Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jon Banquer
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in Check Out Our New Look on The SolidWorks Geek
What's "inescapable" is the lack of content and the willingness to discuss the real problems with CADCAM software. Instead the focus is on how a blog looks. No where is this more true than on SolidWorks bloggers sites who don't have the guts to tell it like it is on SolidWorks problems working with non-native solids and on SolidWorks utter lack of collaboration tools. This situation has been going on for over ten years in SolidWorks and it simply doesn’t get any more “rude” than this.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
- 0 points
- Jump to »
6 months ago
in Check Out Our New Look on The SolidWorks Geek
Al,
Perhaps it's because it's next to impossible to get to the truth when it comes to CADCAM and I get sick of the never ending B.S. Frankly I think this is why so many people read my blog.
If you read my blog you will notice I have nothing to say about projects like the vaporware foisted as Inventor-Fusion and instead I concentrate on the needed improvements in industry standard products like Mastercam and SolidWorks.
Additionally my blog is the only blog on the net that explains to users what the real problem with SpaceClaim and CoCreate is. It's the kind of info that can't be found anywhere else and sadly that includes your Develop 3D site.
If you’re looking for me to be more positive you will find the focus of my positive feedback on the people who are really making a difference in CADCAM. That would be:
Steve Wilson of CIM Integraters who has created video training for DP Technology Esprit and Mike Mattera of Tips For Manufacturing who does video training for Mastercam.
Note that my blog is only blog that covers and reviews the tremendous work that these two individuals have done.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
Perhaps it's because it's next to impossible to get to the truth when it comes to CADCAM and I get sick of the never ending B.S. Frankly I think this is why so many people read my blog.
If you read my blog you will notice I have nothing to say about projects like the vaporware foisted as Inventor-Fusion and instead I concentrate on the needed improvements in industry standard products like Mastercam and SolidWorks.
Additionally my blog is the only blog on the net that explains to users what the real problem with SpaceClaim and CoCreate is. It's the kind of info that can't be found anywhere else and sadly that includes your Develop 3D site.
If you’re looking for me to be more positive you will find the focus of my positive feedback on the people who are really making a difference in CADCAM. That would be:
Steve Wilson of CIM Integraters who has created video training for DP Technology Esprit and Mike Mattera of Tips For Manufacturing who does video training for Mastercam.
Note that my blog is only blog that covers and reviews the tremendous work that these two individuals have done.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
- 0 points
- Jump to »
10 months ago
in Technical Editing on Ricky Jordan's Blog
Lombard’s commenting was beyond annoying and detracted from a book that was already very fragmented. In addition, subjects like multi-bodies shouldn't be covered near the end of the book. It's a basic part modeling technique that is used all the time when you use a product like VX.
What I'd really like to see is someone take a fresh approach that's tutorial based. I believe that a tutorial based approach would be a far better approach than what exists now in the SolidWorks 2007 Bible. Why not give someone hands on and work the explanation into the tutorial rather than hit the reader with a ton of boring theory first that is hard to relate to without actually using that theory. What can't be worked into the tutorial can be done afterwards when the reader has gotten the hands on.
Lombard's approach is of all theory upfront and tutorials at the end of the chapters are the wrong approach for many users not just beginners. Lombard's not for beginners excuse is beyond lame.
As far as Disqus is concerned if it' isn't flexible enough to let users edit their comments I hope someone else comes along with something better because what exists now is too limited.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
What I'd really like to see is someone take a fresh approach that's tutorial based. I believe that a tutorial based approach would be a far better approach than what exists now in the SolidWorks 2007 Bible. Why not give someone hands on and work the explanation into the tutorial rather than hit the reader with a ton of boring theory first that is hard to relate to without actually using that theory. What can't be worked into the tutorial can be done afterwards when the reader has gotten the hands on.
Lombard's approach is of all theory upfront and tutorials at the end of the chapters are the wrong approach for many users not just beginners. Lombard's not for beginners excuse is beyond lame.
As far as Disqus is concerned if it' isn't flexible enough to let users edit their comments I hope someone else comes along with something better because what exists now is too limited.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
- -1 points
- Jump to »
Matt Lombard
Jon,
As I have explained to you before, the multibodies chapter comes after the assemblies chapter for a number of reasons, which are explained in the book, in my blog and in other responses to this criticism fom you. Multibody approaches require some discipline to avoid some of the potential problems. Maybe there is no downside to using multiple bodies in VX, I don't know, I didn't write a book about VX, I wrote about SolidWorks.
A tutorial based approach is not exactly fresh, and frankly, I didn't want to write a tutorial based book because it conveys limited information. I wanted to write a desk reference, so that's what I did. If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to buy a Sham Tickoo book, which is probably more on your level, or the Dummies book, better yet.
The 2007 book was the first of its kind to take a deeper look at SW, to talk about the flaws in the software, to talk about "why" rather than simply "how", and to tackle some of the more advanced topics like multibodies, master model, surfacing, and so on. Since what you are primarily interested in is making changes to imported geometry, you should focus on tools that handle what you need to do rather than criticizing everything else because it doesn't do everything the way a person who doesn't use it thinks it should be done.
Even though I don't push the book for beginners, I've had a lot of beginners tell me they learned the software from my book, and they loved the book. Maybe you could explain in detail why you think a hold-my-hand tutorial is necessary in a desk reference for experienced users?
The book is not a novel it is a desk reference. It is not meant to entertain you from beginning to end, it is meant to inform you on specific topics.
It's interesting how much blogger ass you kiss as long as someone allows your bitter and spiteful comments to remain available, It is also interesting how quickly your tune changes as soon as you show your colors and your stuff gets yanked. Novedge offers a great blog with great interviews to the CAD, DCC and CG communities. They had to yank inappropriate and inaccurate comments from you. It's also interesting how you loved my book until I disagreed with you about something. And now you're over on Roopinder's blog bad mouthing SW bloggers.
Anyway, Jon, if you ever have any constructive suggestions about my books, I'll be glad to listen. Lots of reader suggestions were included in the new version. In the mean time. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you put your energy into contributing to two sided discussions rather than lavishing gratuitous personal insults on anyone who dares to disagree with you.
As I have explained to you before, the multibodies chapter comes after the assemblies chapter for a number of reasons, which are explained in the book, in my blog and in other responses to this criticism fom you. Multibody approaches require some discipline to avoid some of the potential problems. Maybe there is no downside to using multiple bodies in VX, I don't know, I didn't write a book about VX, I wrote about SolidWorks.
A tutorial based approach is not exactly fresh, and frankly, I didn't want to write a tutorial based book because it conveys limited information. I wanted to write a desk reference, so that's what I did. If you don't like it, you are more than welcome to buy a Sham Tickoo book, which is probably more on your level, or the Dummies book, better yet.
The 2007 book was the first of its kind to take a deeper look at SW, to talk about the flaws in the software, to talk about "why" rather than simply "how", and to tackle some of the more advanced topics like multibodies, master model, surfacing, and so on. Since what you are primarily interested in is making changes to imported geometry, you should focus on tools that handle what you need to do rather than criticizing everything else because it doesn't do everything the way a person who doesn't use it thinks it should be done.
Even though I don't push the book for beginners, I've had a lot of beginners tell me they learned the software from my book, and they loved the book. Maybe you could explain in detail why you think a hold-my-hand tutorial is necessary in a desk reference for experienced users?
The book is not a novel it is a desk reference. It is not meant to entertain you from beginning to end, it is meant to inform you on specific topics.
It's interesting how much blogger ass you kiss as long as someone allows your bitter and spiteful comments to remain available, It is also interesting how quickly your tune changes as soon as you show your colors and your stuff gets yanked. Novedge offers a great blog with great interviews to the CAD, DCC and CG communities. They had to yank inappropriate and inaccurate comments from you. It's also interesting how you loved my book until I disagreed with you about something. And now you're over on Roopinder's blog bad mouthing SW bloggers.
Anyway, Jon, if you ever have any constructive suggestions about my books, I'll be glad to listen. Lots of reader suggestions were included in the new version. In the mean time. It wouldn't be a bad thing if you put your energy into contributing to two sided discussions rather than lavishing gratuitous personal insults on anyone who dares to disagree with you.
10 months ago
in Disqus Comment System & Other Happenings on Ricky Jordan's Blog
I had some very nice things to say about you today on comp.cad.solidworks.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
1 reply
10 months ago
in Disqus Comment System & Other Happenings on Ricky Jordan's Blog
May god strike me down dead none of those were my comments. Now that Van Knopp guy... that's another story. ;>)
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
1 reply
Ricky Jordan
Jon,
No...none of the "undesirable" comments were yours...just a lot of that stuff they sell in a can.
Ricky Jordan
No...none of the "undesirable" comments were yours...just a lot of that stuff they sell in a can.
Ricky Jordan
You will remember in our dealings in alt.cad, I always responded to you with the highest level of respect. I believe that you should always treat others with differing views as you would want them to treat you, especially in a public forum like the usenet. But now you have done the equivalent of coming into my house, insulting my family, kicking the dog and pissing in the fish tank. And for what? Because I want to share my experience and knowledge with others?
I am not a SolidWorks apologist. No CAD software is perfect. But instead of concentrating on the drawbacks of the most popular 3D CAD package in the world, I try to teach users how to use the tools available to them. It is not to say that other CAD packages are not better. I am sure there are others that would completely blow SolidWorks out of the water but they are not what I and my readers use on a daily basis. If you feel that your CAD package is so great, awesome! Talk about it, write about, show your friends...make the case for it's place in the engineering world...on your blog. Don't come to my blog and try to start a flame war just because I choose to teach SolidWorks.
I do not believe in censorship and I do not want to delete your comments and ban you but I must respectfully ask that you refrain from making my home a pigsty like you made alt.cad.
Alex R. Ruiz