Your reply to Paul made it sound like his complaints weren't justifiable. As
if because he did not participate in the Beta program that he can't complain
about the problems with the software. While some may feel that way, I can
share in his frustration and I was a Beta tester. So does that in some way
make it OK for me to complain but not him?
I'd really rather not make enemies on here as I enjoy relying on this as a
great place to go to get and share knowledge of a lot of things and be part
of a community. If I misunderstood your original post, my apologies.
More importantly why would someone's opinion only be valid if they
participated in the beta? If you paid for the program (or at least
your employer did) do you not already have a vested interest and a
right to voice a complaint?
FWIW I think SWX2003 is a POS. Haven't upgraded to 2004 yet so I can't
comment on that.
I'd have to agree with an earlier post that stated that anyone who has
no complaints about SWX software isn't creating complex assemblies and
drawings. (Ie. several thousand parts, high detail, various
positions/configurations and multiple page drawings of these
assemblies & parts). I'm entitled to this opinion not because I beta
tested or didn't but because I ACTUALLY USE THE SOFTWARE.
Bruce, please, don't take things personally.
Most venting and bitching is about sharing frustration, voicing opinion
or indirectly asking for help, it's rarely personal.
At one point I think we have all submitted a good amount of reports and
realized we are only getting more frustrated and I know some people have
been way more active in reporting issues than most of us, and knowing
that frustrates me in a generally shared way because I still see
Since I pay for using this software, I strongly feel it is my consumer
right to voice my opinion, do I like doing it? NO, but I have seen
rewards for being vocal. Do I think it is a good thing,... NO, not at
all. Do I see alternatives to this? Not really because I see it as a
core issue with the company.
BTW, what is sometimes a odd reward out of all the chaos, are seeing
undocumented and useful features appear... it's the little things. I
may read too much into stuff like this but it is a hint for me that some
of the programmers are listening and that some of the processes are
being controlled and limited by people who are not really listening to
the users about core issues. I think they get too caught up with
marketing fluff and drive. In my experience, I have rarely meet a
marketing person who is or was creative... usually the people working
just under marketing are the creative ones and marketing typically use
and steal from those people. It is a issue which I find core in
problems with companies. Don't get me wrong, marketing has a role but
that role should not be overriding development.
Bruce Wirkkala wrote:
The reason splines still suck has nothing to do with beta development
issues. It would appear that the persons responsible for developing
splines in SW do not know enough about their uses in solid modeling.
Have you ever viewed a curvature comb on a newly drawn spline? What
happens at the ends? The go to zero curvature! There is no way to
control this. The only remediation is to trim off the ends of the
There is no means to constrain the curvature of a spline at any point,
either by constraint or dimension. The only means of curvature
control is "eyeballing" curvature combs to get them to match up! This
is at best a gross oversight on the part of SW programmers.
SW can not be a serious contender in the industrial design market
until it improves this most basic building block of organic surfaces.
Actually, this subject had little to do with beta testing problems, more
a statement of "nothing has changed".
Clearly spline tools are lacking.
Don't understand why you are trimming the ends of splines?
But, when you do that, but you do set a normal condition at the ends.
Similarly, you can add a tangent construction line to the end of the
spline which gives you direct control.
(personally, they should auto add construction lines to ends of splines,
or have a option, RMB, add construction line)
Still, yes, you will have to eyeball the comb in most cases.
And if you are talking about some of the tools which have explicitly
integrated options to their splines like, degree, influence, slope.. and
continuity (G1, G2 and G3) values as well as toggle spline control to
either points or control vertices directly too the splines, yeah, it is
I don't think they are serious either, that unfortunately comes from the
foundation of their user base. But if it is taking them this long to
add more spline functionality it may point towards the foundation of
their tools which would mean changing the core way they handle splines.
I generally work with all splines and surfaces and I still can not get
clean enough surface boundaries.
SW is still limited, the curve and surface tools are just not there when
it comes to the area of cosmetic shape modeling,
The problem I have with SW splines has been that you do not have control
over what the splines inherit while making changes, and in most case you
have to start over, which means failed relations downstream.
I would think it is a no brainier at this point in time that the
competition are applying the above and it makes SW look very bad.
Especially since it's users and users using other tools know it is and
has been bad.
I think we need to lobby SW as a group specifically to improve splines....
seems to me we need to put them to the test and see if the 250 customer
driven improvements each year would actually include something specifically
asked for in the public domain.
probably there aren't enough serious surface users to make a big impact on
the powers that be however I gotta say the limited spline functionality is
becoming something of an embarrassment (sure can be ham-fisted to use at
splines/surfaces are an area of the software that is obviously underpowered
now and needs real attention SOON
Do you think that an "advanced surfacing only" wish-list
(or even a wish thread) would help?
I have a few things I can contribute to it. I may offer to
host this list if no one else has the time.
yes I think a wish list/forum would be a good idea.
I think we need to get specific requests worked out that really would
enhance how users actually tackle real world projects.
it seems to me only the people with a real interest in
surfaces -minority?-are going to be motivated enough to push for change.
unless we articulate our requirements to SW and get them a priority the
functional improvements we seek will be continually bypassed in favour of
"Do you think that an "advanced surfacing only" wish-list
(or even a wish thread) would help?"
Would be even better if you had an employee at SolidWorks
who actually wanted to see the proper "advanced surfacing
only" wish-list implemented.
Seems to me that Mark Biasotti should be the one presenting
Why Mark Biasotti ???
Because SolidWorks Corp. has at least 20 seats to gain just
from his account and he seems to have good relations with
The only thing that concerns me is that Mark Biasotti seems
to settle for very little. Perhaps with a group of angry
SolidWorks users behind him he might get tougher. :>)
How happy do you think SolidWorks management and employees
were with Mark Biasotti's Pro/E vs SolidWorks article. I'd
say not many !!! This is a good thing. That entire article
should be place on a website where it can be seen by anybody
and referred to constantly in this newsgroup.
This is how I see it. I posted some comments on another
thread about this. The fact that SW completely ignored
adding a single new feature to splines is a cause for
concern for my type of work.
Wierd, I sent in this exact request early this year. How
funny. I called it "Spline Tails".
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce some
useful info on just how much of a "no brainer" it may
be to add some new features...
Take a look at the Spline Constraints video. In my eyes, it
appears as if all SolidWorks needs to do is either turn-on
these features or just plug-em in.
Could it be a lot more work than that? Is it a monumental
undertaking to add these new features? I really wish I (we)
knew the answer.
To me it's a real drag when SolidWorks doesn't take advantage
of technology they are already licensing. It makes me feel like
we aren't getting our money's worth.
Could it be that D-Cubed charges for each individual 'portion'
of it's DCM technology such as "Symmetry", "New Spline
Solving Modes" etc...
or is it all ready to go?
Just curious, I really don't know how all of that stuff works.
Maybe there are too many bugs in D-Cubed's initial code? Are
they too suffering from all of this "Official SP0 Release but
really Beta Release" problems?
Is SolidWorks just the middlemen in some of this bug reporting
Let's see, it goes from...
User to VAR
VAR to SolidWorks
SolidWorks to D-Cubed
D-Cubed to Planet of the Apes
Planet of the Apes to Purple Monkey Dishwasher
(heh, old Simpsons joke)
"Maybe there are too many bugs in D-Cubed's initial code?"
That would be my guess. Also, as I have mentioned many times
before shouldn't much of this not really be in D-Cubed 3D
DCM not just 2D DCM ?
"Is SolidWorks just the middlemen in some of this bug
Actually I think SolidWorks Corp. pushes and lends more help
to their 3 party software component suppliers than any other
The problem is that SolidWorks Corp. is really not capable
of doing what other CAD/CAM companies do.... not relying so
heavily on 3 party software component suppliers and doing it
Good point about the user base, which is largely mechanical. Another
very real possiblity is that the labor needed to improve these tools
may not translate to any proportional increase in revenue for the
company relative to developing another program function which may be
more lucrative (actual or percieved).
Sombody in that company has to be setting priority on what gets
programming resources and what does not - marketing always has input
on what they think they can sell. Their primary stated focus is
mechanical design. I think ID (and things like splines by extension)
are maybe taken as an afterthought. When I think of ID software I
think of things like alias and . . . umm . . . umm . . . things like
that (that's at least what my IDing brother uses).
We should not lose sight of the fact that SolidWorks corp is a
business in business to do what businesses do - make profit.
Unfortunately, what a customer wants and needs may even be known, but
perhaps it is not deemed as soemthing that will return revenue to the
company. Maybe this is the case with some of these functions.
Personaly I have waited in vain for many improvements in things that
seem blatantly obvious to me as anemic (not splines but things perhaps
as badly needed for my situation). Perhaps the coders for SW also
understand these particular limitations as well as I do but have no
compelling reason to improve them (yes - we all have things about the
program we know can be improved and are perpetually asking why? - Look
how long it too for them to implement the ability to re-pick the
sketch surface for hole wizard features - at least 3 years and this
was a reallllllllllly obvious bad thing).
You can be sure someone is doing ROI analysis on what to blow off and
what to fix. Unfortunately the little things get blown off, but it's
the little thinks that make the whole darn watch tick - who cares
about the diamond encrusted gold plated bezel if the thing won't tell
The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good.
There are many non-ID mechanical applications that require curvature control
or at least better spline manipulation:
Also, equation-driven curves would do wonders for SW's credibility, which
would do wonders in turn for their marketability.
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.