68 69 70 71 72 1,042 Replies Latest reply on Mar 23, 2016 2:39 PM by David Tiefenbrunn Go to original post
      • 1,035. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
        Chris Clouser

        now THIS would be an interface update, maybe in SP4??...



        • 1,036. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
          Mike Dejanovic


          1-2EDFBO3 wrote:

          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.


          In my line of work, direct editing, is absolutely NOT blue smoke!! I have been experiencing EXACTLY those things: freedom and revolutionary capabilities.

          In almost an instant, this "not-real" engineer switched from "absolutely necessary" parent-child relationship in history tree to no relations!


          (15+y) Solidworks user switched to Solid Edge (5+y)!

          Both products have its cons and pros. I do not want to start debate on which design platform is better! For me, this was the right move!

          • 1,037. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
            Christopher Sudlik

            I've worked with both before, and my preference is strongly for history based editing, even when it is just an overlay on a direct-edit base software, because it keeps manufacturability and process in mind, as well as giving you an idea of the design history of the part.


            Many of the Solid Edge parts and similar direct edit parts I've worked with were designed so magically that short of 3d printing sintered metals, they would be impossible to make, and it takes the manufacturing engineer (in this case me) ages to recreate the design intent from scratch and come up with a manufacturable part, with extensive back and forth with the designers to actually get a realistic result.


            And a skilled engineer can do just about anything with history based design and a few direct edit capabilities sparingly used.


            Really, unless you do a lot of hydroformed parts or decorative injection molded plastic parts, it seems overrated, like MBD, just shifting effort and responsibility from design engineers to manufacturing engineers.

            • 1,038. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
              Matthew Peterson

              OK maybe "real" engineer is overboard, but in every industry I have been a part of, design intent is WAY more important than the actual geometry. At my current job I almost never make a new part from scratch, I make design copies and modify a dimension or two, and I know that I have the right part and I can trust that things are going to "line up" without taking a virtual "tape measure" to the part.

              Direct edit has its place, and I am pretty sure it is not actually new or revolutionary... Maya and other organic modelers have been around for ages. My biggest problem is people trying to shoehorn "direct editing" into a place were it  does not belong. I.E. machine/mechanism design where the dimensions and relationships are unquestionably more important than the graphics.

              • 1,039. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                Larmie Hamilton

                These guys are right in my book.  I like to have the history for a lot of reasons.  One important one is when I have the part(s) 3 quoted.  Being able to start with a hunk of material and (step by step), show the mat'l removable sequence is very helpful in having my vendors tune their quotes so that they are more in line with reality.  This also allows me to explain processes more efficiently to those who have not been involved in the design intent. I know that this can be done with CAD like OnShape and probably some others, I'm just saying that having the history of the mechanism easily accessible is the way to go for me.  Having said this,  I am really starting to like direct editing as well.  Go figure......

                • 1,040. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                  Gerald Karp

                  All very interesting, but when do we get the SW "Classic" interface back?

                  • 1,041. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                    Grace Watson

                    I've got money on sp3 in April

                    • 1,042. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                      John Lhuillier

                      I bet its April 1st. What better day than that for this to come out

                      • 1,043. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                        Ryan McVay

                        Larmie Hamilton Guys, I would like to put you all to test here and have you define the terms you are using. I find that having a good debate or conversation about topic starts with a good definition of the terms you are using- every one starts with the same level of understanding. With that please define the following:

                        Design intent

                        Direct editing


                        Once you get a good understanding of these terms you might start to see that maybe, just maybe, you might be missing something!

                        • 1,044. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                          Ryan McVay

                          I would have to agree with you Christopher. But in any CAD system you can create parts that can't be manufactured and which don't take DFM (design for manufacturability) into consideration. Any machined part where the designer/engineered put in undercuts is a case in point. Maybe this can be done but it might cost you quite a bit more to manufacture.

                          I guess, I reading your post as saying that direct editing is this magical way of pulling geometry around without precision. That may be the case in the early of days of the of "direct editors" but is a very far cry from todays technology. I am also not one to advocate direct editing design workflow for everything. That's just not feasible. But neither should we all be limited to the fact that we have to created and rely on 2D sketch geometry residing in a history tree to design our parts. I feel the best solutions reside with those systems that allow you to work with both methods of modeling- direct and history.

                          • 1,045. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                            Matt Taylor

                            Well put Ryan,


                            I guess it's like everything in life, it's down to choices, give the users options, and they will pick what works best for them.

                            We are talking about skilled engineers here, if they can't use the software to design components properly (undercuts etc...) then why are they still in an engineering environment?

                            Same with the GUI some love the new look some hate it. So let the user use what they want.

                            • 1,046. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                              Ryan McVay

                              Matt Taylor "..if they can't use the software to design components properly..then why are they still in an engineering environment?" That's an easy one...laziness- the mentality of let the tool and die guys put all the draft and split lines into the model or simply don't know about manufacturing processes..or could be fresh out of school and don't know drafting or actual design but know a lot about number crunching! Just my opinion here..but I've seen it time and time again.

                              • 1,047. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                                Paul Salvador

                                sp3.0ev...... still have the FAT friggen icons........... what a joke!

                                • 1,048. Re: SOLIDWORKS 2016 User Interface
                                  Greg Hynd

                                  SP3EV? Is it out?

                                  68 69 70 71 72