DISQUS

Just for fun, here is the original iges file:

http://dezignstuff.com/swparts/GL071114A-01-R0B...

Smack,
This guy emailed me this part it looks like the same day that you posted here. The first problem was getting it into SW. It was originally an IGES file from Pro/E, and it had serious geometry problems. The bend faces were not concentric, which would prevent the SW tools from doing anything even if you could get by the forming tool. SW wouldn't read the file, it crashed out with this:

http://dezignstuff.com/images/error.jpg

Anyway, I used Rhino to translate to ACIS, and it worked, although it was really sloppy. It gave a 100 part assembly where each part had a single surface in it. In SW I saved that as a part and knit the surfaces, but there were a couple of very small gaps that had to be patched before it would become a solid.

On something like this I would ordinarily use some Delete Face features to remove the slots and the form, but the translation errors in the original prevented that.

Anyway, here is how I wound up solving the problem:

Http://dezignstuff.com/swparts/shtmtl.zip

That includes the repaired part (which I believe is your parasolid starting point, the artifacts of my repair are still there), features to rebuild the new sheet metal part on top of the old one, and a forming tool to make it work.

To flatten it out you have to suppress the forming tool.

Al,

People who don't use Mac have a great deal at stake in this argument. We have fought to get the software to where it is in terms of functionality and stability, and to throw it all away just for a small minority of users (and non-users) whose heads have been turned by marketing gimmicks would be unfortunate. Throwing all of the necessary development $$ into a Mac version would be a colossal waste of money.

How many more customers will someone like SolidWorks gain by adding a Mac version? Very few. If people really need something like SW, they are using something like SW on Windows because nothing is available on Mac.

How many customers will SW lose because they don't change to Mac? None until maybe another SW-esque product makes the jump. And by that, I don't mean NX, Rhino, VectorWorks, AutoCAD, Bricscad, Alias, et al, I mean Inventor or Solid Edge.

If you don't buy your own CAD software that you use for a living, shut it up.

"... do everyone who reads this the kindness of doing a better job researching your position."

You need to take some of your own advice. I'm an independent contractor, and every tool I buy is with my own money. You are fully off the mark.

You can't claim that Mac, unix and Linux and all the flavors of Linux are direct equivalents, because it takes some effort to make and maintain the software for each.

Face it, nobody is gonna actually change CAD platforms just because of lack of Mac support. If they are already using a particular CAD program, they have more invested in that than they do in one particular OS. You might see an occasional nut-job make a highly dramatized switch, but people are generally smarter than that.

Plus, you've gotta split that 10% between Mac and Linux. That seriously diminishes the argument for either one.

Unigraphics has a long history of Unix use, so this is kind of a "best case" for a mac version. I'm a big believer in alternatives, but I still don't believe that the alternatives in the case of CAD make much sense, doubly so for historically windows-based CAD. People leave their brains at home when they start talking about mac and linux.

Twitter is not an answer for support. Something like Skype with screen sharing might be, though.

None of this is new. 5 years ago I worked at a reseller that was using a custom written instant message application to do support.

Aren't users sick and tired of social media for promotion? First they invented the pony express, and they countered with junk mail. Then they invented telephones, so the bad guys invented telemarketing. Then they invented email, and spam was the answer. Then the internet, and its Google Adsense. Blogs, and more ads. Twitter and corporate promotion. Is there no escape?

The best thing companies can do to promote themselves is to offer value through content. Participate in discussions, answer questions, stuff that normal people do. Just using drive-by-spamming to get your name in front of people regardless of the context does more harm than good.

We've been through the whole direct modeling discussion already. I'd bet that Solidworks is adding to what they already have, but that new development would depend completely on V6, and who knows what's gonna happen there. You can call Instant3D direct modeling if you like, even though it's not. The Move Face command has been around for several releases, and does some direct modeling type work, but SW doesn't have anything like the rules that Synchronous Tech has, although I can't say I was that very impressed with it.

The V6 speculation is something you can't get a straight answer from SW about. This is another discussion that's been around for a while. I'm not even sure where V6 is in terms of real, released software. You're still hearing a lot about V5. I think if SW moves forward into Direct Modeling beyond improved move face, it will take V6.

Deelip is a smart guy, and has a lot of inside contacts in the industry, and he is often right about stuff, but I'd bet against him on this issue. SolidWorks may expand their offering by improving Move Face and hooking it up to the Instant3D interface, but I don't think they are going to follow the others down the Direct Modeling rebranding rabbit hole. Even if you take Paul Hamilton's eloquence into account, I say direct editing is not going to topple the industry.

I think you have to use it to understand its limitations. Its cool, yes, and in demos, a wizard can make it look freaking brilliant, but on the ground where the rest of us live, it's just another flawed software concept.

Hey, Thanks for the cool review, Jeff!

One more comment on your Step5. You're showing two degeneracies with the fill feature with optimize off? Turning off optimize will usually make an oversized patch with no degeneracies. Degeneracies are generally not super smooth.

Could you do a Deviation Analysis and show Curvature turned on for the edge between the sweep and the fill?

Josh, Yes, SW can do c2 fillet features, but they have to be face fillets. You can also do c2 sketch rounds by simply making a spline c2 at both ends instead of an arc.

Honestly, I haven;t seen your instructions yet, just commenting on comments.

Ok, here's a request for the whole internet. I want all the people named "matt" to use last names.

Anyway, Josh, read this link: http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/?p=779

It almost applies.

Thanks for adding this!

Does this connect with other types of communication like IM or Skype?

Can discussions contain html links?

Does it show conversations as threaded?

Can you sort conversations like you do (in email) by sender, by date, etc?

Will an assembly show all of the discussions about parts in the assembly? Same for drawing?

Is there a top level where you can see all communication regardless of what it is attached to?

Thanks again for braving the new software.

Ricky,

Thanks for putting these up, I just had to research a topic, and having all of this available to me made it a lot easier than having to install a bunch of old versions.

Still waiting for an index of all of the enhancements... ;)

I totally agree with Mr. Ray on this one. But there's nothing new here. This is the same answer that McEleney gave a couple of years ago, and probably the same as Mr. H. http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/?p=62

As users we make so many contradictory demands of SW, and don't really think the consequences through. Putting SW on Mac will be BAD for EVERYONE, including Mac users, because quality and other development would both drop off the map immediately. Not to mention that they would rework the interface yet again.

Give it a couple of years and it might make sense.

Mark,
This is encouraging to see you post something like this. Yes, I agree, virtual skills come from the real world. I like your conclusion best of all. Being a fake anywhere is being a fake. It baffles me how people expect to use Twitter especially as a marketing tool. Marketing hit email, and we know it as spam. Marketing hit AOL chat rooms. Marketing hit Facebook. In all of these places marketing is crass, tasteless and gauche. Why will it be any different in Twitter.

I'm a small business owner, and most of my business falls out of the sky on me. Customers tell me they knew me from the newsgroup, the forum, blog or my 10 year old website. I have never advertised or marketed in the classic sense. More like the boys at the barber shop. I think only individuals can have the kind of personality it takes to make that kind of networking work. When large organizations get involved, the concept gets corrupted.

Yeah, I love Sebastian's look in that first image. That's about the age when they are figuring out leverage, and that's about the grip he needs to rip the cover off along with the last few pages. What's that white thing in his mouth? Is that a bite out of the index? The thicker paper tastes so much creamier than the other book. I was hoping for good testimonials from young users, not necessarily a taste test, but I'll settle for what I can get, I suppose.

Josh,

Wow, I'm sorry that I'm just now seeing this post, about a year late. Thanks for putting this up. I'll try to keep a better eye on things.

very cool. Audi is the Apple of the car world.

I think it will happen, but not in the next 5-10 years. Maybe 50 years out out. I think replacement parts for stuff and even complete simple products will be sold as models and built in your home instead of physically FedExed to you. Want new handles for your cabinets? Buy a model on the TV and print them out.

I don't think cheaper materials are going to be the way of the future. To make printing mainstream, stuff has to get more lifelike instead of less, so we're gonna see this go more into metal/plastic alloys, or even substrates with a finish coat of shiny stuff. The lower cost will come from immense volumes sold to end consumers.

Circuitry could be easily printed by one of these devices, and not be limited to flat circuit boards the way we are now, even flex circuitry. Why are we limited to mechanical parts?

You might come to a point where you can have a 3D printer machine be printed out from a 3D printer machine.

Hey, man, thanks for the mention. This was a fun presentation, and good crowd. There was so much more material to cover, I almost wish I had 2 hours for that one.

I agree the new CSWP is disappointing compared to the old one. Is it eating at you that punk ass kids who don't have the financial responsibilities you have can get the same recognition for a fraction of the cost, effort and knowledge?
I do like that they are going to have some specialty tests. I took the sheet metal one already, and I can't wait to see what they come up with for surfacing.
You got that twitchy eye stuff? I had that and it went away when I started sleeping better and exercising a little. It's a stress thing.

Hope you don't have to get off in a hurry. That top tube looks like a castration device. Maybe the tube should come off of the bottom of the seat instead of the front.

Hubless designs have always looked good on paper, but I think you don't see them implemented more because the higher stress requires more rotating mass. Tensioned spoked wheels are incredibly weight efficient. I believe the front wheel will collapse very easily. Try some FEA.You might read The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst Brandt of HP. I worked with him a little while I worked at Avocet developing a tensiometer for bike spokes.

Gearing looks to be an issue. The drive gear is going to have to be severely geared up to be equal to conventional gearing. Driving the center of the wheel as opposed to the circumference gives a big mechanical advantage. Can't see what's going on inside the rear arm, but there had better be a 50-100:1 gear up.

Also, I don't see how the wheels are actually constrained.

The headset bearing is going to require a bit more separation top to bottom. Conventional headsets are already very hollow, in keeping with the hubless/hollow concept.

The huge bottom bracket bearing could work well, and eliminating the solid axle might save some weight.

I worked my way through college in bike shops, and then when I graduated worked at Avocet in California, who made mainly speedometers, but also altimeters, seats, tires, shoes, and tensiometers.

Alex,

Having dealt with this problem for over a decade, the best way to deal with it really is to simply ignore it. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that will change the situation. Ranting may make you feel better temporarily, but in the long run, its episodes just feed on anger, regardless of where the anger is directed. No level of reasoning or insult can touch it. We all are really all better if you just let it scream in its empty corner of the internet.

I used laptops for a few years, but found it about twice as expensive as using a desktop. I'm also conflicted because I love portability, but I also love large dual displays and to add/replace components.

In the end, I have both, but my serious SW work is done on the desktop.