When will you fix trim and trim mutual surface to be user friendly???
One thing which is extremly annoying currently in SW2003 and SW2004 is
the ability to recognize what is and is not trimmed.
I've written to you about this is in past and I'm sure other people have
as well and NOTHING has been changed!!
Also, the "cancel" does NOT work right and have NEVER worked right!
When the user adds or changes the selection list in either the mutual or
standard trim list, then decides to "cancel" the changes they made, the
selected surfaces and changes remain??? Why??
Cancel, means, CANCEL!!
Listen COMPETITION, the SW Trim feature SUCKS!!!
So, market it to you hearts content because SW CORP DOES NOT LISTEN!!!
.. (I feel moocha better now)
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
SolidWorks hack and whack (hack and whack copyright J/K)
modeling is not suppose to be user friendly !!! That's why
it's called hack and whack (hack and whack copyright J/K)
Perhaps the official release of SolidWorks 2004 will have
the new certified hack and whack (hack and whack copyright
J/K) modeling logo on the CD right above the certified for
Windows XP logo.
SolidWorks surfacing sucks in general and their competition
does know it. You can bet when you see say something like
IronCAD 7 that although the surfacing will still lack enough
functionality that it won't have the official SolidWorks
hack and whack (hack and whack copyright J/K) logo on the CD
and the software will have an unified, seamless, hybrid
(unified, seamless, hybrid copyright jon banquer) approach
to modeling that SolidWorks so badly lacks.
Hmmm, funny so do I. ;>) I can only imagine how good I would
feel when hack and whack (hack and whack copyright J/K)
SolidWorks modeling technology disappears from the product
all together... I might even want to use SolidWorks again at
On second thought... maybe they should leave it in. :>) LOL
The problem here is that when I post something you don't
like you take it to mean that this has something to do with
personal attacks that I regret I have been involved with and
have said I'm sorry for. This is not a justifiable reason to
say the "old JB is back. It's just a reason for you not to
address the issues in SolidWorks that are broken and have
been broken for a very long time.
There is nothing in my post that is not civil or reasonable.
It's just the truth and it hurts because SolidWorks is not
able to make surfacing and solid modeling tools work well
together. Even on their own, the surface tools in SolidWorks
are not intuitive like they are in other packages.
BTW, I am still waiting for you to answer the questions that
I have asked you and you have ignored continuously about
VX's Vision and why in your tests SolidWorks is better.
In this manner the old Mark Mossberg has not changed.
That's not an attack, Mark. It is however the truth. Why
you won't be honest about VX's Vision and how much
better a modeler it is than SolidWorks is beyond me.
Why won't you answer the questions I have asked of
you about VX's Vision, Mark ???
BTW, because of the FACT that surface and solids tools don't
work seamlessly in modelers like Inventor or SolidWorks there
is a new company that has formed to address the kinds of users
who are fed up. That company will use the ACIS kernel in their
jon (Seamless, unified, hybrid modeling (seamless, unified,
hybrid copyright jon banquer) .... It's still *not* SolidWorks.)
It wasn't the content Jon, it was the delivery and the tone. It wasn't
conversational, or even provocative. It was confrontational and
well...snotty. If it's your intention to illicit the same kind of responses
you've been getting the last few years...rock on.
As to the second part, I'm going to try and explain some of the reasons a
company adopts certain tools over others.
The reasons generally fall into two groups, technical, and business. Both
In most cases, the best you can expect is a comprimise. In order to fully
understand the technical aspect, from a real world perspective, you almost
have to have been involved in the process at some time. The fact is, there's
allot more to product design than swoopy shapes. Inside every shape, there
are various combinations of mechanical, electronic, electro mechanical, and
sometimes (in our case) electro magnetic,and bio chemical, devices. Most of
the products we design are very mechanically and technologically complex.
First and formost, they have to work (left brain). Secondly, they have to
loook nice (right brain).
The design process itself can be very complex and tends to "evolve" into
it's final form. Being able to change one thing, and have all other related
things update to reflect that change, is a very valuable capability. Paul
S. gives a very comprehensive and articulate explaination (once you strip
out the obvious cynicism) of the typical requirments of the modern design
process in the link he posted. We share his opinion on many points. With us,
complete orginization and continuity are a requirement. We design critical
care medical devices. We have to document the process, as well as the final
product. At the time we looked at it, the "only" thing VX brought to the
table was it's excellent surfacing. It fell far short on all other
requirments. It wasn't the kind of program that "we" could use to any
overall benefit. It just wasn't a "good fit" for our business. Now, if all
we did were fancy shapes and appearance mock ups, it would be a different
On the business end, well.....to begin with we didn't have any customers or
vendors that used VX. We're an engineering services company. As such, we
don't exist on an isolated island. We deal mainly with our clients resident
engineering staff. Part of our typical process involves exchanging "native"
data back and forth for purposes of collaboration. 85% of our clients use
Solidworks. The other 15% are a mix of Pro-E, Solid Designer, and 2D ACAD.
Using VX, under these circumstances, would make no business sense
whatsoever. Even if VX had all of SW parametric capabilities.
Now, "if" we were to get a project that required VX native data, and "if"
the project were lucrative enough to offset the costs of licensing,
training, maintaining a seperate data base, and other costs, we'd probably
buy it. It would make good business sense.
"It wasn't the content Jon, it was the delivery and the
tone. It wasn't conversational, or even provocative. It was
confrontational and well...snotty. If it's your intention to
illicit the same kind of responses you've been getting the
last few years...rock on."
It's a tone of frustration, Mark. This same tone of
frustration is rampant with those who expect more from what I
call mid-priced modelers that are market leaders. It's
especially frustrating when products like VX's Vision or
think3's thinkdesign / thinkshape are able to deliver the
goods that SolidWorks and Inventor simply can't. Part of my
frustration is that so few users of SolidWorks who post here
have ever used what I call a seamless, unified, hybrid
modeler that gets it right. In the mean time, I note how
companies like Buell Motorcycle have refused to go along
with this unacceptable situation and have opted out of the
popular mid-priced market leader cycle and gone with think3.
"Paul S. gives a very comprehensive and articulate
explanation (once you strip out the obvious cynicism) of
the typical requirements of the modern design process in the
link he posted."
How well does the approach Paul advocates work with non
native data ? If Paul gives a "very comprehensive and
articulate explanation" please explain why non-native data
is not dealt with by Paul. Also, please explain why U.S.
companies want the tools (Global Shape Modeling) that Paul
does not understand the need for.
I don't agree with Paul's assessment and neither does the
market who did not want the single tool approach that PTC
championed for years. It's also interesting to note how PTC
continues to change their approach with products like ISDX
II. There is a very good reason why PTC growth stopped and
why PTC could never achieve the success in a major
automotive accounts like UG has and can. Hybrid modeling
works. The one tool all parametric approach does not work. Make no
mistake I could not agree with Paul's comments any less and
the way that the market has gone totally supports what I
have said for years.... one needs a hybrid modeler whose
surface and sold tools are unified in their approach and
work seamlessly together.
"At the time we looked at it, the "only" thing VX brought to
the table was it's excellent surfacing. It fell far short on
all other requirments. It wasn't the kind of program that
"we" could use to any overall benefit. It just wasn't a
"good fit" for our business. Now, if all we did were fancy
shapes and appearance mock ups, it would be a different
VX Visions assembly tools have dramatically improved. VX
Visions CAM tools have dramatically improved. VX Vision has
fully integrated CAM that is more robust then CAMWorks or
SolidCAM in many ways. It is not fair for you to judge VX
Vision on what you know about it from what at least
2 or more years ago ???
"On the business end, well.....to begin with we didn't have
any customers or vendors that used VX."
How many of Buell Motorcycles vendors do you think use
think3's products ???
When you started using SolidWorks how many of your customers
and vendors used it ???
"Using VX, under these circumstances, would make no business
sense whatsoever. Even if VX had all of SW parametric
It does and it's got a lot more things that SolidWorks does
I also note that very little discussion takes place in
this newsgroup about the kinds of tools that IronCAD
provides such as intellishapes and it's tri-ball. Does
SolidWorks approach come close to equaling these
innovations for ease of use ?
I hope you found my response polite even though I can not
agree with the points you are making or your assessment of
VX's Vision which I believe to be dated and inaccurate.
And you use exactly what? VX, 3dinkies? Nope.
DOS BobCAD 2D? So you claim .....
You even got all confused by the very concept of 3D modeling in BobCad
today (yesterday?) in alt.machines.cnc ....
You don't even have much of a clue about that either it seems.
I've been following this market for many years. What allways happens is the
first one to market usually rakes most of the chips off the table. ACAD had
the first production worthy PC based 2D drafting system. It was cheap, and
had no security protection to speak of. The result was a huge trained user
base, and nearly complete monopoly of that market. In my opinion, the Vellum
and Cadkey of that time were better products, but ACAD had the "momentum"
PTC had the first parametric design system. The software was expensive, the
licensing was very restrictive, it was difficult to use, training and maint.
costs were horrendous, and the sales people were dishonest and obnoxios.
Even so, they dominated the market, they were the first. Market momentum
SW was the first reasonably priced fully parametric system to run on a PC.
Liberal licensing, nice people to deal with, well funded, and in the right
place at the right time. Momentum.
Once these types of dynamics are set in motion, "standards" are established.
Standards have a big influence on "business decisions".
Buell uses Think3 to design all of the curvy stuff, and possibly the frame.
The engine/transmission are basically a Harley Sportster unit. This was
designed in Pro-E. Even if they re-modeled the entire engine to be Think3
native, I can guarantee you that the data that the engine is manufactured
from (at HD) is Pro.
I think the point here would be how often does Paul "need" to work with non
native data. The answer is probably not very often. Need's are very
individual in nature, not all business situations are the same. I very
seldom have to work with non-native data. When I do, It's usually just to
get an idea of what the new client has done on his own up to that point. "My
particular business situation" makes dealing with imported data a very minor
issue. When I send a part out to a mold house, I send dumb data (usually
parasolid). I don't want the vendor to make any changes. If a change is
required, (missed draft etc) I make it here and re-send the data. This is
the only way to maintain the integrity of "our" data base.
Paul's assesment is the result of many many years of dealing with complex
designs. He prefers parametric tools because he understands how to use them,
and is able to leverage the inherant advantages. Parametric systems are much
better at dealing with very complex mechanical problems than other types.
You "can" use parametric systems for industrial type designs too, but it
takes a very skilled person to pull it off. Applying design intent is a very
"left brain" activity, the aesthetics of shape and form are "right brained".
People, like Paul, that can deal with both are rare. The tools he chooses to
use are the ones that make sense for "him" and his indivudual business
Fair is an emotional concept. In the context of a business decision, the
word "fair" has (should have) a totally self serving meaning. In fact,
business decisions are either right, or wrong. Would you by a pair of shoes
that didn't fit just to be fair to the salesman ? Of course not. I initiated
this meeting myself out of genuine interest in their product. In the
interest of "fairness" (both the self serving and the altruistic kind), I
set aside a large block of time to allow the VX folks to present their
product. I set them up in in our theater, and made sure all of the
appropriate staff were present (all engineers or designers). This lasted
about three hours, during which time questions were asked and answered,
different work scenarios were simulated, and features were demonstrated.
Over the course of the next week, things were discussed, pros and cons
carefully measured, and a "business" decision was made. We told them we may
be interested in looking again in the future.
Don't know. Probably not very many
Not many, it was too new. Most used Pro-E, which we had as well. The point
is, as a service company, "we" can't dictate what our customers use. In the
intervening time (7 years) the situation has reversed
No it wouldn't, not from a "business" perspective. All companies are in
business to make money. In order to do this costs have to be controlled. The
tools you choose can severly affect these costs. We chose tools that allow
us to complete the broadest range of tasks, based on our particular needs,
in the least amount of time. By time I mean money. Right now, given our
current client base, that means SW, and Pro. That may change in the future,
but any decision "will" be based on good business sense, as well as
capability. There's nothing wrong with having another bullet in your clip,
but there has to be demonstable ROI.
We had it up to ver3. Ease of use is a very subjective term. Personally, it
felt very clumsy to me. On the other hand, we had a couple of guys that were
very good at it, and liked it allot. Unfortunately, the costs (labor/time)
associated with maintaining another file format weren't justified, so we
quit using it.
It's OK to disagree. This is a conversation, an exchange of ideas and
opinions, not an argument or a war. Lets keep it that way.
the ability to recognize what is and is not trimmed.
Paul, I'm really interested in this issue. Can you please elaborate on
what is making it hard to distinguish what is selected and isn't; is
it the color, is it that you can see selected surfaces inside other
surfaces etc. What do you think about the temporary mesh like ProE
does? I feel particularly close to this issue since I worked with the
developer/programmer on this feature this last year and she made some
real progress with trim and extend, especially extend as you have
probably noticed you can now extend multiple edges without them
Granted, there might still be issues with visualization, but the trim
for 2004 surpasses ProE because you now have more solutions (linear
and natural). SWX listened, and responded. Now, it sounds like we need
to cleanup the selection and visualization a bit. It sounds like there
isn't any reason that these "bugs" couldn't be cleaned up in an SP
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.