case (though nicolai, a pure ID guy that is no longer with us, would have liked it otherwise).
Ultimately, any failure in communicating the message I want to convey is my fault. Its easy when we are just punching buttons in a presentation and saying 'this is how you model X'. But higher level stuff - strategy stuff - is a bitch, and I struggle with it endlessly to figure out the best way to wake the audience up, get their attention, and make a case for thinking about things differently. Sorry I got that wrong in a couple of areas, and I will work on it next year. More jokes, fewer pokes
Again, thanks for the input. I don't want a grudge match either adn find it odd that you would suggest that this could turn inot one - without criticism, I can't improve. And I don't mind it public, either - anyone who reads these presentations needs to know that there are other ways of thinking so they can come to their own conclusions. But, just so you know, I am always right (that is a joke, not a poke) Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I love it - only those that read to the very end would find the nugget of humor in this thread. But, I may hold you to it! Made my day. :-)
WT

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@juno.com wrote:

I get uncomfortable when anyone passes judgment on something like this so absolutely, especially when there is another valid side to the story. There are two major drawbacks to insert part that don't exist with split, which are the ability to access the child from the parent and the ability to control where in the tree the body is split out. If you insert one part into another, you don't have an indicator or a path to the child. With Split, you've got that reminder that this part is linked to something, and you know where the child is. I think I demonstrated before the ugly workaround for fixing broken links with the Split feature. Ugly or not, it works. Even so, with the poor body handling in general in SW, the insert part is as likely to get the wrong body as anything, although it is easier to fix. The "where in the tree" question is partially answered by configurations.
Anyway, I'm definitely with you on the jokes vs pokes deal. If you were in my tips session, it was more jokes than anything, although I did also take a few pokes at the software, with many of my examples exhibiting bugs rather than neat demo bits. I think if you're rather light about things in general, criticism doesn't come off looking quite so critical.
People don't necessarily remember the detailed logic you use to arrive at a conclusion, but they will remember the toes you stepped on to get there. Capt Kirk an ID guy?!? Sulu maybe... ;o) I work in a lot of situations with ID, and I either have yet to encounter your scenario or see the same thing from a different view. I generally find myself both an engineer and the translator for the ID guy. Sometimes I push designers to think about other shapes than what they can model with just lines and arcs, or I just ask them to draw by hand on paper or make a clay model because they are good at that, and let me translate it into a computer model. Sometimes we introduce more tricky ID to *solve* an engineering problem. "Revenge of Scotty" seemed to address a rarefied 2% niche or the most idealized stereotypes, not the trenches where I know I work. Not a criticism, just an observation from a different point of view.
Demonstrating pros and cons dispassionately and allowing intelligent folks to apply to their own situations as appropriate is my favored approach.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ironic that you say its a rarefied 2% niche when even YOU say that you have the ID present a sketch and you translate into a model. The ID is telling you what his direction is and you are making it work (the exact relationship between Kirk and Scotty, and the exact rleationship I presented from beginning to end) And in the same post you say 'I either have yet to encounter your scenario or see the same thing from a different view.' I think it must be a different view, because if you are asking for a clay model you are trying to figure out what your ID guy intends you to do. You are scotty, he is the decision maker
I have worked with dozens of companies and in every single case the ID creates the design vision for the product (the Kirk role) and the Engineer (or Engineer and ID) makes it work. Sometimes the Engineer has provided a framework for the ID guy to sculpt over, but next the ID guys provides a direction and the Engineer is the last to deal with it and is responsible for making it work (and try to retain as much of the ID intent as practical). Every case.
I have also talked to hundreds of Engineers and Designers and in every case THEY have represented to me that is the flow of information - ID gives a styling direction, Engineer tries to make it work or tries to work with ID guy to make it work (sorry captain, we don't have enough for Warp speed, but we can get a few phaser shots off). Some are jealous of the more integrated approach we take here - they hate being stuck with 'over the wall. I even had a long conversation with you a few years back where you were trying to figure out how to work with an ID guy because he was giving direction that you couldn't make work and you wanted advise on how to get him to accept reality (you CANT have warp speed you moron).
I would love to hear your basis for saying that what I presented is not real, because I have seen it over and over and over again, and had a number of people come up to me and tell me how much I captured their work environment. I can't even figure out which rarefied niche you could possibly be referring to because I presented SEVERAL work scenarios, not just one.
I am really having a hard time figuring out what you are trying to get at and would like to offer you the opportunity to clarify. Because I will say that I got a little offended to hear you represent that I have presented a rarefied view that is only represented by 2% of the real world (how do you even arrive at 2%?) when I have over a decade of personal experience with dozens of companies throughout the nation and contacts and anecdotes from hundreds of people, let alone all of the articles and books on the design process that I have read, and what I pressented fits with ALL of that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@juno.com wrote:

No, Ed, we really do see this differently. It's definitely more the relationship between Bones and Scotty. Bones is the touchy feely guy. Kirk is the pointy haired guy who runs MS Project and carries a coffee cup, to mix character metaphors a little. The ID and the engineer are at the same level charged with different tasks, I routinely tell Bones to get a grip. Kirk settles disputes and drives overall cost and schedule issues. ID doesn't do any of that. Engineers work with ID, not for ID. It's the same relationship as between design engineers and manufacturing engineers. In a collaborative environment, such a hierarchical view is counterproductive.

I suppose if you look at the entire design as being the "styling", then what you say could be the case, but there are many more elements to a design than styling. Vision for the product is a team effort, coming from Marketing, Sales, Mech Engineering, Electrical Eng, Mfg and ID. Styling is the realm of ID, but assembly, process, function are at best shared responsibilities.

I'm sorry you're getting worked up. I have worked with only a couple other ID folks who were able to express complex shapes in CAD adequately. Rubbermaid, Fisher-Price, Hasbro, Tyco, Crosman, Amerock, many medical manufacturers, furniture mfgs, even ID firms. Most of what I get from ID is hand sketches, photos, or line-and-arc solid models. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 ID guys who I've worked with for whom surfacing is a regular design practice. That's not many.
Maybe I'm coming at this from the populist point of view because having worked for resellers, I've seen a lot of real world users up close, and know what they struggle with. When viewed from an IDSA perspective, these issues probably seem much larger, but from an ASME point of view, they look a little, well, rarefied. Still interesting to me, but still quite a small niche.

You know, I don't doubt any of that, and if that view of things works for you, then that's ok. My experience is no less substantial, and it has led me to different conclusions. We're going to have to settle for agreeing to disagree on this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dude, I said it right up front. Kirk comes up with ideas (lets try out this manuever) and Scotty is the poor bastard who has to make it happen. I think you are getting Kirk mixed up with Starfleet command (which is marketing, management, etc). Check Scottys pay stub - its from Star Fleet, not a personal check from Kirk. And anyone watchign star trek would see that it is a collaborative environment, with the Kirk taking input form everyone and offering suggestions to everyone.
Not my fault or problem anymore that you are fositing on the 'Kirk metaphor' stuff that I never said. Hell, the next half an hour I went through the repsonsibilities of the Industrial Designer, including concept development, and the Engineer (as part of the process to bring that concept to development) just to make sure that no one got it wrong. Too bad I failed with at least one guy - everyone else I talked to got the gag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is pretty bloody obvious what the thrust of Ed's content was matt. I appreciate his presentation and I am sure others do as well. Why you need to be a clingon on the starboard bow escapes me. :o)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil, Thank you.
Since matt, always a great guy with lots to add, seems to have gotten lost on a tangent, and an often unfortunately personal tangent devoid of ideas (hey, where the heck does that 'my inability to accept criticism' thing come from when I was asking for criticism, over and over again in this DOCUMENTED thread???(look it up) And I am actually dying to find out how he fits in that conclusion with my DOCUMENTED acceptance and invitation of criticism, my response to criticism, and comittment to change my ways in this thread? This is almost like dealing with my ex-wife, where she would make shit up and try to believe it even though contrary facts were in print. I wish I could laugh at it, but its hard to get passed being a little peeved when someone of his gravitas writes stuff contrary to hard-written facts realtng to criticism).
But let's be fair - maybe he's on to something about the ID/Engineering collaboration model that we can all gain from, and that would help everyone out. Or maybe there's a blind spot in my vision that I can gain from (matt, notice self-doubt... maybe attempt to understand how to incorporate that into your own life... be a better person).
So, back to the PUBLIC forum: All I ask from the rest of everyone EXCEPT matt is the following:
If ANYTHING I ever presented at any SWx World is innacuate or flat out wrong please email me (eeaton - at - dimontegroup, and you know the rest if it ends with a dot com) or post to this forum under a new thread 'wrath of scotty is bad because...' (my preference, let's keep it open) and I will correct it... with the understanding that the Kirk thing was an introductory joke that was thrown away for the rest of the presentation (you all got that, right?).
That has always been my policy - open critique of anything I write about SWx because open critique of ideas is the only way we ALL learn. ALWAYS. Thats one of the best things about this forum, and why I have participated here for so many years!
Also, just for the record, contrary to matts last post, I have never presented myself as an 'authority' (matts words, definately never mine - not once have I ever claimed 'authority' when it comes to SWx, and every time someone tried to foist that on me I backed away from it. I'm just a user who has some ideas to share) For example, at every SWx World or user group session I give, I tell people who I am and what kind of work I do so they can evaluate my credentials and decide if I am even worth listening to. Then, at some point during the presentation, I encourage the audience to test out everything I say to be sure its true and to evaluate with the kind of work they (the people in the audience) do. THAT'S IT. Where matt came up with that 'setting yourslef up as an authority' thing, I don't know... and after reading one untrue and out-of-line thing after another, I've gotten to the point where I can no longer understand this guy that I used to respect. But thats between me and him (matt, what gives?), and is of no informative value to the user base, so...
PROPOSAL FOR NEW THREAD....
If ID and Engineering collaboration is an interesting and maybe controversial topic, and I suspect it is, lets start a brand new thread so we can hash it out there. I will contribute, but I don't want to start the thread because it would just be more of me and matt, and how boring would that be? He, according to his posts, apparently thinks I work in a 'rarefied' little corner of the world, and if anyone was interested I would like to discuss that, talk about what the real world is really like, and, let's face it, who knows which way the ball will drop (plus I know I have absolutely nothing to fear here,,, reserve snide comment because I am trying to show just a sliver of class, though its pretty hard after a few days of trying to softpeddle against some pretty weird statements).
Any of you who think its something important to talk about, just start a new thread. That would be a terrific forum (outside of the SWx world call for papers thread) to hash out this topic.... it would be useful for anyone for instance, who can't get the point that 80% of ID concepts are thrown out becasue they don't seem to understand that both design and Engineering repsond to outside forces - marketing, sales, vagaries of management, Starfleet comand, etc.
It could be interesting, Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed,
Here's the deal. This really started out being about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in a SWW presentation. I contend that criticising people by name from the stage is over the line. You don't recognize that what you did was at all unseemly. So be it. This would better be handled in an email, but your comments were public, so I deal with it in that way.
But it doesn't stop at Mark Biasotti. I could give a half dozen examples off the top of my head where you take other people's work and use it as a bad example, not limited to the Scotty presentation. Or take a direct quote from someone, insert a NOT and imply that other people have it all wrong. Or invent a cute phrase over someone elses model such as "This is what I call the 'I-don't-give-a-shit' technique". Training parts, my parts, direct quotes from me, Mark's parts, those are only the things I recognize, I'm sure there are several others represented...
Bashing a technique is one thing. I do enough of that, but I would just ask that you don't have to detract from what other people do to put your ideas forward. We're not here as competing researchers, we're all trying to help one another and we don't get much reward for what we do.
And now you're casting aspersions on two more phrases I mentioned, being "more advanced stuff" and "tips and tricks". I just don't get it, Ed. You can't get a seat in Phil Sluder's Tips and Tricks presentations, and my tips presentation this year was standing room only too. Tips presentations are valid, useful, and very popular. What pleasure or use do you find in slamming what guys like Phil have been doing for a long time?
In your next SWW presentation, I would like to see you put aside the criticism, or at least remove the personal references. If you show bad examples, make them your own. And try to accept that there are points of view that don't agree with yours which are entirely valid.
Matt
> (hey, where the heck does that 'my inability to accept criticism' thing come from
"I know what I am talking about and despise any inference to the contrary"
"please lay off the slams on my professional perspective" (there were no slams)
" I will not accept without response any slight on my professionalism or experience"

For not presenting yourself as an authority, you've spent a fair amount of typing in the past couple of days trying to convince someone of just that, with the "decade of experience" bit and all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think if you have a specific gripe/grudge about what was said or implied at SWW matt you should contact Ed in pm.Honestly I am not interested in reading your petty slagging and sniping over 'professionalism'. Let those other folks Ed apparently slighted speak for themselves if it is an issue for them. Personally I think you have a bit of envy and arrogance mixed in there leaking out as passive aggression but it is not for me to say is it :o) I like to see Ed's presentations and this years is no different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You wrote - " Tips presentations are valid, useful, and very popular. What pleasure or use do you find in slamming what guys like Phil have been doing for a long time"
On tips and tricks, I wrote: "And if that's what you want, that's totally cool"
It looks to me like we agree - if that's what folks want, they should get it. No big deal there. I like something different and made a case for why I like it, but also URGED people with different views to go ahead and make themselves heard. SWx world is for everyone - tell Richard what you like and he will listen.
You wrote: "I do enough of that, but I would just ask that you don't have to detract from what other people do to put your ideas forward."
I wrote several days ago: "Those are the only two things I can think about that could be seen as potshots. But i hear you - correct the misconceptions, communicate that it is my experience that things go better with the approach I suggest, AND <encourage the audience to> GO HOME AND TEST IT to find their own conclusions, all without mentioning someone else by name
Again, the record shows that I agreed.
Seems simple to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" I was sorta down after this last year (even though i am especially proud of what I presented) and didn't even announce to the newgroup when the new presentations were up on the Dimonte group website, something that I always looked forward to in past years."
I just went through Curvy Stuff V and you have reason to be proud! The amount of effort you put into your presentations shows. And it's not just the effort; it's the way you think things through and get to the heart of the matter.
"So, for instance, next year I am thinking about going back to the root and doing a 'loft boot camp', partly because so many people still have problems at this level, partly because there is a lot of bad or extremely erroneous information out there that people screw themselves up by trying to follow, and partly because no one else is covering it in the detail the topics deserve"
I really hope you do this. There are a lot of us out in the trenches who could use the help.
"You either come off as bashing SWx or bashing Mark (who is a genuinely nice guy who doesn't have the time to go into detail due to the format of his session) and the audience turns cold to you even though, bottom line, they need to know these vagaries in order to get any real work done and work through the problems that are causing them to want to go to Rhino instead."
I'm pretty sure Mark understands. I don't envy him his job, though I am really glad he is there.
"I wish it were simple. I have found it isn't."
Yeah, but you do a great job of showing the rest of us the most critical elements. Don't give up the ship!
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"
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.