SpaceClaim?

Anybody got anything to say about SpaceClaim? Was it Ed Eaton who had seen some new technology a few months ago that he found promising? Is this it?

Review here:

formatting link
Website here:
formatting link
From the review and website, it appears not to be aimed at mechanical designers. Is this just a marketing slant to keep from competing directly against the entrenched CAD systems, or is the system too limited in what it can do?

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Reply to
Jerry Steiger
Loading thread data ...

These guys have been working on this product for a while. I haven't seen the actual software, but my impression is that it's a non- or semi-parametric modeler, avoiding constraints, letting you edit the model directly by moving faces around. Kind of what I remember HP Solid Designer being. They seem to be focusing on editing geometry non-parametrically.

Another blow to the Mac/Linux contingent - a brand new CAD system that only runs on XP and Vista.

As I remember, JB was the first to post about these guys.

formatting link
I read a blog entry recently about this by Ralph Grabowski
formatting link
Ralph is unimpressed with their licensing scheme - basically renting the software, and then it turns into a viewer when you stop paying.

I don't think this is going to make much of a splash with people designing new products, but it may make sense for the Jon Banquers out there who think that machinists should change design data. They seem to be targeting consumers of 3D data, and claim that they won't be replacing SW or Autocad.

Reply to
matt

Grabowski

formatting link

If that's the case, this is more of a challenge to programs like SurfCAM rather than SolidWorks.

Matt

formatting link

Reply to
fcsuper

On Mar 16, 1:56 pm, "Jerry Steiger" wrote:

On Mar 16, 1:56 pm, "Jerry Steiger" wrote:

Nope, this is not the technology I was hoping for -but I am astounded by your memory Jerry, and it turns out that my contact did end up with this company.

Through my contact I saw a demo of SpaceClaim a while back. There was some neat, promising stuff. I remember liking how their sketcher operated/looked, and some other nice interface stuff like their take on 'select other' which I instantly wished I had in SWx. But beyond some good interface improvements, what I saw was a package that does a lot of stuff I don't really want to do.

To be fair, however, it was still early, and their sample model was just... trying to find a better word here but I can't... awful. I gave them my honest opinion (about the hot interface stuff AND the poor samples and how it failed to communicate a case for portability to the problems I run into), and have not heard a peep from them since.

I do wish them luck, and maybe if I later see some applications to real problems I and my cohorts run into I will change or open my mind; I have to think there is some sort of application in industry that I am blind to or they wouldn't be able to corral the personnel that they have. But based on what little I know right now, I will not watch them closely.

At SWx World I did get a whiff of another initiative in another company that has some promise along the lines I would like to see, but lets face history - don't they all seem cool until they come out?

Side point - Contrary to the article you shared, I think it's good and appropriate that folks keep trying. This is not a mature market - it like one on the verge of another big paradigm shift. For instance, looking at how I and my coworkers have to work with CAD, we spend wayyyyyyyyyyyy too much time fumbling within the limits of the BREP (face and edge ID issues, and dealing with limits of faces and boundaries relating to the underlying processes used to create them). The CAD guys keep adding patches, and maybe this will bring salvation, but my designer 'spidey sense' says that there is a better way, just like when I go to a factory and watch folks use old/existing tools and through that observation I see opportunities to improve those tools (aside: I learn a lot more by watching folks, especially if they are trying out one of my designs, than I ever do by asking them questions because most folks are just plain nice and don't see or wan't to call out the bad stuff to a questioner) The troubling bit is that in my experience, the CAD developers don't do the Jane Goodall thing and go observe the monkeys - they (sometimes but not all the time) go ask the monkeys what they want, then try to give the monkeys what they think the monkeys want. It is a rare monkey that has the ability to really stand back and look at what they do dispassionately - for instance, the monkey writing this post thought that multi-body solids would introduce a lot more problems than it solved, and was I EVER WRONG about that one! If a developer sat and dispassionately watched me or one of you work for two-three weeks they would learn sooo much more about the real problems we run into - not just the ones we are aware of, but the bizarre stuff we accept that we just shouldn't. The example that jumps to my mind is when McEleny said that he saw SWx on a TV report one day and saw the operator had to move the old, huge 'view orientation' box around the screen every time they tried another operation and was chagrined that SWx didn't notice the problem before (to be honest, I as a user didn't key into it either). They obviously made a change based on that observation of monkeys. At SWx world in february, watching other folks work during their presentation, I remembered seeing more 'duh' samples like that 'view orientation' sample as I watched the monkeys work - and I betcha anything that folks saw cumbersome stuff that i did during the 'driving swx' portions of my presentation that this monkey is not attuned into. But those are simple interface patches - there is an underlying inefficiency/deficiency in the current CAD process that, in my gut, is ripe for an overhaul. I would bet that most of us would agree that we will not be designing products in 2057 fundementally the same way that we design products in

2007. It will be interesting to see if someone in 2008/9/10 has the vision and courage to take the first steps toward that 2057 CAD standard, or if they will continue to... trying to think of a better way of saying this but I can't... put another layer of polish on the turd.
Reply to
Edward T Eaton

Preach it, brother, preach it!

SolidWorks was fresh and new and exciting when I first starting using it in

98+. Now it makes me think of the inner tube from some 1930s cartoon, where you can no longer see the tube itself, just the patches on the patches.

Amen!

On the other hand, this monkey thought that multi-body parts would make my job much easier, although I wasn't able to articulate why very coherently. But a lot of the problems we have now seem to be due to multi-body parts. Great idea, poor implementation. I think they fought against it so hard because to do it right meant wholesale rewriting of the code. It feels like they opted to put patches on patches, rather than start from scratch.

Absolutely. One of the problems with talking about what we do is that we quickly learn workarounds when things don't work the way we want, then we get so used to them that we don't remember that there was ever a problem.

Lord, I hope not. SolidWorks will drive me nuts long before then. Although, barring some tremendous improvements in health and longevity, I'm pretty sure that I won't be designing at all in 2057. I'll be pushing 110!

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Reply to
Jerry Steiger

That's the way it looked to me. If it gave me SolidDesigner capability with a better user interface, it would be worth a look.

I'm not thrilled about that aspect, either. Although I don't see a tremendous difference between renting the software and buying it and being forced to pay extremely high property taxes to keep it usable.

It seems a strange way to pitch their product, but my marketing skills are even worse than my programming skills.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Reply to
Jerry Steiger

If you look at their hardware requirements they look like those for gaming systems. I didn't see Quadro or OpenGL anywhere. This appears to be a Vista centric direction for the OS.

On the plus side they appear to support CATIA both ways. Remains to be seen what that means.

The licensing seems to be a big boost for Linux 3D GPLed software should that ever become available.

As to calling it new, well the arrow pointing to the HQ seems to point in the same general direction of the building SW is in.

TOP

Reply to
TOP

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.