Thanks, guys. That's nice to hear here's the problem with trying to write a book -just an actual example from work today.
Backstory- We started the week working on some parts that originated at an outside ID firm in the middle of last year. We tweaked the design, engineered it (adding ribs, mounting locations and whatnot) and made prototypes. Last week we get last minute direction to radically change the ID, and we had a week to do it. I start the week interpreting the ID sketches and come up with a new shape trying to reuse as many of the existing features as possible to keep down the rebuild errors, especially since the previous owners of the data used the 'master model' approach.
So, point 1 for the book from this sample - try to keep as many face and edge ID's the same even if there are radical changes to the entire shape. How do you do that without going into excessive, boring detail on how SWx thinks, and how do you produce samples that can take the student through the whole face/edge ID issue (in other words, create samples that are bad with lots of lost ID's, then taking them through the same sample with good Id's?) And when you mention this real issue, how do you avoid the accusation of 'bashing SWx', even though it is true and must be dealt with in every model, not just surface models.
Today: I pass along the new, shelled, ID model, and the engineers start doing their magic. They have a nice, stable model, and change one dimension to add some extra clearance because they want extra tolerance around a mating part. The model 'blows up'
Point 2 for the book - mutual surface trims are notorious for forgetting which part to keep and which part to delete - even a simple dim change can cause the trim to flip manifold sections. All the errors in the tree come from a single surface trim forgetting what was supposed to be kept - a part of a surface manifold (insert definition of manifold here - that will take a while) that was supposed to be kept was deleted, and a part of the manifold that was supposed to be deleted was kept. The engineers were perplexed (they don't deal with surfaces much, and are a little leery of them for just this sort of reason), but I have multiple hundreds of hours logged dealing with just this issue so its no big deal to me. So do you put this in the book because it is common and expected, or do you leave it out because someone will think you are 'bashing the software'. And do you stop to make a larger point about the software - a valid one at that - that it is always risky to use graphical, on-screen selection (the only option with a trim - 'as far as I know'-, but one that is just as risky with 'contour select' when you can instead use the much stabler 'convert edges' and use a new sketch to create a feature) knowing that you again risk claims of 'bashing the software' or someone else, even though you can back up the claim with clear samples of the risk? And do you stop to back up the claim with samples, or do you just press on? What important points that can save the reader dozens or hundreds of hours do you leave out?
Point 3 for the book - the engineers were trying to modify the selection set for the surface trim, but couldn't. The manifolds were on the screen, they could see them, but they couldn't pick the sections to keep what they wanted. I had to stop them and educate them that you can only chose parts of a surface trim that are 'shown'. I instructed them that they had to roll back before the surface trim, show all the effected bodies/manifolds, then they could roll forward, edit the feature, and correct it. I do this in a few seconds because I've done it so many times, but it took them minutes because they weren't expecting it (and I don't think anyone should expect that) So how do you handle that situation? Do you set up a sample model with an error just so they can learn about this stupid idiosyncrasy? Do you call it what it is - a stupid idiosyncrasy - knowing that folks will then lambaste you for bashing the software, etc, etc, etc (sorry to sound like a broken record on that one, but it has come up) And then, once there is a published book, SWx fixes this oversight and your book is out of date and you have to spend the next month updating it?
And that is just one part from one project - we haven't talked about anything more complicated than a basic surface trim. Would I love to share what I know to prevent someone else form having to waste their time on the same learning curve? You bet - that's why I spend several hundred hours (seriously, I track it) each year working on SWx world. It seems like such a waste for me to have noodled this stuff out and to keep it to myself. Would I like someone else to go write a book so I can learn from them? Absolutely - add me to that list you guys started. I can think of at least one guy - that humbles me - that I want to write that book. Do I want to deal with the political and logistical quagmire of trying to do it myself - no way. I'll just take a (very) little crap every year after SWx world, thank you (along with a lot of generous compliments, and thanks a ton for those - it justifies the hundreds of hours). What gets me about that last one is that I (so far) never get criticized on veracity of content, just tone - I must come across as a dick or something. I sincerely look for issues about content, because I really don't want to say something that isn't true. However, tone I can't figure out a way to help -I struggle with that more than anything, and, if at the end of the day I come across as a dick to my core (and I really try not to be), I guess I'm a dick. I won't revel in it or exaggerate it, but if trying to say what's true and verifiable and necessary I earn a couple of Cliffs, then I guess I have to accept that.
So thanks about the pre-orders on the book, but someone else will have to cash in on it. I hope they do the subject the justice it warrants. Barring that, I dig the WIKI idea that was brought up here a couple of months ago. I would be hapy to contribute to that (though, again, I will run into serious issues when something is presented that just ain't true. I have a flaw about being pathalogically honest, and that seems to cause problems in some circles.)
-Ed