http://disqus.com/people/fc82e2f74618247ead3b39577d9ec6ad/enWed, 14 May 2008 11:02:35 -0000http://solidsmack.disqus.com/disrupt_space_and_time_win_a_3d_spacenavigator/#comment-1302885Future of CAD? I'd go for a world where I can put on a real "thinking cap", think what I want to see on the screen and have the software model it.<br><br>Now that'd be the ultimate in laziness.<br><br>If I won, I think I might model what said thinking cap may look like, and let someone else think of how to make it a reality.<br><br>-JamesJames SpisichMon, 31 Mar 2008 16:43:26 -0000http://solidsmack.disqus.com/solidsmack_mystery_tip_motivating_solidworks_users_to_use_more_features/#comment-1309351Without a doubt, but again it all depends on the intent. Sometimes it's better to use a pair of dimensions to relate a symetrical 4 hole set than dimensioning 1 and using a linear pattern in 2 directions. Otherwise you don't have that symetrical intent built in.<br><br>With getting people to follow good practices. It's always difficult, but I like to lead by example and not only talk the talk, but walk the walk and show them that it's better to think about how to dimension a set of holes with actual design intent and challenge yourself to think of using as little dimensions as possible and more relations. I've noticed in doing this the first few times it does take a little longer to develop your parts, but in the long run when you understand real design intent it actually takes less time. Also it's easier for someone coming behind to understand how and why you did what you did and makes it easier to update and manage 10 fold than without.<br><br>-JamesJames SpisichWed, 14 May 2008 11:02:35 -0000