Tag Archives: 3d design

Dassault and Autodesk Wish You a Happy Cryptolocker New Year

Posted on January 2, 2014 | 4 comments

One of my premises in regards to the cloud and companies that force you to go there with your IP as a method of conducting your business is that the black hat guys fight with the white hat guys and none can get rid of the other. And at any given time one is victorious over the other and YOU the user are left to absorb the consequences. So as many in the CAD and CAM world are shoved knowingly or unknowingly towards the Dassault and Autodesk hoped for forced subscription nirvana of cloud only CAD and CAM software it is worth considering the last few months. And of course with the upcoming 2014 SolidWorks End of Life Convention it is timely to remind both Dassault and their users about the folly of what Bernard Charles proposes with this online “Experience” paradigm. This wonderful thing that will enable secure data storage and unlimited compute power over your crippled ISP throughput and all the other lies they propound. Put Autodesk in there too but SW has the next big deal convention coming up and they have been at it the longest although without any real commercial grade success to speak of. Bet that makes the EOL SW subs happy to see their money spent that way considering the scarcity of announced new product features for 2014.

So lately we see that customer data loss from Adobe tops 2,900,000 and Target tops 40,000,000 and you can bet this was from “secure” situations. And now welcome the latest and greatest proof of concept of the insanity of Cloud for CAD and CAM, Cryptolocker.

How would you like to log in to your network only to find that every connected device with storage had been encrypted. You have 72 hours to pay up or lose it all. I like especially comments and instructions from Carbonite, a company that extolls the headache free and totally reliable cloud backup method for all your files. Oh, and they say you can access your files from ANYWHERE and work so free and effortlessly not shackled by the limitations of offline hardware and the onerous burden of being responsible for yourself. Sound familiar all you Autodesk and SolidWorks/Dassault users? Go here and read this.

Comment
byu/bluesoul from discussion
insysadmin

Which says in part,
“I work for Carbonite on the operations team, and I can confirm this for most cases – I will also offer these two pieces of advice:
1) If you are affected by the virus, you should disable or uninstall Carbonite as soon as possible. If you stop backing up the files, it’s more likely that Carbonite will not have overwritten a “last known good” backup set. There is a high risk of some recent data loss (you’re effectively going back in time, so if we have no record of the file existing at a previous time, you won’t get it back) with this method, but it’s far, far better than losing all of your files.
2) When you call customer support, which you should do as soon as possible, specifically mention that you are infected with cryptolocker. It was mentioned in the post above, but I just wanted to put emphasis on it because it’ll get you through the queue faster.
Edit: also, just to state the obvious, make doubly sure the infection is off your machine before you call support, please.”

I really like that last part. Please don’t expose us to your infected machine because we don’t want bigger problems than we already have on our safe and secure servers. And we don’t want to have your problems bleeding over into other accounts on our network because we are not sure we can stop it. The delicious irony of secure online backups being a vector of additional infections and theft is sublime is it not?

Information from Dell regarding this. http://www.secureworks.com/cyber-threat-intelligence/threats/cryptolocker-ransomware/

Bleeping computer has a regularly updated post on this with information on what it is and how to hopefully block it. Of course this site http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1p32lx/cryptolocker_recap_a_new_guide_to_the_bleepingest/ccy89d3
has a lot of information but common sense will tell you that once the genie is out of the bottle how do you get it back in? So Microsoft has a solution for this at this time but don’t you know the guys who figured this out are already working on their Cryptolocker patch for your future entertainment.

Time and time again I keep saying that the only secure way to work with data you are supposed to be protecting is keep your stuff off-line. Keep your internal network off-line and allow access only through certain isolated computers and for sure don’t let these BYOD clowns plug their stuff into your network. Sys admins and bean counters, shame on you for concocting this save my company money with BYOD idea. How many access points do you want for all these bad guys to get into your data if you even care?

Another method that will probably save you is regular complete images of your system. But my money is on local regular backups. This is just good policy anyway for so many reasons and I am shocked at how many companies do not have an implemented procedure for this. I am thinking here that two backups separated by two weeks would probably defeat the activation time requirement for Cryptolocker and do it on a regular basis. In addition I save all my CADCAM data periodically to flash drives and DVD’s. And of course the Workstation in the shop never goes online.

How many times do you people who get all giggly and excited over the promise of being cutting edge technophile guinea pigs and smart guys saving your company time and money with the cloud have to get the alarms before you think twice? If you give your business to companies that insist you have to put your IP on the cloud to use their products you are nothing more than a Russian Roulette volunteer who is counting on the other guy to take the bullet. I get really aggravated at how much traction these cloud proponents get and then think about the idea that they will not guarantee your security or productivity even though they will guarantee you a bill. It is why I write so much about the cloud because the only fallback method for these cloud guys is to repeat the lies often enough so that people will begin to think it is true. And so my rebuttals continue as do their lies. If they were honest with you their hopes for chattel labor would quickly go away.

I just bet that Dassault and Autodesk do not store their source code online. Perhaps you ought to be suspicious of these characters that hand you a chilled pitcher of refreshing Kool Aid but somehow don’t want to drink it with you.

4 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Dassault’s SolidWorks End of Life 2014 Cloud Poster Boy

Posted on December 19, 2013 | 4 comments

Sometimes you see something that is just so Freudian that you bust out laughing and asking yourself what could they have been thinking? And then you reflect upon the truth behind the phrase “Freudian Moment” I have long been an opponent of cloud based software for the sake of users and useability. Technically it is an impossibility for probably 99% plus of all CADCAM users for instance to achieve anything even remotely close to the power and speed that resides on their own desktop. Still the propaganda machines from Dassault and Autodesk churn on in their efforts to fool C-Suite execs into believing this junk. Personally speaking I don’t know a single user who wants to go to the cloud for this.

And security, can we talk about security for just a second here? Really it is all it will take and it is why Autodesk and Dassault will not indemnify you for anything online. It is why 40,000,000 Target users have had their “secure” online data hacked as the news reveals this week. Oh, and NSA and honest politicians and bureaucrats that would NEVER use your confidential information against you or sell it to your competitors, right? You know of other stories to. IP is different though and just how will you get reimbursed from Dassault or Autodesk when they trash your stuff? How do you even find out your data was stolen until it shows up in products from China? Considering that the first person to file a patent wins can you perhaps see the potential for NSA to become a clearing house for IP transfer to crony capitalist’s? The single common allowing mechanism for this to be possible is if you buy into these cloud only schemes. Follow the money I have been told and as far as I am concerned this is all about putting users into forced chattel situations where they end up spending more money with Dassault or Autodesk, not to mention other uncontrollable costs from data caps at ISP’s, and an effort to end piracy by in part punishing honest users to solve the theft problem. And it reveals the contempt these people have for you and your company that they would force this and then not indemnify you.

So, let us venture forth into Dassault’s priceless Freudian Moment and regard the future face of data loss as this poor guy’s internet stuff blows up in his face. This is from the current Dassault splash page.

Dassault splash screen

Is this not priceless 😉

UPDATE Today this at SW forums forwarded to me. https://forum.solidworks.com/message/399992 Mark Biasotti, Senior Product Manager for SolidWorks has left the corporation and he joins a long list of those who made SW great in departing the Paris Feifdom.

4 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , ,

SolidWorks World 2014 End of Life Convention Soon

Posted on December 12, 2013 | 17 comments

Well probably not totally but certainly for many an existing user. SW recorded declining income recently and I had an experience that demonstrated why in my shop this week. My nearby machining shop buddy broke part of his Renishaw tool probe and he sent his son over to get my spare part to get him up and running again. While he was here he saw my Faroarm and asked what it was. One thing leads to another and the topic turned to CAD. I mentioned SE and direct editing and how handy it was to design with. Now unprompted Cody mentioned that they used SW, which I knew, and that the list of things for 2014 looked really small.

I have to say that it seems that the SW blogosphere agrees and that the excitement and buzz is just not there this year. Even the paid blog squad stuff is forced to make trivial “new and exciting” things look larger than life just to have topics to discuss. Sicot and Charles both talk up new directions and ways of doing things and it is the cloud and Catia V6 CGM kernal stuff and not how exciting new powerful features and capabilities are being added to SW as it is now known. Go back through the last few months of posts here on SW for links to the words that come out of SW’s fearless leaders mouths and tell me I am wrong. Sure there will be a large body of SW users just like there still is for PTC Creo. And for the same reasons. The pain of leaving is greater than the pain of using software that is falling behind what others are doing. Isn’t that a nice inducement to stay? But many old users will leave and new CAD users will pick what (SE) is more useful to them further eroding the base that could have been SW’s

I wanted to post on the difference between SE and SW in the area of direct editing. When I first embarked upon this I figured there would be a lot of videos on Youtube for SW move face/direct editing I could contrast SE’s version of Synchronous Tech direct editing with. I believe that direct editing done right IS the single most powerful new user productivity tool out there and that SE ST is the best iteration of it. The guy who invented Nurbs, Kevin Versprille seems to agree.

http://ontheedge.dezignstuff.com/dr-ken-versprille-the-father-of-nurbs-on-synchronous-technology-and-the-future-of-cad/1218#more-1218

So with this litmus test in mind and considering all the blather about the pre-eminent capabilities of SW I sally forth to do my comparisons and find just about zip to work with. Go to the official SW site and look up direct editing. SW knows what they offer is a sad vestige of direct editing and they have exactly ONE video on this topic. Go anywhere and look up move face or direct editing for SW and you will be amazed at how little there is. Don’t take my word for this just go and do it.
ScreenHunter_02 Dec. 12 08.16

This is the only Parts entry in the SW demo library. Evidently they don’t think direct editing is a useful tool you need.

ScreenHunter_03 Dec. 12 08.22

This is the tutorial section for parts creation. See all the cool stuff for Direct Editing? Don’t feel bad if you missed it because it is not there. I think the reason is two fold. One, SW has not been able to produce a worthwhile version of Direct Editing so they pretend it is not important. Two, stuff they post is an invitation for comparison to what is inside of SE and they can hardly afford to do this and win THAT competition. Don’t worry though all you faithful SW users. Your loyalty will no doubt be rewarded next year as Mechanical Conceptual launches the Dassault New Way boat. Well maybe launches it but who knows how well it will steer or float as Dassault has a real track record of failed programs, promises and launch dates for any new program for or related to SW. Mechanical Conceptual will be at least four months late and who knows what it will do. I don’t know what direct editing capabilities reside inside of the CGM kernal but since it is where you are all headed you better keep your fingers crossed that CGM has powerful direct editing capabilities.

It is worth noting too the philosophy of honesty that preceeds this SW 2014 EOL convention. You look at responses to questions asked about the future from the top of Dassault down to the bottom and tell me it is a consistent message where all are on one page. It is not. Top dogs tell shareholders and analysts where they are heading and everyone below them does damage control because this is not where the users want to go and the people there where the rubber hits the road are very nervous about the future. In the midst of declining sub income they are doing their best to reassure people who are not stupid that what they are seeing as the future is not so. Look at the long term goals as stated by Dassault. Social mediazation, new word for the day 😉 , the cloud, grocery store shelf layout software, gamification, group think over the internet, and on and on. Where is the emphasis on designing for MCAD or consumer products?

It is contrasted by Siemens NX and SE with cogent plans to expand the set of design tools for MCAD and consumer products and whose decision is based upon improving this as a set of tools for design. Unlike Dassault whose choice is shoving SW into some wonderful 3DExperience corner where it will be a minor part of some grand whole life all encompassing scheme by a French mad man. I follow all this stuff with great interest because it fascinates me how a well done bit of software like SW was that overtook the market is now in the incapable hands of people who are pretty clueless as to what designers want and seem determined to jettison what made SW great.

The rest of the story about my friend by the way is this. About a year ago I had a job in Richmond VA welding some SS counter tops together. I stopped at Matt Lombards house on the way over there and had a chat with him. He had his stash of SW 2013 Bibles there and I could not resist. I asked him for one for my SW using machinist buddy and told him to autograph it with the words in effect that said “Hi, wellcome to the Bible but SE will rule the world soon and you to will be assimilated”. His son will be over one day next week to have a look at SE. Very soon the only reason they will have SW is because their customers make them have it and it is integrated with HSMWorks which they use. And they have to have the current version not because it is the best choice for their shop but because it is demanded of them. I just love it when you take an SW file and edit it faster than the SW author could. The expressions are always worth the time spent.

Oh, and Matt himself has been assimilated and now works for SE.

17 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

ATTENTION, Solid Edge Sheet Metal Developers Please Check In

Posted on December 12, 2013 | 16 comments

Sometimes as you wander through your daily life in the design build world you run across things periodically that irritate the heck out of you. This week all I want to do is design a transition that will go from a 13.875″ wide 16.25″ long ID rectangular base to a 12″ offset round with an overall height of 13″.

Now this is not a problem in SE until you realize that HEY, HOW do I do this and have segmented bends in the corners so I can actually produce this thing in my shop? I did not know any way to do this and in checking with support today they told me it was not an existing capability in SE. ER: 1629173 is the number of interest for you SE users who would like to see this change. Pile on guys, the squeaky wheel is the one oiled and I now have my jelly bean candidate for SEU 2014 roundtables.

In researching how to work around this I came up with two products that appear to fill the bill. Both of these claim to create and unfold various sheet metal fabrications and they can get to be quite complex especially in the “Sheet Lightning” program. They also will allow you to print out using your regular printer and standard size sheets of paper thereby making a template you can actually lay out on your sheet metal as a guide for cutting and bending. A REALLY handy thing for a whole bunch of shops to just get a single item out quickly.

“Sheet Lightning” http://www.revcad.com/Sheet5/Products/products_0.html of course is one of these. I have an older version (5.2) of this program and it does work. I have used it before and I used it again on this transition. It will allow you to output a DXF file also which you can send out for fabrication to your favorite laser guy. One thing I have never found is how to assign thickness to your metal which is pretty darned critical. I have had a question in for most of today to Revcad but no answer yet so I have no idea if this capability is in the newer versions. It is far more complicated to learn than the next program but it will allow you to do some seriously complicated things that “Plate and Sheet” in my brief examination apparently wont. It is also FAR cheaper at $150.00

“Plate and Sheet Professional” http://www.plate-n-sheet.com.au/ is the other candidate. It is far more expensive at $900+ $ AU and I feel it has design limitations that Sheet Lightning does not BUT it appears to be far more adapted to a production environment. Easier to learn and allows for thickness of material as inside, outside or neutral for the purposes of calculating layouts. At six times the cost it is quite pricy but since the other program does not apparently have thickness as an input it would be worth it in many cases especially if you start getting into heavier sheet metal or plate. In any case I downloaded V4.2 today and here is a video of just how easy this thing is to use.

I am extending an invitation to both companies to comment here to correct any errors or omissions on my part as I am not real conversant with either program. Hopefully they will respond.

UPDATE, this is from Sheet lightning.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for letting us know about this posting. My apologies for not responding sooner, it initially got mistaken for spam.

On the issue of thickness of material in Sheet Lightning we have found the best solution is for the user to use the neutral axis dimensions (inner diameter + 2x (0.5 * thickness)) to define half way through the material as the neutral axis which is perfectly adequate for most cases as most uses are for relatively thin sheet (which we would defines as: diameter > thickness * 40). In some cases where thicker material is used and greater accuracy is wanted we advise the use of a factor to give slight correction (e.g. inner diameter + 2x(f*thickness)) where the factor may typically be 0.4 – 0.5, often typically something like 0.47. This is material and forming process dependent and may be derived empirically so it is difficult to specify for every case but in the absence of empirical data through experiment there is enough advice available out there on that to help the user decide.

We have in the past enabled thickness of material and a factor as parameters that worked internally in this way but found it caused more complications (mainly by cluttering the parameter lists) than were necessary and it was simply better to train users to work this way directly.

I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for the article, it is good to see people like you taking an interest in our product/s. If you need further input please let us know.

Regards
Trevor Maddison
Revcad

5-6-14 here is a response to Dennis from Ryan Gudorf in regards to a Tee. Thanks Ryan.

AsmTee

16 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , ,

OK, You Designed It, How Do You Propose I Make It?

Posted on December 11, 2013 | 5 comments

One of my pet peeves is how the idea of designing things has become the end of the process of manufacturing for so many. I guess if I sat in a cubicle and all I knew was based on classroom training and I had never dipped a toe into a manufacturing facility I could think this way. Or if I was silly enough to think manufacturing began and ended with my scintillating but academic
design genius capabilities as I sat behind my monitor. So then this bit of enlightened design meanders it’s way through the process where hopefully someone with a bit of sense will see it before it gets out to the people who will be asked t0 make it.

Such were the thoughts going through my mind this week as I regarded a part that I had been sent to quote on. Now keep in mind these guys know what I have for equipment and they thought that this was a part suitable for milling.

ScreenHunter_01 Dec. 02 11.51

I am sure that all the plugin connections were dimensionally correct and that sufficient space in the “box” was allowed for components according to precise sizes garnered from somewhere. The problem is however that this designer had absolutely no idea of what is required to allow for milling this kind of part. First off this is impossible to mill unless done as four or five pieces that would be assembled with fasteners or perhaps welding. It could be done with some of those new fancy metal powder deposition laser doo-dads. Except for the problem of how to tap occluded holes in some of the round bosses I think it would be possible there. But then again this would never yield quick or cheap parts for something that was to be mass manufactured. You could afford to make one this way if it was to be used as a pattern for molding. But then you would have to drill and tap those holes on those bosses on every casting and quite frankly I don’t know a way that this would be possible except with a through hole which is not indicated based on the part file. In any case I am not familiar enough with casting to know if this is a feasible design.

What I am going to do is go through this part and show reasons why this cant be milled. It is my hope that perhaps this will get some of you who are not familiar with machining to reconsider how you go about designing. This guy spent his time designing something that cant be machined and at the very least he wasted his time and the time of shops sent RFQ’s.

Join me as we venture into the never never world of inexperience.

5 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dassault SolidWorks Management is CrAzy, ARE YOU?

Posted on November 21, 2013 | 6 comments

First off this post is based upon one from Desktop Engineering. Secondly Novedge has listed the Dassault icon at my post and this was done by them not me. I want NOTHING to do with these guys.

http://www.deskeng.com/virtual_desktop/?p=7856&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dassault-systemes-3d-experience-forum-2013-taking-the-cloud-back-to-the-enterprise-not-the-other-way-around

Therein is quoted verbatim comments from Bernard Charles who probably has a better idea of exactly where Dassault intends to go in the future than those below him. In spite of all the assurances Dassault and SW underlings and their bloggers give about how nothing will change with the beloved SW the truth of it all IS out there. And you SW users have some very serious things to prepare for.

Without further verbiage let us read what the 3D guy has to say.

“Charles recalled, “Two years ago, we asked ourselves where we should be in 2021. Every ten years we try to reformulate where we want to be and why we want to be there, and what do we want for. This is about looking at the world in a different way, a different perspective, looking at it from the future.”

He concluded today’s economy is driven not by products but by experiences: “Welcome to the world of experiences — 3DEXPERIENCE,” he said. A critical component of the 3DEXPERIENCE would be the web and the cloud. “We will drive everything we do from an architecture that complies with the internet, with the cloud,” he reasoned.

In January, when Dassault launches V6-based products, they’ll be cloud-powered products. During his lunch meeting with the press, he further clarified that “[The new solutions] will be on Dassault’s cloud, but augmented with Amazon elasticity in the back-end.” In other words, if more computing capacity is necessary, Dassault will tap into Amazon cloud to deliver scalability.

Charles didn’t get into the details about how the change might affect licensing, but he suggests no hiccups should be expected. “We already have lots of customers in rental mode on DS software. We never left that model. That’s what makes up 70% of our revenues today — recurring revenues,” he said.

Charles sees the app-driven, cloud-hosted setup as the foundation for the new crop of engineers who grow up in the World of Warcraft and iPhone app store. “Everything we have today are becoming a collection of applications,” he declared. Consequently, he envisioned that purchasing software — Dassault’s solutions included — should be “like going on the app store and provisioning apps.”

Now let me say this about the confidence they have in their own PR drivel and propaganda. Sorry if this offends you but what pretty words do you want me to put on deliberate deception? I am going to let you make up your own mind here as to the veracity of claims by a company that will not guarantee your IP security online nor will they indemnify you for damages done to you by being forced there in order to use Dassault products. Can you see any wiggle room here to say with confidence that they are not going to force you to the cloud as a condition for using their products based on the philosophy Bernard espouses here?

Look at what they are using in part to justify this. These same kids who disgust you because they expect to be allowed to use half the day you pay them to produce results instead spend it with social media things at work. I have listened to the utter garbage that comes from HR people about how new hires fresh from college expect as a condition of employment that they have this “personal” time on your dime. And now add in to this Warcraft and iPhone apps and we can insert gamification of CAD and whole group of people who have been trained to expect to have a closed ecosystem of apps and monthly fees along with the product based upon useage. And that IS what an iPhone is since it is based on charges generated by how much data you use online.

Why exactly would you want to hire an employee who acts this way and further why in the world would you continue to plan on using software products from a company that has contempt for the ideas of IP security and productivity? Do any of you really think there is validity in the idea of cloudies designing things en mass kumbayah and coming up with something in an efficient and cost-effective manner in this brave new world vision? I see chaos and your products being produced by those who stole your IP. Look, even in our own country we have the NSA riffling through everything you have online. Combine this with a proven corrupt administration whose only rival in US history is Tammany Hall equipped with all that lovely NSA power and you honestly think Dassault forcing you to the cloud won’t be taken advantage of by criminals inside and outside of this administration? And then we have the benevolent Chinese to consider too. These days I am not sure which has more malice forethought but suffice it to say that there is no security online possible for you at this time.

Deep inside of the Dassault building lurks a legal department that puts that wonderful disclaimer of liability language in all Dassault TOS and EULA’s because they are not quite so quick to lie to you about things that would cost them their company if they guaranteed their promises as are the executives of the company who just want you as chattel and hope you do not read the fine print.

Think Adobe here where their desire to push everyone away from permanent seats and into subscription models whereby Adobe would increase their income through things like selling you online storage at multiples of cost over what you could do for yourself with your own PC. Data caps and online fees from your ISP never seems to be mentioned either by these cloud clowns. Think Adobe with 2+ meeeeellion hacked accounts recently on their “secure” system and think your IP dribbled out the same way with your CAD program.

I have covered the numerous liabilities of using the cloud for ANYTHING you value when it come to your IP. If you think I am wrong then fine, you go there. But before you do and before you let Dassault talk you into how wonderful their new world of 3DExperience is going to be for you why don’t you see just what they are willing to guarantee for you there and just how robust is their indemnification language to cover any damages you may suffer there?

I read all this junk and I think about that modern marvel the iPhone. I remember when it first came out and the unlimited data plans that went with it. First you get people to buy in even if you have to subsidize it and then when you have a large enough “captive” audience you stick the screws to them and if they want to continue using your product they have to agree to this. Now where you go with it can be tracked down to individual rooms in buildings and they are getting ready to have targeted ads in shopping malls based on where you are in the store and your sex and your likes and dislikes and the offers will be ringing you up on your dime as they try to sell you over your wonderful iPhone. On your AHEM secure iPhone over the secure internet which does not share anything you don’t want shared.

Anyone care to tell me where all those unlimited plans are now? Any of you believe that with Dassault or Autodesk cloud stuff it will be different? I have some Brooklyn Bridge shares for sale would you like to buy some?

6 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

SolidWorks, Direct editing and Data Hostages

Posted on October 17, 2013 | 2 comments

Over the last week I have had an opportunity to see exactly what SW has when they talk about direct editing. Really the claims made for direct editing capabilities have been there for some time but I never thought to go and hunt down specific examples that included screen captures of actual parts being worked on. Silly is it not? I know the power of the web to find information but sometimes it seems I get a mental block about using tools right at hand to verify comments, claims and opinions. This led me this morning to go further than just looking for videos of actual parts being edited and into the reality of SW’s failure to have more than the most crude and rudimentary form of direct editing known as move face. It appears their only answer seems to be Catia Lite. So, What do I base this on.

Bertrand Sicot, CEO of SW whose opinion and comments might be better informed than most about what is going on over there had this to say in September. This is not ancient history nor can it be misconstrued. It is their road map and you don’t have to like it. Embrace the new
http://www.engineering.com/DesignSoftware/DesignSoftwareArticles/ArticleID/6283/Solidworks-2014-shows-CAD-Evolution-not-revolution.aspx

And I quote,
“Direct Modeling

Direct modeling allows a digital connection from concept to detail design by paramaterizing the model after the initial design. While other CAD vendors have either purchased or developed their own direct modelers, Solidworks has remained the lone holdout.

Last January the company announced that it was working on a product called “Mechanical Conceptual” that would support concept design. Solidworks now has 10 customers using Mechanical Conceptual and plans to make the product generally available in January 2014. According to Bertrand Sicot, when Mechanical Conceptual is released users will be able to create concept geometry and then fluidly pass that into the Solidworks detail design environment and back.”

Ha-Ha, when it is released. Originally scheduled for release about the time Sicot made this speech it has been pushed back until next year now. It appears to be following the same development path as so many other Dassault SW related attempts these last few years where if something actually even makes it out of the door it is flawed and problematical. DAVE, how can you say that about Mech-Con? (well I liked the abbreviated title an industry analyst gave this program even if you don’t 😉 ) Based upon the sterling achievements these Dassault guys have had these last few years with all the SW stuff they have tried and failed at do you honestly think things are OK with Mech-Con? Kernal translation joy I suspect. There is a reason so much of the Dassault stuff is kind of Freudian and I bet CGM really is turning out to be Concentrated Geometric Masochism in Mech-Con. Of course all this idle conjecture and these evil aspersions could be swiftly ended by Dassault actually doing something right for once. I still think Dassault may be seeing bigger dollar signs outside of pure cad creation and may be trying to figure out a way to make money out of “socializing” their users. I don’t mean the worthless Obama commie stuff but I mean it in the Google and Face Book sense of the word. It seems to be all about the cloud and 3D Experience and design by committees of hundreds over the web. No problems there Eh?

I want you readers to try a test here to ascertain the interest of Dassault giving you this tool of direct editing. Google “Solidworks Direct modeling” 681,000 hits and when you dig into some of them a bunch are talking negatively about it, as in SW users. SE has 3,150,000 hits on this topic and of course most are discussions and not demos but dig in there a bit and see the topical contrasts. And note that according to SW they have four times the subscribers. Now Google SE and SW with “direct editing”. 53,900 for Mega Number#1 SW and 1,600,000 for SE. Now try the same searches adding Video to the string and we get things like 1,660,000 for SE and 470,000 for SW. Now obviously a bunch of these are not actual videos and indeed in any of these categories I am asking you to type in the majority are not strictly what we asked for. BUT you can go through these and get an accurate picture of where these two companies stand on their opinions of the usefulness of direct editing, their commitment to bringing useful tools to users, (and yes I consider any company that does not have more than the most crude forms of direct editing is leaving the most single powerful productivity tool now out there from their paying customers) and the response from actual users where the rubber hits the road.

You need to look at a real version of direct editing before you dismiss it as the powerful tool it is. I believe with my own out-of-pocket money that you can’t beat Solid Edge and ST. I believe in it enough that I spend my own time and dime talking about it and let me assure you I don’t get one thin dime in any way from Siemens or SE. I have to pay my way at the Universities,buy my blog site and the computers I use, buy my software and if I am late like I am this year on renewal they graciously charge me interest on top of the yearly fee. (Then these same guys turn around and want me to help sell seats for them 😦 Quite frankly they make me mad sometimes but I have to remind myself that I started doing this because I wanted to and that reason is still valid.) But I think that in the community of all cad users once you get past the fanbois stuff if you are going to be an advocate you ought to at least have a good reason besides being a zealot. I talk about SE because it interests me as software and because I honestly believe it is the best value and most useful MCAD tool out there. The guy that talked me into SE ST saved me a ton of money and time over the years and maybe I can pass that on to you. I know I appreciated it. This little journey into the world of SW and move face has been an eye opener. I know I spend my own money and so do you, or your company does. I know I hate getting bad information that I will later be spending my time and money on. This is precisely why I am here with SE and Siemens. There is a proven track record of doing what they say they are going to do and bringing the single most powerful tool in the design world to you, ST. I get a chuckle out of those bemoaning old kernals when I think well yeah, some people can do new things with proven “old” technology and others can’t.

So what really is left for SW users. Three things I believe. They get to work with a design program that is quite capable but is quickly falling behind the productivity advances being made elsewhere. It is still the largest single user base with the not insignificant benefits that can bring. And finally they are data hostages whom Dassault hopes will have to stay because the perceived grief of changing will be too onerous. I see only one compelling reason here in market share and it is going to diminish. In the mean time I am bringing in your MCAD files and doing things quicker than you can with your own created data. Is there something wrong with this picture?

I believe, and so does Dassault because they tell you so if you care to listen like Sicot did in September, that you SW users are in for turmoil and forced change anyway. I think it is patronizing corporate-speak when these Dassault guys tell you your beloved SW will not change. You are soon not going to get the choice of continuing on as you have been accustomed to with your old familiar tools unless you drop maintenance and stay with a particular version. That has a price tag to and you all know this. Or you can make a rational decision to pick the change you are going to be inevitably forced into. You don’t have to like it but you WILL have to deal with it. I think of all the programs out there switching to SE is more painless than anything else and I am betting far less painfull than the migration from SW to Catia Lite will be. Change brought to you by Parisians that have forgotten what made SW great or change brought to you by SE with stable planning with attention to what users want with far more productivity.

2 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Solid Edge ST6 VS SolidWorks Direct Editing and some Observations

Posted on October 16, 2013 | 25 comments

I have been corresponding with an SW user and he has some very interesting comments to make at times. One of the things he presents is the idea that move face in SW is basically as powerful as direct editing is in SE, or Synchronous Tech for you purists who are not happy with ST 😉 . So he sent me some video links from Youtube and one in particular caught my attention.Now I assume that if you are trying to augment your position for or against that you are going to make an effort to find something that will buttress your positition. So I am using one of the video clip links sent to me as an example of parts done in Move Face in SW

I recently posted on “Editing Around a Pattern” and his contention was that it was as easy to do in SW to. One of the things I mentioned to him was the fact that the file size basically does not grow or change with edits in ST and does not create ever expanding file sizes and complexities that can blow up on you later. The edit I did in my post for instance went from 911KB to 956KB for the first edit. Then reversing that took it to 954KB and reversing that again took it to 957KB and nothing was added to the “History” or Path Finder on this part. I presume I could do this a hundred times and it will stay in this range and back and forth two times each was good enough for me to make this assumption. No size baggage and no added complexities.

So a couple of days pass and I go to see the video links and I decided after looking at the one shown above I would show how I do it in ST6. At this time I will be doing the paper tray and the bracket and perhaps the “Desk Tidy” will be in the future. I want to point out the growth in the complexity and size of the history trees that happen with parametric history based modeling and what I have to believe is the ever growing size of these files and I assume the potential for trouble. I can see the history tree in the video and it is ever growing. Now one of the really nice things about ST is that if what you are doing works it will always work again. If SE accepts what you do and it shows up in the feature tree, or Pathfinder as it is labeled in SE, it is stable and will not blow up. In my experience it either works or it does not and I never have dependencies in the ST Pathfinder that will do the atom bomb thing on my part. I will say though that once a week or so for reasons I don’t understand SE does not like what I do and it tells you that it is quitting now and your data after your last save is lost. Of course auto-save stops this from ever being a serious headache. Now here is a caution about auto-save and SE and this one has tripped me up a few times. In ZW3D I can step back past a save and go into edits before the save. There is a cache in there that allows this until it is cleaned out when you shut the program down. In SE when you save you don’t ever get to go back past that point. Now maybe there is something that will allow you to do this but I have not found it. Where this comes into play primarily for me is when I am experimenting on a part to find the best way to do what I want. These are the times when SE decides to shut down and so I am left with the choice of save and don’t get to re-play the part or don’t save and perhaps lose the part.

My parts were done in ST6, exported as IGES and then brought back in to ST6. A cautionary note here about imports and this applies to STP and IGES files. I round tripped this Paper Tray in parasolids and the edits worked fine as is. When I did the same in IGES to keep as close to the SW example in the video it did not work. The practice the SW user used in geometry inspection is a good habit to get into. the equivalent here in SE is under the “Inspection” Tab and is labeled “Optimize”. In the case of this paper tray part “Optimize” corrected whatever was holding up the ST edits and it worked flawlessly after that. There will be three videos on editing imported files. There will also be one working directly as a native file. In some important ways in history based modeling it is cheating when you work on an imported file. In the native file you have in parametric history based stuff dependencies and ever growing complexities that can and do often cause trouble and doing a round trip is a way of trying to get away from those problems. I think you who are not familiar with ST will be fascinated with what can be done and how little files sizes and feature counts change here with edits.

Join me as I show how this user does this in SE ST6.

25 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Editing Around a Pattern, Solid Edge for Manufacturing

Posted on September 30, 2013 | 2 comments

This one is for you 3D. Let us try a little more complicated edit which SE breezes through.

Here we have a “Magazine” that feeds capsules into a machine that will fill them.

complete magazine

There are feed problems with the original factory parts and we are changing the end of the magazine assembly to a rounded instead of angled feed end. While doing so and being in a hurry and having three different change requests thrown at me I see a .02″ offset that could conceivably hang a capsule up. Now I think the chances are really slim this would happen but we are going to eliminate this. Now as you look at this part remember that both ends could have been just as complicated and the edit would work in the same exact fashion so this is not a situation where I am fudging things by leaving the XYZ zero point on a simple set of corner faces. It is just how this part is made and since it is a real world part how it is going to stay.

Magazine close up

Now keep in mind as you work in Synchronous the direction you assign to dimensions is important and good habits here will save you trouble later. I assign (lock down) directions where ever possible radiating out from my X Y Z zero point. I also assign the right rear top corner of the part whenever possible ( or the imaginary corner of the block of stock this will be cut out of if there is a corner round or radius at that point. ) as XYZ zero because someone will have to make this thing and you might as well anticipate how they will have to set up to cut it. One of the BIG things to remember here is to check and see that you have as few dimensions as possible to make the part work. You will find that there is a tendency to apply a dimension twice to the same feature as you work without realizing you did so. For example it is easier than you think to have a block and assign a “z” dimension twice to different corners because you did not quickly see the first one. One of the two can cause you problems especially if they are directed to be locked down for different relationships. So look twice and clean these things up or better yet learn not to do it. When you are working with faces and features that can interrelate you can cause problems that can be solved but may take extra trouble to do so. If you want certain behavior to happen just turning live rules off to complete your edit can defeat this and though it is the quick and easy answer to almost all problems caused by dimensions you want to learn to work with rules when you need to have predictable behavior in selected features. Holes constrained as a set for instance where you don’t want to have to pick each feature for an edit but would rather just click once and edit.

Let’s edit this part.

2 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Cookie Dough Die Round to Ellipse, Solid Edge for Manufacturing

Posted on September 18, 2013 | 6 comments

Here we have a part that failed to produce like the customer wanted. Using a similar die for testing the deposit was elliptical in shape and the deposit needed to be round as in round cookies. The solution was to redesign the die and create elliptical cavities that would yield round deposits and send the customer a screen capture and drawing for approval. So follow me as I edit this part. I have to admit that I can barely remember how clunky life was in a pure history based world and man what a difference.

Now I thought this would be a CAMWorks post too but my temp license ran out. My first time updating this file there worked and did so flawlessly updating ALL the changed geometry and tool paths with a couple of mouse clicks. Sad to say as I redid this video it never worked again so blame the license gremlins. It was nice to sit here tonight though and edit this part with ST and then step over to CW4SE and do an update and it all went so quickly.

You know what? Time IS money and I can’t fathom wanting to work any other way ever again.

Join with me as I edit this part.

6 Comments

Posted in machinedaudiohornlens.com

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,