"Dassault Systemmes is not responding"
That's pretty close to their attitude regarding the beta and early release comments regarding the UI.
Matthew Peterson wrote:
This time I'm really cheating... Not even a SolidWorks error. Far to fitting to pass up tho.
To be fair, sometimes when you get that message you do just need to "Wait for the program to respond". Apparently Windows has some arbitrary time limit and will throw up that message if you've clicked somewhere else on the screen before the current operation has finished. It hasn't crashed (I'm not saying it won't, just that it hasn't yet).
Yea...... I used to think it was a good excuse to go to the bathoom or just shoot the breeze while waiting for the system to respond. Ha hah ha. It has never responded. I just crash it now and start up SolidWorks again. I save my work a lot because the software crashes so much. I was going to just live with it because I have been slowly brainwashed over the last 7 years by increasingly crappier SolidWorks. Not after this thread tho' now I'm back to wantin' me some satisfaction. I buy something, I want it to work like it is supposed to. If I kept having a car break down I would live with it.
Haha, yeah. When I became one of the "SolidWorks guys" at my work place one of the first things I learned is to try to teach people not to hit the "Close the program" instantly when one of these pops up. Every once in a while it is actually "still thinking".
If I closed SW every time I got that message it'd be out every 5 minutes!!
YEP That happens too. Lotsa bathroom breaks.
Harald Vogel Yes, you are correct SW utilized all the best technology available at their inception. I was surprised to see Spatial in the listing. This means the SW is utilizing both Spatial modeling kernel and Parasolid kernel. That could be an odd concoction. Yes SW licenses a LOT of Siemens PLM core components. I remember the day, way back when, when Parasolid and the solvers where purchased by- I want to say Unigraphic Solutions at that time but it might have been owned by EDS too- Siemens PLM (now) and the decision to make those components available to license to other companies. That was a great strategic move by the company. Now most of the CAD systems over the last 20+ years are licensing these components. Siemens smiles every time a license is sold by them or one of their competitors. They get the royalties for Parasolid and/or D-Cubed!
This licensing of competitors components is one of the business reasons that DS has been pouring all the R&D and marketing money into the new Solidworks apps on the 3DEXPERIENCE. See DS has all the same types of solvers and modeling kernel already! No need to pay competitors when you already own the same tools!
Just so you know crashes are rarely issues with the core components (their APIs) but how these components are programmed to work together! NX is 10-100X more complex and a fully integrated art-to-part system. It is the most stable software I have had to support. 1-3 hard crashes (where the software just aborts and closes) in a month and maybe 10-15 error messages a week due to some inconsistency- either the way the part was put together or an actual software bug. These numbers applied to 60 seats in a global company!
My point, you can't blame the core components but on how these component libraries are used and interact! NX, SE, Onshape and many more use the same exact tool sets!
Some facts here:
3.5 Million seats of software utilize Parasolid and
45% of ALL 3D models have embedded Parasolid data!
I couldn't find the numbers for D-Cubed but I'm sure it is either very similar number or larger than the Parasolid.
"Some facts here:
3.5 Million seats of software utilize Parasolid and
45% of ALL 3D models have embedded Parasolid data!"
If so, why are step and igs the standard? When I say, send me a parasolid, or I send one, usually lots of confusion follows. "What's that?" "I need an iguess".
Next, i don't get how the 3dexperience has anything to do with the kernel?? If they are developing a new kernel, great, will it be applied to SWX? Occasional rumors of a dual kernel experience get bounced around. Aren't two kernals better than one?
All I know is I hate ZTG. It's a constant reminder to me that we are relegated to the mid-range experience, when SWX should be able to run with the big boys, absorb Craptia and just be one giant badass CAD package, perhaps with a couple of levels of capability depending on what type of end-user you are and what your budget is.
Chris Clouser Those are great questions. I would say the answer all depends on how sophisticated the people sending you data are and which systems they are exporting from.
STEP and IGES are ancient stanards that are an open standard- a standard that is not owned by anyone but consists of industry people that define the standards. IGES is the oldest and was meant to really only support 2D and 3D wireframe with basic assembly structure. STEP was the first a standard that was designed to support 3D geometry- that is very basic.
You also have to remember how difficult and time consuming it is to get those "standard groups" together and actually agree to something!
Parasolid is kernel output- it is a neutral output that is read by any software that utilizes x_t and x_b. Take a look at your SW Save As options. You will notice that Parasolid is the first non-SW file type in your listing (looking at SW 2013). That's not a fluke.
Some might say dxf or dwg is a neutral format. That's not the case. It falls into the same category as Parasolid. It is a proprietary and owned format.
3DEXPERIENCE is all based on the CATIA modeling kernel and the DS 2D/3D solvers. You are pretty much ensured that SW that you use is NOT going to be migrated to the SW Apps like, XDesign, Conceptual, etc. on the 3DEXPERIENCE platform. The SW you know, this ancient technology that relies on a history-tree and tangled mess of parent-child relationships is NOT going anywhere. That includes forward! ;-) That's my opinion based on how DS is "supporting" and positioning their products.
SW can't become what you are looking for. It would take a complete rewrite of all the code! That's why they developed the new products! Much easier to build new than remodel. I think we can all agree on that point. Yes?
I'll also add that is why the brains of the original SW were either forced to leave or saw the light for their darling child (SW) and left to start a new company and their product is called Onshape. This product is what the potential future SW could have been.
You seem pretty knowledgeable. Either that or you a just spouting buzzwords. As you seem knowledgeable will go ahead and ask your opinion on this anyway.
The SW you know, this ancient technology that relies on a history-tree and tangled mess of parent-child relationships is NOT going anywhere. That includes forward! ;-) That's my opinion based on how DS is "supporting" and positioning their products.
Any "real" engineer know that parent-child relationships are absolutely necessary to a useful cad system that enables design intent to be part the cad data. This design intent is absolutely 100% necessary in many fields of engineering and design. I have seen dozens of articles written about direct edit and it's supposed freedom and revolutionary capabilities, but that has all just been blue smoke to me.
I feel like I am missing something. Is everyone so excited about what amounts to a 3d version of AutoCad?
I have talked to some people that use OnShape, fusion 360 etc. and they are claiming parametric capabilities.
OK then its not "just" direct edit.
Well then. Parametric must equal parent-child by its very nature. Parametric == parent-child. There is no getting around this mathematical fact. So these are using ancient technology as well??
So what makes these so revolutionary?
This is where blog posts and such fail to go into detail. Is it that the "kernels" of these new softwares are a direct edit type deal? And the parametrics are sort of "painted over the top" perhaps transparent to the user, but making the software more flexible underneath?
Sorry if this is a confusing question but as I said you seem knowledgeable so I want to know what the "real" buzz is about. It has gone completely over my head as to why SW is ancient, but any "new" parametric modeler isn't.
History based better not go away!
Those who ignore history based modeling are doomed to repeat it.
If you went back and had a so-called "dealer" meeting with the guys at PARC, Simonyi, Lampson, Kay et al, and told them what a CAD system should do based on how SW or Inventor does it, they would say Great but there's no hardware that could handle it. They would probably then say "if you're going to dream, dream big!" And describe a touch-screen, you would drag a box to shape, dimension pop ups would appear, and you could dial in the dimension. You could extrude to a 3d, dial in the dim. All with a couple quick flicks. Relations would carry over to drawings. Good luck programming that lot!
Well, guess what? That's what SW is trying to do. By carrying over and improving what they built it on.
Only way to get out of this mold is for some hard-working new talent to make something so great, from scratch, that everyone will say "no choice but to get this new thing!" So just like Xerox ignored PARC's new computing system, and Apple, even IBM/clones beat the inventor at the game, so it will be with a new CAD system.