The Jon Banquer Blog Is Getting A Face Lift
in [SolidWorks]
|
Prev: Screw and nut animation
Next: Add-in activation
From: Zymrgy on 21 Sep 2009 19:10 > It will be interesting to see if SpaceClaim and Solid Edge with ST can > stay at the front of this technology. It will also be interesting to > see if old products like Cadkey now KeyCreator and CoCreate can be > successfully retooled to offer the kind of productive user interface > that SpaceClaim has with its Push/Pull/Move concept of modeling. > Already, CoCreate has started to try and implement a good part of what > SpaceClaim offers. Unfortunately it doesn't look anywhere near as > clean to me when I view the upcoming release videos on You Tube. > > It's only a matter of time before many more job shops realize that > history based modeling isn't the right tool and that more powerful > direct modeling tools represent the future while history based > modeling represent a dead end. > > Jon Banquer Ol Yoni...tou have never used these tools in a "machining job shop". I have....I was using CadKey in 1998 thru 2002. Great program....unfortunately your argument is totally based off of your lack of experience with any of these tools. Solidworks was/is better. I DO work at a "machining job shop". well over 90% of the models that we receive are .sldprt files. We can observe the files in their native format...make suggestions for changes (certain good customers allow this) and re-submit it to them in a native format that they can read without the bother of going through translators....maintaining a history tree. The other 10% of the files we get are done in Catia or Pro-E...from aerospace companies. Getting a change done on a flight part is as likely as you learning how to use mask on arc....so the ability to read these formats is the most important thing. Have Qualcomm spend a few bucks & the the Pro-E translator for mastercam...iges sucks balls. The problem I always had with Cadkey was if you somehow fucked up early on in the modeling process (it happens) all your time after that is pretty much wasted. The vids that you post are showing very basic geometry....no complex lofted surfaces. Sure it works great on basic geometry....but if you later have to modify something more complex than a hole or a solid face or a boss or a fillet....these programs get VERY picky in a hurry. Show me a video of any of these products that you mention modifying a lofted boss extruded off a lofted surface.
From: Cliff on 21 Sep 2009 19:54 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Haywood JaBlowme <haywoodjablowme3(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >You can barely read and after years of using Mastercam .187 is NOT the same as .1875 or .1865 or .1873!!
From: Cliff on 21 Sep 2009 19:55 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Haywood JaBlowme <haywoodjablowme3(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >and yet you made and keep >making excuse after excuse for not understanding the very basics .187 is NOT the same as .1875 or .1865 or .1873!!
From: Cliff on 21 Sep 2009 19:55 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Haywood JaBlowme <haywoodjablowme3(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >because you're too cheap and too stupid to pay for basic CADCAM >training. .187 is NOT the same as .1875 or .1865 or .1873!!
From: Cliff on 21 Sep 2009 19:59
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:10:09 -0700 (PDT), Zymrgy <zymrgy(a)gmail.com> wrote: >as likely as you learning how to use mask on arc....so the >ability to read these formats is the most important thing. Have >Qualcomm spend a few bucks & the the Pro-E translator for >mastercam...iges sucks balls. IGES worked just fine. But .187 is NOT the same as .1875 or .1865 or .1873 and poor clueless does not know. Mask on arc works just fine. -- Cliff |