Cad in the cloud

[SPerman]

Also what about assemblies? I have an open question about whether they intend for us to completely rebuild assemblies in 3dx as well.
We are married to 30 years of file based legacy data from which we still support active machines and use these assemblies as source data for new designs.

It's pretty sad that Solid Edge does a better job of porting over Solidworks files than the new DSS product. @mike miller , is that process as smooth as Siemens would have us believe?

[mike miller]

It's pretty sad that Solid Edge does a better job of porting over Solidworks files than the new DSS product. @mike miller , is that process as smooth as Siemens would have us believe?

Yes and no. There is a built-in Migration Wizard that reads SWX file types, saves geometry to .X_T and custom properties to .XML, imports the geometry and custom properties to new SE files, and connects all file links between parts/assemblies/drawings. In a perfect world it would be effortless.

However, there are a few things that either don't work or must be redone in SE:
-complex corners, forming features, and complex geometry in sheet metal often have to be cut out and remodeled to allow significant editing down the road. You do NOT need to recreate the whole file though.
-not sure how well in-context relations come through, since we don't use them.
-surface geometry is not editable.
-converting to sheet metal and recognizing holes and patterns are easy, but take time that isn't shown in the demos.
-sheet metal with order-specific features (model, unbend, cut on bend line, rebend) may need some more love.
-not all mates migrate consistently.
-weldments are dumb solids. There is no way to create a cutlist from them, although you can edit them with the steering wheel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All that said, with an accumulation of years of bad workflows and messy assemblies, it would take far longer for us to migrate to an SSP workflow in SWX than to SE.

That blows my mind.

[nordstjernen740]

Most of the time it is more about organizing workflows/BOMs/part numbers/PLM&PDM/Properties/2D Drawings/sheet metal/ECOs....

How is 3DX on that end?
What about competitors?

Edit:
To clarify further: I think working with 'dumb solids' for a year just to switch would entirely be possible!

The 3dx solutions for "PDM/PLM" which is basically what you are referring to I believe is limited exclusively to the cloud version of Enovia.
I have not been an Enovia user, but my feeling is that, while it is very professional and seems to work well, it is also extremely rigid and "one-size-fits-all". My brother has hands on experience with Enovia and he agrees with that statement.
Even Dassault agrees. (here's one of the slides from a 3dx world presentation)

My feeling based entirely on thin air is that Enovia was built specifically by an aerospace company for an aerospace company. The eco-ecn and change management appears to be built very top down with a focus on approvals and a high level of auditability at all stages. When we were pitched Enovia at our last pdm/plm crossroad the salespeople were not able to show us a valid implementation of Enovia that worked with our business that would not introduce a huge bottle neck that didn't already exist. (that said maybe they weren't the greatest sales people) If your business model more closely resembles the model that enovia was built for, I think you could do very well, but if not, it could be a nightmare.

[matt]

Edit:
To clarify further: I think working with 'dumb solids' for a year just to switch would entirely be possible!

"Dumb" solid was a term invented by history based users. Direct Edit people never met a solid they considered unchangeable.

[nordstjernen740]

Here's another Enovia related clip from an article previously linked referring to why Daimler-Mercedes did not go down the 3dx road.

[nordstjernen740]

"Dumb" solid was a term invented by history based users. Direct Edit people never met a solid they considered unchangeable.

If there is information lost and that information had value then the "dumb solid" name is very much applicable. Just because you can make changes, does not mean those changes are intelligent. Newer hybrid cad systems (with or without the use of 2d sketches) appear to be able to convey design intent effectively, which is promising.

I don't think anyone is yet claiming that they can get the design intent out of a parametric solidworks model and turn it into a "smart solid".

[mattpeneguy]

I think that is the million dollar question and the reason this thread and ones like it exist. In my opinion, we are a LONG ways off from Dassualt admitting that they are sunsetting solidworks desktop. Dassault keeps promising that Solidworks isn't going anywhere. One thing is certain. They are doing a horrible job at providing clarity.

I disagree. It's pretty clear to me. Quit listening to the promises and pay attention to what they are doing...Huh, thinking about it, are we all in an abusive relationship with Dassault?...

[mattpeneguy]

The 3dx solutions for "PDM/PLM" which is basically what you are referring to I believe is limited exclusively to the cloud version of Enovia.
I have not been an Enovia user, but my feeling is that, while it is very professional and seems to work well, it is also extremely rigid and "one-size-fits-all". My brother has hands on experience with Enovia and he agrees with that statement.
Even Dassault agrees. (here's one of the slides from a 3dx world presentation)image.png

My feeling based entirely on thin air is that Enovia was built specifically by an aerospace company for an aerospace company. The eco-ecn and change management appears to be built very top down with a focus on approvals and a high level of auditability at all stages. When we were pitched Enovia at our last pdm/plm crossroad the salespeople were not able to show us a valid implementation of Enovia that worked with our business that would not introduce a huge bottle neck that didn't already exist. (that said maybe they weren't the greatest sales people) If your business model more closely resembles the model that enovia was built for, I think you could do very well, but if not, it could be a nightmare.

Why are you being so difficult! The solution is obvious. Everyone just needs to transfer their business over to the aerospace industry.

[mike miller]

I don't think anyone is yet claiming that they can get the design intent out of a parametric solidworks model and turn it into a "smart solid".

https://dezignstuff.com/edit-3d-parts-like-a-sketch/

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=solid+ ... &ia=videos

[matt]

If there is information lost and that information had value then the "dumb solid" name is very much applicable. Just because you can make changes, does not mean those changes are intelligent. Newer hybrid cad systems (with or without the use of 2d sketches) appear to be able to convey design intent effectively, which is promising.

I don't think anyone is yet claiming that they can get the design intent out of a parametric solidworks model and turn it into a "smart solid".

Solid Edge finds features like rounds and patterns. And the direct edit enables edits that you simply can't perform in history-based software. No, you can't get back an equation, but you can get back all sorts of geometric relationships.

Synchronous allows you to tell the software what the design intent is and what the feature is at the time of edit, you don't have to lock it in months in advance.

[rumpus]

I'm reading lots of impending doom speak for "solidworks" as a legacy desktop product...

- killed off PDMW
- killed off home use license
- killed off network license
- killed off draftsight
- killed off SWWorld
- killed off SW forum

I don't know, you tell me what direction it's going. They're going to make it so uncomfortable for you that you have to switch somewhere. The 3DExperience landing pad doesn't look viable.

I get it that products change, but I've used products that have changed that have not killed off major chunks of functionality. Customers won't reward you for disrupting their engineering process. Evolve, yes. Tear it down and recreate? No. Catia 4=> 5 ? No. That's not progression, that's burning it down and striking out fresh (which does have value, but not when you're trying to bring a bunch of legacy customers with you).

[nordstjernen740]

https://dezignstuff.com/edit-3d-parts-like-a-sketch/

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=solid+ ... &ia=videos

I've seen that very article, I'm not arguing that the design intent can't be added in solid edge, but you can't really be saying that nothing is lost in a translation from solidworks to solid-edge? I think your previous reply answered this.

[KennyG]

I've seen that very article, I'm not arguing that the design intent can't be added in solid edge, but you can't really be saying that nothing is lost in a translation from solidworks to solid-edge? I think your previous reply answered this.

I'd say explicit intent is lost, but "implied intent" is what Solid Edge Sync is good at, or in other words, what a logical person would assume would be the intent. The Sync Live Rules look at things when you start a move or rotate and applies logical assumptions about how each face in the edit set should relate to other faces outside of the edit set. For instance if you select a hole cylinder to move and it's axis is in X or Y alignment with another hole axis that is parallel to it, then it finds those holes and moves them so that they stay in alignment as if there was horizontal or vertical relationships between them. This applies to coplanar faces as well, and symmetry around the file origin, and a whole host of other things. There are also semi-automatic tools for detecting when cylinders should be intelligent holes (you would lose annotative threads) and when an array of features should be a rectangular or polar pattern. There are also selection filters to intelligently pick a series of connected features that make up a "feature".

[nordstjernen740]

I'd say explicit intent is lost, but "implied intent" is what Solid Edge Sync is good at, or in other words, what a logical person would assume would be the intent.

That's basically what I have thought the case was. I think that explicit intent is important in some cases. I think we (meaning the company I work for in the packaging machinery industry) have a lot of "explicit intent" built in to especially our key parts.
I think in a translation from solidworks to solid edge we would lose a lot of real engineering value especially when you are talking about key mechanism components. critical dimensions, construction geometry in sketch, complex cams, linkages, custom sized parts based off of product drawings in sketches via construction geometry... etc.
SolidEdge and similar technology looks very nice and would probably work just a well as solidworks for most of our ancillary components (frames and structural components), and I'm sure its better than a dumb solid inserted into a solidworks "clone" like Inventor was the last time I used Inventor.

[bnemec]

That's basically what I have thought the case was. I think that explicit intent is important in some cases. I think we (meaning the company I work for in the packaging machinery industry) have a lot of "explicit intent" built in to especially our key parts.
I think in a translation from solidworks to solid edge we would lose a lot of real engineering value especially when you are talking about key mechanism components. critical dimensions, construction geometry in sketch, complex cams, linkages, custom sized parts based off of product drawings in sketches via construction geometry... etc.
SolidEdge and similar technology looks very nice and would probably work just a well as solidworks for most of our ancillary components (frames and structural components), and I'm sure its better than a dumb solid inserted into a solidworks "clone" like Inventor was the last time I used Inventor.

If I'm understanding what you're saying then you are on the same path we were. But please do not be confused, Solid Edge did not abandon ordered mode (although there is maybe three OEM tutorials that don't use it so you'll need all your own training material, I digress) We turned off Synch Tech in several places, of course they like to turn it on by default with new installations so we kept a vanilla user settings file for new installations and on update to new version we would have to go back through and turn all that back off. It's amazing the ruckus ST has caused, look how it took over a thread about SW CEO! I don't understand why so many think it has to be one way or the other for all. Some do well on ST, some not, some do great on hybrid usage.
My point, if Solid Edge ST does not fit your usage, just don't use it, plain and simple. SE in ordered mode is still about the same as SW, just a lot different. I used SE most of the time for several years, back in the v14 - v18 days then again at ST6, 9 and 2019. Couldn't get ST to be a reliable workflow for our usage, maybe it was our SE VAR that did the training, maybe it was how SE was pushing it out, maybe we're too dumb to understand how to use it. I don't know.
After using SW off and on for the past ~3 years I don't see a net gain from switching. The SE UI is better and I get the feeling that the Parasolid kernel Siemens is selling SW is a somewhat neutered version of what SE is rolling on.

[nordstjernen740]

My point, if Solid Edge ST does not fit your usage, just don't use it, plain and simple. SE in ordered mode is still about the same as SW, just a lot different. I used SE most of the time for several years, back in the v14 - v18 days then again at ST6, 9 and 2019. Couldn't get ST to be a reliable workflow for our usage, maybe it was our SE VAR that did the training, maybe it was how SE was pushing it out, maybe we're too dumb to understand how to use it. I don't know.

This is all great, but we have like 500k solidworks components and assemblies and a couple thousand machines that are actively supported by those assemblies. Legacy support is very important to us and the loss of explicit design intent in a migration seems like it would be very expensive.

Ha yeah, I am aware of the hijacking going on. Sorry, but at least its tangentially related.

[matt]

Legacy support is very important to us and the loss of explicit design intent in a migration seems like it would be very expensive.

As someone who knows a little about the software, I can say you're vastly overestimating your "design intent". Half the time the design intent itself is what needs to change. The other half it's faster to use direct edit to make the changes anyway.

Did you know that on an Imported assembly Solid Edge can change multiple parts at the same time? It would take hours to set up edits like that in-context with parent - child relations that most people break anyway.

Sit down with someone who's not trying to disprove direct edit and you'll see. It took me a couple of years to see the light. History based modeling is WAY overrated.

[bnemec]

This is all great, but we have like 500k solidworks components and assemblies and a couple thousand machines that are actively supported by those assemblies. Legacy support is very important to us and the loss of explicit design intent in a migration seems like it would be very expensive.

Ha yeah, I am aware of the hijacking going on. Sorry, but at least its tangentially related.

I hear ya on changing systems with existing data set. We need existing files for about 95% of requests that design is working on so pretty much needed the entire data set into the new system that we didn't know much about. Looking back over the past couple years the cost of migrating data set to the different CAD system cost more than all the SW & PDM licenses initial purchase and maintenance combined. It's hard to know which way to turn, especially when these software corps won't be clear on where they're headed.

[bnemec]

As someone who knows a little about the software, I can say you're vastly overestimating your "design intent". Half the time the design intent itself is what needs to change. The other half it's faster to use direct edit to make the changes anyway.

As someone who knows less about the software I have some concerns about that statement. I feel that you're missing some significant usages of the software.

Matt, it seems you refuse to consider that Solid Edge's ST may not be the best solution for some.

[matt]

As someone who knows less about the software I have some concerns about that statement. I feel that you're missing some significant usages of the software.

Matt, it seems you refuse to consider that Solid Edge's ST may not be the best solution for some.

SE offers both, and is a better company to deal with. There are some things history modeling does better, but I think in general a lot of history users lack imagination if they can't see the benefits of combining methods. Two heads is better than one, right?

[bnemec]

SE offers both, and is a better company to deal with. There are some things history modeling does better, but I think in general a lot of history users lack imagination.

I can agree with that, I think I can understand where you're coming from.

[nordstjernen740]

I can't see a way around explicit constraints in many of our key components. Some of our models literally could not be have designed without construction sketches or an alternative form of explicit constraints. (unless we were to do it through trial and error) I don't care how advanced implied constraints are. They won't know that "the tip of this wedge shaped extrusion needs to be exactly located tangent to a nested pattern of 66.3mm diameter cylinders as they move tangent to a plane at a 12 degree angle."
We don't allow external references in production, but we DO use explicate constraints as some of our most important design tools. (this usually means sketches with construction geometry in feature sketches or dummy sketches, but it can also mean nonproduction "design assemblies" that allow external references for the purpose of generating calculated production parts.

just thinking back to my school days, 4 bar and other "bar linkages" are another example where some kind of explicit "calculator" is an absolute requirement for a meaningful design. complex mechanisms become unintuitive rather quickly. possibly you could design a four bar linkage without explicit references, but you would certainly need to build a separate linear algebra "calculator" to determine the exact link lengths and ground locations based on the equations that drive the precise lengths. (basically reinventing the wheel of what a parametric solver gives us)
Explicit geometric references allow engineers that don't remember a day of linear algebra to built pretty complex "math-based" models without even cracking a linear algebra text book. That is nothing to look down at or "overestimate"

Again I don't doubt that this type of work can be done in SE using other non solidworky forms graphical explicit constraints, and I do believe there is a time and a place for "implied constraints" but I do doubt that our SW models will be nearly as valuable to us as they are now if we were to migrate especially some of our key components.

[SPerman]

I am a skeptic of the benefits of the new fancy way of doing things. But I've never used it even once. And people I respect tell me it is a game changer, so my mind is open.

Maybe in another year or so I will make the jump to SE. If I do, it won't be because of ST, but I will certainly do my best to take advantage of it.

(@matt should this be broken out as it's own topic?)

[matt]

I can't see a way around explicit constraints...

Yeah, I can see that. At one point you had to solve this problem in SW. I'd be willing to bet that it could be solved elsewhere.

[nordstjernen740]

I hear ya on changing systems with existing data set. We need existing files for about 95% of requests that design is working on so pretty much needed the entire data set into the new system that we didn't know much about. Looking back over the past couple years the cost of migrating data set to the different CAD system cost more than all the SW & PDM licenses initial purchase and maintenance combined. It's hard to know which way to turn, especially when these software corps won't be clear on where they're headed.

Yes this. The cost of a migration will vastly dwarf the cost of anything else for us. A pdm migration was a bad enough multi year project. A true cad migration? I will be the most hated, unfire-able person in this company if that happens.

[KennyG]

@nordstjernen740 Above, I'm talking on plain migration of SW data to SE, not using the purpose built SW to SE Migration Tool. Using SE Sync natively you can build explicit constraints, or as others said work in a hybrid or traditional Ordered mode to do the same. The beauty of Sync is that explicit constraints can be added at any time, so for imported geometry you can actually rebuild those things that are missing fairly quickly. Skeleton sketches may be a sticking point because the sketches do not come across.

For the most fidelity when you migrate to Solid Edge, use the SolidWorks Migration Wizard. It requires you maintain a SolidWorks license while using it (it works with the SolidWorks API), but it will provide a little more automatic feature recognition of Sync features plus it will provide assemblies with mates, virtual components, and configurations (as SE Alternate Assemblies), and drawings with intelligent drawing views that are associative to the 3D model.

[nordstjernen740]

For the most fidelity when you migrate to Solid Edge, use the SolidWorks Migration Wizard. It requires you maintain a SolidWorks license while using it (it works with the SolidWorks API), but it will provide a little more automatic feature recognition of Sync features plus it will provide assemblies with mates, virtual components, and configurations (as SE Alternate Assemblies), and drawings with intelligent drawing views that are associative to the 3D model.

Thanks Kenny, Maybe I haven't been clear, but my focus in my replies has always been migration and how much loss of data/value would occur would we choose to do so. not a from scratch se vs sw. I have no doubt that complex constraint specific designs can be produced in solid edge from scratch, but can I reuse old, but still valuable, imported solidworks components to do so? Or will all of our intelligently designed components that actually do rely on sketches and constraints for their definition and ability to be customized to match specific use cases need to be remodeled with new, "Rethought" constraints in SE?

A solidworks migration wizard sounds way more promising than anything we are hearing out of the 3dx world. In practice how does this play out?
Is this something that SE customers do in batch? or on demand? Intern audit work?
Still no sketches even with the "solidworks migration wizard"?

[KennyG]

@nordstjernen740 You were clear on your intention to fully migrate. I was just trying to be clear that it was possible in Synch when creating from new or after the fact (native or translated) that you have the ability to create explicit constraints since it seems to be a common misconception that they cannot be created in Sync.

Per the topic of the SW Migration Wizard, I have not used it personally, but from what I've seen the migration process for parts is roughly the same as just opening them directly with SE with the exception of automatic Hole recognition. There may be more, but that's what I have been able to gather. You still get a Sync body but I don't believe you get any sketches. Migration can be done in large batches or smaller on demand batches, choice depends on need. Video link below:

[nordstjernen740]

This has been helpful.
So currently a migration to SE would mean throwing out our sketches, basically as a trade off for some intuitive direct editing.
It is good to know what we are up against when weighing how bad sw needs to get before we consider becoming a multi cad company.

As a side note.
Do sketches as we know them in SW exist at all in the from scratch solid edge world? If you are in "history" mode for example?

[KennyG]

As a side note.
Do sketches as we know them in SW exist at all in the from scratch solid edge world? If you are in "history" mode for example?

Of course sketches still exist. In Ordered they would work identically, and in Sync they are free from historical order so they can reference each other (awesome when making a network of guide curves for a surface) and can be used in both Sync or Ordered features. If used for a Sync feature, they get moved to a Used Sketch folder, but can be restored if still needed.

[nordstjernen740]

Ok i figured they must. Does anyone in the SE world have hope that the SW to SE translation wizard will be even more complete and include sketches in the coming years? Or has it been relatively stable feature wise of late?

[SPerman]

@mike miller recently went through this. Maybe he can add some extra information.

[mike miller]

@mike miller recently went through this. Maybe he can add some extra information.

That would be present tense, not past.

Anyhow, currently there is no way to get sketches from SWX and use them for driving geometry in SE, AFAIK. It's basically a Parasolid wash for the geometry, with some automation for adding custom properties, material, SWX features as select sets (groups), associated drawing views, and links between files. Maybe someday Siemens will figure out how to convert SWX files feature <> feature, then you could choose to move feature to Synch as desired. Hey, they're already doing this for SWX drawings. Probably more chance of this than a reliable SWX >> 3DX translator.

The other thing to keep an eye on is CADdirect (new in SE2022). It allows you to add a non-native part to an SE assembly and maintain the link. Currently it only supports NX files, but Dan Staples said SWX functionality will be here soon. You could migrate all your sheet metal and prismatic parts and keep using SWX for the cams and other highly parametric parts, then gradually phase it out.

[jmongi]

Is it me, or does CADdirect seem like Siemens feels that SWX is heading towards its own demise and is making sure that SE is the main choice for replacement. I've always felt that the main (and even minor) players in 3D space are all broadly the same (different sets of pros and cons and workflows). So, the key to make a choice would be cost, support and ease of migration. CADDirect seems like a major swing at reducing the pain from migrating.

[bnemec]

That would be present tense, not past.

Anyhow, currently there is no way to get sketches from SWX and use them for driving geometry in SE, AFAIK. It's basically a Parasolid wash for the geometry, with some automation for adding custom properties, material, SWX features as select sets (groups), associated drawing views, and links between files. Maybe someday Siemens will figure out how to convert SWX files feature <> feature, then you could choose to move feature to Synch as desired. Hey, they're already doing this for SWX drawings. Probably more chance of this than a reliable SWX >> 3DX translator.

The other thing to keep an eye on is CADdirect (new in SE2022). It allows you to add a non-native part to an SE assembly and maintain the link. Currently it only supports NX files, but Dan Staples said SWX functionality will be here soon. You could migrate all your sheet metal and prismatic parts and keep using SWX for the cams and other highly parametric parts, then gradually phase it out.

This ability to read other CAD system's sketch and feature data has been talked about as long as I have been aware of CAD. Isn't 3D Interconnect Solidworks' tool to use SE (and others) files in SW assemblies? Thing is they all want to keep you trapped in their system so as soon as SE for example figures out how to read the proprietary data in the file SW is going to change something to break it. The whole point is to keep a moving target. Maybe I'm dead wrong but I doubt this will ever happen, heck DSS is moving the opposite direction by putting ALL your data in their cloud. Not only do they not want it to work with other systems, they don't want you to be able to get it to other systems.

We thought we would be able to use some 3D interconnect functionality. Turns out a short while in that all the demos of SW2019 doing magic with SE files were using older version of SE. 3D Interconnect would just error out on every one of our 2019 SE models. We learned, not quick enough, that every instal of SW needs to have Enable 3D Interconnect unchecked in Import settings. Heck, eDrawings cannot view the 2019 SE models so the Preview Tab in PDM is almost never used because we get an error dialog (just click OK training) every time a SE file is selected, if it would just show an error message in the view area that would be nice. The number of users that had "Vault is locked up" because that tiny dialog got buried and was blocking the Vault View... Took me a bit to figure that out, Good times. We had to do reg edits to disable the drawing previewer in PDM because it was causing serious performance issues in SW; took tech support months to get to the bottom of that. Fortunately, they did and were quick to provide us an easy reg edit solution.

My point, I'd be very surprised if any of them ever invest the effort to read the feature data of other systems, mostly because they are making sure that others cannot read theirs.

[nordstjernen740]

This ability to read other CAD system's sketch and feature data has been talked about as long as I have been aware of CAD. Isn't 3D Interconnect Solidworks' tool to use SE (and others) files in SW assemblies? Thing is they all want to keep you trapped in their system so as soon as SE for example figures out how to read the proprietary data in the file SW is going to change something to break it. The whole point is to keep a moving target. Maybe I'm dead wrong but I doubt this will ever happen, heck DSS is moving the opposite direction by putting ALL your data in their cloud. Not only do they not want it to work with other systems, they don't want you to be able to get it to other systems.

Wow thanks for the info on the can of worms something like this would do on the pdm side. Seems like there is a lot of value to just being a single cad company and using pdm for just solidworks files. Side note: Edrawings is a joke and I can't believe we've managed to make it a few years without major issues. probably our vanilla solidworks data helps. 2021 was a downgrade for edrawings.

3d interconnect in my opinion is nothing more than a fancy one click translate/"untranslate and open with" on the fly. With maybe some native layering of metadata and native feature additions spread on top. I would assume that CADdirect is a clone of this. Potentially useful, but only if you have both programs on the same machine (and its not buggy).
3d interconnect also caused problems for us and we have never had multiple cad software. Just having it on and having downloaded files automatically come in with it turned on caused problems in pdm.

Maybe I am optimistic, but I feel like if Siemens can crack the nut of keeping drawings linked to models after a translate, maybe they have a shot at a parametric translation that includes sketches? I can see them being a year or several years behind latest SW data, but owning the kernel has got to be an advantage for them. Then again Dassault should have an advantage on the SW to 3dx front since they own and develop both software. lol. I just don't know if I believe that they are even working on it.

Didn't I learn at SWW several years back that 2d sketches are actual run on an entirely different kernel than parasolid? d-cubed? this must mean that solidworks basically built an interface between the two "languages"

[matt]

Maybe I am optimistic, but I feel like if Siemens can crack the nut of keeping drawings linked to models after a translate,

This has already happened. Several years ago. I'll find more detail for you.

2d sketches are actual run on an entirely different kernel than parasolid? d-cubed?

Parasolid is 3d solids and surfaces. dcubed is sketch solver. Both owned by Siemens. https://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/ ... cubed.html

[bnemec]

Wow thanks for the info on the can of worms something like this would do on the pdm side. Seems like there is a lot of value to just being a single cad company and using pdm for just solidworks files. Side note: Edrawings is a joke and I can't believe we've managed to make it a few years without major issues. probably our vanilla solidworks data helps. 2021 was a downgrade for edrawings.

3d interconnect in my opinion is nothing more than a fancy one click translate/"untranslate and open with" on the fly. With maybe some native layering of metadata and native feature additions spread on top. I would assume that CADdirect is a clone of this. Potentially useful, but only if you have both programs on the same machine (and its not buggy).
3d interconnect also caused problems for us and we have never had multiple cad software. Just having it on and having downloaded files automatically come in with it turned on caused problems in pdm.

Maybe I am optimistic, but I feel like if Siemens can crack the nut of keeping drawings linked to models after a translate, maybe they have a shot at a parametric translation that includes sketches? I can see them being a year or several years behind latest SW data, but owning the kernel has got to be an advantage for them. Then again Dassault should have an advantage on the SW to 3dx front since they own and develop both software. lol. I just don't know if I believe that they are even working on it.

Didn't I learn at SWW several years back that 2d sketches are actual run on an entirely different kernel than parasolid? d-cubed? this must mean that solidworks basically built an interface between the two "languages"

I tried to state a couple times that I can be wrong. Please don't make any big assumption or actions based on my comments alone. I don't want others to go through the same pitfalls I did/do. On the flip side, it's just my perception of what happened and there's a whole lot that I don't know or just miss, so my perception is likely off some portion of the time. If someone finds some truth that I obviously missed I'm grateful to be enlightened and fix my perspective. Although it might take me a little while to chew on it first.

As far as I know the 3D Interconnect would have been fine if we would have stayed on ST9 instead of going to 2019 (ST11).

eDrawings should be called eModels, it does much better with models. People here don't trust it to show drawings accurately. We use the automatic rev table (via PDM) and the table is almost always a mess in eDrawings. After spending way too many hours chasing geese and rabbits with support case we just moved on.

I wonder how many Solid Edge users still use PrintDFT.exe. Any Edgers out there using it? So Solid Edge has the best drawing view ever IMO. The zoom pan function sucks, but it opens drawings faster than any pdf. It's a viewer that draws the embedded EMF from the .dft file that is generated on each file save. The EMF is a vector format, not raster image, so the lines scale and such. The best thing for us was the viewer was 100% guaranteed to display the drawing exactly as it was last saved, every time, always, no references needed. We miss that so badly. If Solidworks would just embed an EMF in a similar manner and give us an .ocx or API call to extract it we would use that for drawings. I digress.

[matt]

This has already happened. Several years ago. I'll find more detail for you.

Here is a nice video that shows this link and the associativity in the converted drawing.

[nordstjernen740]

eDrawings should be called eModels, it does much better with models. People here don't trust it to show drawings accurately. We use the automatic rev table (via PDM) and the table is almost always a mess in eDrawings. After spending way too many hours chasing geese and rabbits with support case we just moved on.

We've chased all the same rabbits. PDM was sold to us based on the "Party trick" that edrawings drawings including title blocks automatically update on state changes without opening in solidworks. What a nightmare it was to get working. If you want to know all the rules that need to be in place for this to work correctly I'm your guy. It really is a rabbit hole. We actually do have it working though. Our 3rd party manufacturers use edrawings to read our 2d sw prints without any neutral files.

[nordstjernen740]

Here is a nice video that shows this link and the associativity in the converted drawing.

Thanks! I saw this one earlier. I was optimistically saying... if they can do this (keep drawings linked to model) maybe they have a shot at true parametric translation someday.

[matt]

Thanks! I saw this one earlier. I was optimistically saying... if they can do this (keep drawings linked to model) maybe they have a shot at true parametric translation someday.

Parametrics and associativity are two different things.

Synchronous models can use parametrics. I think you're confusing parametrics with history-based modeling.

Associativity - (good) links between documents, for example, a part document drives a drawing document.
parametrics - (good) geometry driven by parameters such as dimensions, equations, relationships. Synchronous models are parametric
history-based modeling - (way over rated) features depend on the order in which they are displayed in a list or tree and may be dependent on one another in a specific order, like steps in a recipe or lines in a program. This includes sketch-driven features.

Solid Edge and IronCAD allow you to do both direct and history style modeling. Solidworks only does history.

How many times am I going to have to split this thread because it keeps veering off topic?

[nordstjernen740]

Parametrics and associativity are two different things.

Synchronous models can use parametrics. I think you're confusing parametrics with history-based modeling.

I'm not confusing anything. I concerned about the loss of parametrics in a translation and how bad solidworks needs to get before we think its worth it.

[mike miller]

.....eDrawings should be called eModels, it does much better with models. People here don't trust it to show drawings accurately. We use the automatic rev table (via PDM) and the table is almost always a mess in eDrawings. After spending way too many hours chasing geese and rabbits with support case we just moved on.

Ahh, that can-o-worms. We gave up on Edrawings for viewing drawings (reliably) quite awhile back.

The obvious question here is: why not neutral formats? Can't SWX PDM automatically translate files to .PDF, .STP, .X_T, .JT, etc., etc., upon check-in?

I wonder how many Solid Edge users still use PrintDFT.exe. Any Edgers out there using it? So Solid Edge has the best drawing view ever IMO. The zoom pan function sucks, but it opens drawings faster than any pdf. It's a viewer that draws the embedded EMF from the .dft file that is generated on each file save. The EMF is a vector format, not raster image, so the lines scale and such. The best thing for us was the viewer was 100% guaranteed to display the drawing exactly as it was last saved, every time, always, no references needed. We miss that so badly. If Solidworks would just embed an EMF in a similar manner and give us an .ocx or API call to extract it we would use that for drawings. I digress.

Never seen it. Is it for batch printing from .dft?

[bnemec]

Ahh, that can-o-worms. We gave up on Edrawings for viewing drawings (reliably) quite awhile back.

The obvious question here is: why not neutral formats? Can't SWX PDM automatically translate files to .PDF, .STP, .X_T, .JT, etc., etc., upon check-in?



Never seen it. Is it for batch printing from .dft?

Yeah we switched to publishing pdfs, but mostly because we couldn't keep doing like we had with the viewer after going to SW. Everyone just goes to pdf, but it's so slow compared to the PrintDFT viewer. PDFs for drawings are way over rated

I don't know why they originally made PrintDFT, it came out before my time. Back around version 4 (not ST4). It hasn't been "supported" for years. Typical, make something that is so effective and simple it just works then kill it a few years later.
Anyway, we kept using it, best darned 2D viewer ever. At least for what we needed, which was show the drawing exactly as it was last saved.