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!!!
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) modeling.
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 that point.
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 product.
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 are important.
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 story.
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 story."
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 capabilities."
It does and it's got a lot more things that SolidWorks does not have.
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.
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 needs.
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.
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 breaking apart.
.>
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 rev.
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.