Have anyone successful get power in charge to decide to leave SW ?

[bnemec]

Besides, deciding to not 'carry over' data isn't so bad, as long as it's still accessible to view and edit if there aren't additional costs. For instance, I had to search last week for something I designed in 2011 on AutoCAD before we transitionned to SolidWorks. The design was carried over to 3D, but not all the studies we had done around the development of the product. We were looking to develop a new version of that product but didn't want to cross-check the same concepts we had refuted in the previous conception.

In our first conception, we had refuted a few concepts because of certains criterias. We didn't want to cross-check these same concepts a second time only to end up on the same conclusion as the first time, so we had to go back and access data from 2011. Thankfully, DWG's and DXF's do not have much limitations in viewing and editing them, so there is no additional cost to having to do so. They are "Archived", but can be accessed.

I doubt I could say the same for SolidWorks, or any other line of CAD System. I'd also like to put the emphasis on how that definetly would not be possible if we were to be using a Cloud.

I can imagine companies in a few years which will have been on the Cloud for a few years, wanting to switch programs and not being able to because the companies that make the programs find different ways to hold data hostage.

Consider yourself fortunate that old data is "dormant" or more or less "for reference only". We are still maintaining (revising) parts that started in the 90s. We still make the parts, and continue to use them in new custom products. I wish I could have better understood the impact of how this kind of CAD data usage impacts a migration to different CAD system. Also the people selling product either ignore this case or just have never seen it, so they use the same examples you just provided. Those suggestions are fine, when they are applicable. I'm the fool for trusting and not knowing better.

We looked and tried to figure some of this out instead of living through it. I'm just saying that changing from one solid modeling software to another solid modeling software can be vastly different from one place to another. It takes someone that has used both systems and is familiar with how you use CAD to be able to provide useful insight.

[Frederick_Law]

We are still maintaining (revising) parts that started in the 90s. We still make the parts, and continue to use them in new custom products.

Do you need to keep all the old revs?
Or different rev is used in different products?

[AlexLachance]

Consider yourself fortunate that old data is "dormant" or more or less "for reference only". We are still maintaining (revising) parts that started in the 90s. We still make the parts, and continue to use them in new custom products. I wish I could have better understood the impact of how this kind of CAD data usage impacts a migration to different CAD system. Also the people selling product either ignore this case or just have never seen it, so they use the same examples you just provided. Those suggestions are fine, when they are applicable. I'm the fool for trusting and not knowing better.

We looked and tried to figure some of this out instead of living through it. I'm just saying that changing from one solid modeling software to another solid modeling software can be vastly different from one place to another. It takes someone that has used both systems and is familiar with how you use CAD to be able to provide useful insight.

We still use parts that date back from the 80's too, we simply created them in 3D so that we do not have to be stuck to use the 2D reference drawings and revising those drawings. Thankfully we have a dual codification internally, one for what is concidered standard, and one that goes with things that are "custom", so things created as custom that needs to be moved to standard are pretty easy to do so. It was existant prior to moving to 3D, so I just took the concept and adapted it to the reality of the 3D environment.

[bnemec]

Do you need to keep all the old revs?

We do need to keep records of the old revs for various reasons.

Or different rev is used in different products?

Production only makes the revision that is connected/setup in ERP. Once the BOMs and Routings are updated that's it, production should be making new rev. It gets drawn out sometimes though as they don't like to scrap inventory so we do a lot of "running changes" where Inventory Control and Planning will manage orders to balance inventory of piece parts that are changing so that we can use up existing inventory. The goal is the bins of parts are consumed FIFO. So the weldments may be switched over the same day as the parts or several months later, similar applies for revising purchased components and assembled part numbers. Every part affects other parts. Notice this has nothing to do with CAD files, closest thing to CAD is which revision the drawing.pdf is connected in the routings. For example it's not unheard of for production to still be running orders of rev 02 while the CAD >files< have been released at rev 03 and be back in WIP for the next ECR. We get change requests from all directions.

When a change to a part cannot be applied across all the where used then a new part number is created. In CAD we literally copy the model and drawing then make the changes to the new file and assign the new part number. This is one reason why the majority of our files do not start from templates. I'd guess over 50% of our part files are copies of existing part and well into the 70%s of our assemblies are copied from another assembly file. Downstream interchangeability of these components has proven to be very important over the years. That is why I get so excited about geometry IDs, modeling methods and editing methods. Also why copying of existing similar part files instead of remodeling from scratch helps us.

[Tahhhd]

Wow, just wow . . .

Not even sure where to start, so I'll go with this:
"Shaken, not stirred, will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."
It's one of my favorite quotes from West Wing, and it seems to fit the situation - Your responses to the information that has been shared here show that you are really looking for an echo chamber to reinforce your pre-determined assessment of the software. You are going about it wrong here, and I wish you luck if this is how you plan to approach your company about completely changing everything that they have been doing. My gut is telling me that they most likely have a few people that are really good with SolidWorks, and they will be able to debunk a majority of your claims against SolidWorks.

First and foremost, the people that are responding to this have probably forgotten more about SolidWorks than most people will ever know, and they are trying to help you. One of the first responses that stuck in my head was to "forget what you know about SE and attend formal training with an open mind."
I know for a fact that this is good advice, I have worked for several different companies, and used several different CAD programs.
(Started with AutoCAD R11, but I have also used Generic CADD, Mechanical Desktop, Unigraphics, Pro/Engineer, IDEAS by SDRC, Catia V4, and SolidWorks.)
- I went to training for Pro/Ideas/Catia/SolidWorks, and each time I approached it as though I was learning CAD for the first time. I made an effort to never say "This is easier in CAD-A," or "Why can't I do it like I would in CAD-B," or "In CAD-C, you can just click on . . ."
Taking this approach meant that I was ALWAYS in a better position than the others in the class that were busy making comparisons instead of learning.

You will find that people here do have a lot of gripes about SolidWorks - There is a LOT that could be better, but the same could be said about ANY software. I guarantee that you could write the absolute perfect CAD software for your needs, and people would complain about it.

If you want to get an accurate preview of what you will be up against when attempting to get the company to move to another software, start by telling them that you want to change their title block - something major, shuffle all of the information around, move it to another corner of the drawing sheet, change the way initials are entered or suggest using an "employee code number", and see how well this relatively small amount of change is received by everyone.

I think the best advice I could give would be to go find a SE job.

[Frederick_Law]

start by telling them that you want to change their title block

Been there
Done that
Doing it again


Also changing standard, style, template, how to model etc

[Glenn Schroeder]

If you want to get an accurate preview of what you will be up against when attempting to get the company to move to another software, start by telling them that you want to change their title block - something major, shuffle all of the information around, move it to another corner of the drawing sheet, change the way initials are entered or suggest using an "employee code number", and see how well this relatively small amount of change is received by everyone.

Todd,

I agree with everything you said, except this part. Don't ask them. Just do it. Beg forgiveness later if anyone complains. What can go wrong?

[Tahhhd]

Todd,

I agree with everything you said, except this part. Don't ask them. Just do it. Beg forgiveness later if anyone complains. What can go wrong?

Would have saved me WEEKS at a place I used to work - The amount of time that was spent just going over how to "sign" the print was incredible . . .
"First and Last Initial?"
"No, we should use all 3 initials"
"I think we should use employee code"
"I think we should use first initial and last name"
"I think we should use favorite ice cream flavor"
ugh

[zxys001]

"I think we should use favorite ice cream flavor"

I would not rule that one out, it's got teeth.
It would be a great example of how anal some of them can/will be.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Would have saved me WEEKS at a place I used to work - The amount of time that was spent just going over how to "sign" the print was incredible . . .
"First and Last Initial?"
"No, we should use all 3 initials"
"I think we should use employee code"
"I think we should use first initial and last name"
"I think we should use favorite ice cream flavor"
ugh

If two people are involved in making a decision it takes four times as long as with just one. If three people are involved it takes eight times as long. Do your own math as the group gets larger.

The importance of the subject is immaterial.

[zxys001]

If two people are involved in making a decision it takes four times as long as with just one. If three people are involved it takes eight times as long. Do your own math as the group gets larger.

The importance of the subject is immaterial.

My math says it's the one, two or three people.

[Jim Elias]

I don't love SW, even though it was indeed the first 3D system I worked with and I've made a good living with it. Anyway, 25 years down the line, there's another system which I prefer to use when I can.

Now that said: unless you're already set with an until-retirement job at some industrial behemoth, it's definitively NOT smart if you DON'T learn SW and learn it well. The reason why the SW forum here sees so much more activity compared to the others is simply that there are way more people using SW than the others. (Some wiseacre may jump in now and say... no, it's because there's so much more to complain about with SW -- but even that implies a much larger seat base.)

So: you will very likely, sooner or later, end up in a position where your SW proficiency will influence your earnings, and beefing about the software -- as opposed to learning to use it at the level needed to show off your innate designer chops -- is simply not pragmatic. There's plenty of good stuff being designed with SW every day.

To partially answer the initial question: your chances of influencing "power in charge" are usually pretty good when you've delivered big-deal work already, much less so when you're only saying why you can't.

[Frederick_Law]

The reason why the SW forum here sees so much more activity compared to the others

Have you visit AutoDesk Inventor forum?

SW forum got so much activity because people need to complain about SolidDoesn'tWork

[Jim Elias]

Have you visit AutoDesk Inventor forum?

SW forum got so much activity because people need to complain about SolidDoesn'tWork

I was talking about here on this site. SW posts are in the five-figures, Inventor hasn't even broken 100 posts

Inventor is a good program. But I get maybe 0.5 gigs per year that require some IV proficiency, whereas I'm regularly billing for stuff that requires lots of SW proficiency. I guess I could say "SolidDoesn'tWork" (the annoyance level does get high sometimes) but that would be tantamount to saying "I don't want this filthy SW-tainted money"

[Frederick_Law]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/bd-p/78

Here is mostly SW users from the old SW forum.
Of course there are mostly SW post.

If you use post counts here, we're more about Joke then SW
https://www.cadforum.net/viewforum.php?f=30

[Jim Elias]

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/inventor-forum/bd-p/78

Here is mostly SW users from the old SW forum.
Of course there are mostly SW post.

If you use post counts here, we're more about Joke then SW
https://www.cadforum.net/viewforum.php?f=30

No surprise there... humor is, after all, a universal language.

[Arthur NY]

For me I just can't see the benefit to preview something that will not be the end result. That's just waste of time as I sees it.

Just to pick an example ..


This is a perfect example of you NOT understanding the software and trying to make it seem like it's doing something it isn't meant to. Sure there's a preview, should it not...that could be up for debate. What you should be using, while mirroring, is Body to Mirror, not feature which will give the correct result.

The main reason why this is not working is that the end condition of "up to surface" is not on the other side. You're thinking that the software will select the surface on the other side for you and it won't and it shouldn't. Having the software arbitrarily select something is never a good idea.

Again your ability to not want to understand your short coming and then blaming it on the software is just all types of insane. But hey let's continue with this shall we.....

[Pernils]

Lets wake up this old thread ..

Have made a small comparison video by just scraping the surface of the short comings in SW.



Would be nice to here from someone that have started in the SE land but is fully embraced by the way SW is doing things. And what he find in SW that is so great.

[dave.laban]

Video is currently refusing to stream for me at the moment. Any chance of at least a vague summary of what's in that 25 minutes?

[SPerman]

If you click this icon, it will open in a new window and you can watch it.

image.png (15.46 KiB) Viewed 21300 times

[dave.laban]

Very odd. Still refusing to stream in Chrome but working quite happily in Edge. Might try and give it some time at some point then.

[SPerman]

I had to click several times, but it finally started to play.

[josh]

I watched the whole video. I didn't see much in the way of shortcomings. Mostly minor differences and personal preferences in the interface or the steps used. Some of the complaints could be solved by changing settings, using Instant3D, etc. Looks like creating section views in SW is less than half the clicks of SE, but no mention of that...

[Pernils]

I watched the whole video. I didn't see much in the way of shortcomings. Mostly minor differences and personal preferences in the interface or the steps used. Some of the complaints could be solved by changing settings, using Instant3D, etc. Looks like creating section views in SW is less than half the clicks of SE, but no mention of that...

It's not so easy go give a non bias opinion if one don't have experience from other tools.

I on my hand is battling a 20+ years of muscle memory from using SE. Its a bit hard to look beyond this fact just to give an objective comparison, therefore I didn't explicitly pointed out the shortcomings seen from SE user point of view.

I admit that I have missed instant2d and instant3d, will explore those for comparison.

But the fact is that both product is so called midrange cad system. One of them have still to this date a non responsive modelling environment, in other word is forcing end user to constant give a command for rebuild. It's like you are back in -90s and autocads redraw command.

[Pernils]

Is there a way to swap crtl / shift when using the unergonomic placed scrollwheel for pan and zoom ?

Blender have scrollwheel + shift for pan.
SE have the option for scrollwheel + shift for pan. (Normal you use right button .. but whatever..)
FeeCad have "blender mode" for pan/zoom


So would like have same in SW.

SW is marketing it self as extensive customable .. so do we have the option ?

[AlexLachance]

Is there a way to swap crtl / shift when using the unergonomic placed scrollwheel for pan and zoom ?

Blender have scrollwheel + shift for pan.
SE have the option for scrollwheel + shift for pan. (Normal you use right button .. but whatever..)
FeeCad have "blender mode" for pan/zoom


So would like have same in SW.

SW is marketing it self as extensive customable .. so do we have the option ?

Honestly, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. Have you even asked your VAR or have you spent all this time complaining over here without getting your VAR involved?

Complaining is all fun but if you're not even trying to get your problems solved, just complaining, then it becomes obsolete, kind of like this thread has.

[Glenn Schroeder]

I admit that I have missed instant2d and instant3d, will explore those for comparison.

But the fact is that both product is so called midrange cad system. One of them have still to this date a non responsive modelling environment, in other word is forcing end user to constant give a command for rebuild. It's like you are back in -90s and autocads redraw command.

Instant 3d will change your life. I really like being able to click on a feature in the tree, have its dimensions displayed in the graphics area, single-click on one, edit it, and the model updates immediately without a manual rebuild.

[josh]

I admit that I have missed instant2d and instant3d, will explore those for comparison.

But the fact is that both product is so called midrange cad system. One of them have still to this date a non responsive modelling environment, in other word is forcing end user to constant give a command for rebuild. It's like you are back in -90s and autocads redraw command.

It is actually pretty hilarious that you put these two sentences back to back. Enabling Instant3D is exactly what will change this "forcing end user to constant give a command for rebuild."

It’s actually my preference not to rebuild until I say to rebuild. There are times when a design change requires modifying multiple related dimensions. The way the model is built, the geometry would break if it rebuilds with one dimension changed while the other is not. Controlling when to rebuild allows me to change both dimensions, then rebuild, preventing annoying rebuild errors. The other benefit is working with complicated models. Again, if I know I need to modify multiple dimensions, waiting for a rebuild on a complex model after each change would be annoying. Controlling when to rebuild allows me to make all my changes, then rebuild and execute them all at once, minimizing my waiting time.

Of course, this 100% does not discount your muscle memory. I totally agree that after doing things one way for 20 years, you become very set in your ways. I’m certain that if I were to switch to the SE way of doing things, I’d have similar annoyances at interfaces and concepts. My only issue is with calling them shortcomings. They’re just differences.

BTW, I have a suggestion for your issues with the sketch symmetry constraint. If you wish to have symmetry, draw one half, then draw the mirror line, then use the sketch mirror command to create the symmetric side rather than drawing both halves and then applying the symmetry constraint. It’s much faster, and I believe the symmetry constraints that it will automatically create are closer to the ones you expect from SE.

Additionally, there’s a fine point about symmetry concepts in SW that may help you. In SW, a sketched line segment consists actually of a theoretical infinite line bounded by endpoints. If you apply symmetry to a line segment, as you have found, the symmetry applies to the theoretical infinite lines. This allows you the flexibility to then apply (or not apply) a symmetry constraint on the endpoints of the line. You can apply symmetry to either or both endpoints. In your video you contrasted the behavior when applying symmetry to circles with applying symmetry to lines, saying the behavior is inconsistent. But if you consider the theoretical side of the geometry, behavior is actually the same. A theoretically infinite line is defined by its angle and its position in space. A complete circle is defined by its radius and its centerpoint. However, if you consider arcs, they are theoretical circles bounded by endpoints. If you will create two arcs and apply symmetry between them, you’ll find they behave exactly as the lines do. The arcs themselves (centerpoint and radius) are constrained to be symmetric, but the endpoints of the arcs are not constrained symmetric unless you add that constraint.

[Pernils]

Instant 3d will change your life. I really like being able to click on a feature in the tree, have its dimensions displayed in the graphics area, single-click on one, edit it, and the model updates immediately without a manual rebuild.

After testing it out ...

Instant 3d is sort of similar to SE's dynamic edit but I find I get more freedom if I could grap the vertex from the different element in the sketch.

I made a video in this thread that show little bit of how it works in SE.
viewtopic.php?t=2531


If I compare it to SE sync environment ..... its impossible ...

[Pernils]

It is actually pretty hilarious that you put these two sentences back to back. Enabling Instant3D is exactly what will change this "forcing end user to constant give a command for rebuild."

It’s actually my preference not to rebuild until I say to rebuild. There are times when a design change requires modifying multiple related dimensions. The way the model is built, the geometry would break if it rebuilds with one dimension changed while the other is not. Controlling when to rebuild allows me to change both dimensions, then rebuild, preventing annoying rebuild errors. The other benefit is working with complicated models. Again, if I know I need to modify multiple dimensions, waiting for a rebuild on a complex model after each change would be annoying. Controlling when to rebuild allows me to make all my changes, then rebuild and execute them all at once, minimizing my waiting time.

Of course, this 100% does not discount your muscle memory. I totally agree that after doing things one way for 20 years, you become very set in your ways. I’m certain that if I were to switch to the SE way of doing things, I’d have similar annoyances at interfaces and concepts. My only issue is with calling them shortcomings. They’re just differences.

BTW, I have a suggestion for your issues with the sketch symmetry constraint. If you wish to have symmetry, draw one half, then draw the mirror line, then use the sketch mirror command to create the symmetric side rather than drawing both halves and then applying the symmetry constraint. It’s much faster, and I believe the symmetry constraints that it will automatically create are closer to the ones you expect from SE.

Additionally, there’s a fine point about symmetry concepts in SW that may help you. In SW, a sketched line segment consists actually of a theoretical infinite line bounded by endpoints. If you apply symmetry to a line segment, as you have found, the symmetry applies to the theoretical infinite lines. This allows you the flexibility to then apply (or not apply) a symmetry constraint on the endpoints of the line. You can apply symmetry to either or both endpoints. In your video you contrasted the behavior when applying symmetry to circles with applying symmetry to lines, saying the behavior is inconsistent. But if you consider the theoretical side of the geometry, behavior is actually the same. A theoretically infinite line is defined by its angle and its position in space. A complete circle is defined by its radius and its centerpoint. However, if you consider arcs, they are theoretical circles bounded by endpoints. If you will create two arcs and apply symmetry between them, you’ll find they behave exactly as the lines do. The arcs themselves (centerpoint and radius) are constrained to be symmetric, but the endpoints of the arcs are not constrained symmetric unless you add that constraint.

I rather confident that after you have been in a "responsive" modelling environment you will never go back. (You can try SE community edition for free to see for you self..)

I discarded SE sync environment for over 15 years. I had it at my fingertips but never used it. Now when I'm stuck in SW I find SE sync environment extremely powerful dealing with surfaces and so on (using SE community edition).

My hunch is that if I ask the blender community if their workflow would improve if they where forced to hammer a rebuild button they will think I'm mad.
The need for rebuild function is a flaw that Dassault can't get rid off. Broken product or conservative user base or both.

Over my 25+ year as cad driver I have encounter more times that I want to lines/arcs to be at the same angle and length then just angle wise. Hence my reaction on it.

[Glenn Schroeder]

After testing it out ...

Instant 3d is sort of similar to SE's dynamic edit but I find I get more freedom if I could grap the vertex from the different element in the sketch.

I made a video in this thread that show little bit of how it works in SE.
viewtopic.php?t=2531


If I compare it to SE sync environment ..... its impossible ...

I watched the video. If you mean the way you would drag a corner of the sketch or extrude and move it, I never tried that since I fully define my sketches with relations and dimensions so they don't get pulled out of place.

I did pick up a couple of other things. First, it seems that in SE you have to go up to the Command Manager (maybe it has a different name in SE) to apply sketch relations instead of having them right there at your cursor. I wouldn't like that.

Second, I don't know if you're interested in advice, but if you want people who aren't familiar with the software to be able to follow what you're doing when you record a video like that you might want to consider slowing down. If you just want to show how fast you can work, then it's fine.

[AlexLachance]

I rather confident that after you have been in a "responsive" modelling environment you will never go back. (You can try SE community edition for free to see for you self..)

I discarded SE sync environment for over 15 years. I had it at my fingertips but never used it. Now when I'm stuck in SW I find SE sync environment extremely powerful dealing with surfaces and so on (using SE community edition).

My hunch is that if I ask the blender community if their workflow would improve if they where forced to hammer a rebuild button they will think I'm mad.
The need for rebuild function is a flaw that Dassault can't get rid off. Broken product or conservative user base or both.

Over my 25+ year as cad driver I have encounter more times that I want to lines/arcs to be at the same angle and length then just angle wise. Hence my reaction on it.

Everything you speak of is hunches and beliefs, jesus christ get over it and change job if you don't like SolidWorks, it really is that simple. You remind me of a collegue I had that would debate that everything was faster in 2D.

[Frederick_Law]

.. so do we have the option ?

Yes, option work in most CAD.
https://3dconnexion.com/ca/spacemouse/

Any serious CAD user should have one, or two.

[Pernils]

Yes, option work in most CAD.
https://3dconnexion.com/ca/spacemouse/

Any serious CAD user should have one, or two.

Glad you bought it up. I have one on my desk. Used for half a year and then decided to not use it.

Don't want to drag back and forth from home
You sort of must use the keyboard so why shouldn't you have your hand where those keys are ?
Using blender att home and need the "scroolwheel" training.

But moving the finger back and forth from left to scroolwheel is annoying.
SE solution by using right button and shift + ctrl is god as it can be.

[Glenn Schroeder]

Glad you bought it up. I have one on my desk. Used for half a year and then decided to not use it.

I have the SpaceMouse Pro. If it died, and the company wouldn't replace it (they would, but that's beside the point), I'd buy my own.

Don't want to drag back and forth from home

I'd rather drag it back and forth than work without it.

You sort of must use the keyboard so why shouldn't you have your hand where those keys are ?

Moving my hand 4" isn't that big a deal, and is well worth it to get the advantages of the 3d mouse. I have a button on my 3d mouse that I can click on to get a number pad when I need to enter a value.

Using blender att home and need the "scroolwheel" training.

But moving the finger back and forth from left to scroolwheel is annoying.
SE solution by using right button and shift + ctrl is god as it can be.

I doubt very much that anything on a keyboard works better than my 3d mouse for manipulating a model.

You might like to read this article that a wise man wrote a couple of years ago about switching CAD softwares: https://dezignstuff.com/can-software-x- ... oftware-y/

[Frederick_Law]

Glad you bought it up. I have one on my desk. Used for half a year and then decided to not use it.

Don't want to drag back and forth from home
You sort of must use the keyboard so why shouldn't you have your hand where those keys are ?
Using blender att home and need the "scroolwheel" training.

But moving the finger back and forth from left to scroolwheel is annoying.
SE solution by using right button and shift + ctrl is god as it can be.

Options, options.
Left hand not on keyboard.
Right Click menu got most of the commands.
Mouse got 15 buttons so, enter, esc, delete are on the mouse.
Using IV and SW same way.

Other are not consistent but I can be consistent.

[Frederick_Law]

Keep complaining is an option.
Find your own solution is an option.
Give it all up is an option.
You can have other options.
My options are not your options.
Neither are yours.

Now, I do hate SW. That's not an option.

[bnemec]

Keep complaining is an option.
Find your own solution is an option.
Give it all up is an option.
You can have other options.
My options are not your options.
Neither are yours.

Now, I do hate SW. That's not an option.

I dislike SW about as much as I disliked SE; just for different reasons. I only used Inventor for a little while part time, I'd probably dislike that one too if I had used it full time long enough.

[AlexLachance]

I dislike SW about as much as I disliked SE; just for different reasons. I only used Inventor for a little while part time, I'd probably dislike that one too if I had used it full time long enough.

Which piques my curiosity, which did you like?

[Pernils]

You might like to read this article that a wise man wrote a couple of years ago about switching CAD softwares: https://dezignstuff.com/can-software-x- ... oftware-y/

Yes 3Dmouse is convenient way for glitch free manipulation. Works extremely well if you are going to record some function demo of your design.

Use it now and then in Freecad as its manipulation is rather jerky.

But for daily use I found out that I would be more "mobile" if can get away whit out it . For example when you are forced to be present in a meeting room and so on.

Great if it works for you but I just don't want to be depended on it, just simple as that.

[Pernils]

I dislike SW about as much as I disliked SE; just for different reasons. I only used Inventor for a little while part time, I'd probably dislike that one too if I had used it full time long enough.

I'm interested in what you don't like with SE.

Everyone have their preference and I just want to scope in as much as possible so I can present SE for my cad teem in proper way.
What you dislike could surely be something that someone in my group also dislike.
Its rots can just be how they think it should work ..

Okay everyone thinks .. this is exactly what we have been telling you all the time.. but for me example a part behave different selection wise if it have a cosmetic thread or not is a flaw and not a needed feature. Even Matt is pointing out that a consistent behaviour is important element in a software.

[Frederick_Law]

But for daily use I found out that I would be more "mobile" if can get away whit out it . For example when you are forced to be present in a meeting room and so on.

Great if it works for you but I just don't want to be depended on it, just simple as that.

Very important when presenting in meeting room.
Need to show how professional and in control you are.

In this case the wireless one work best.
3D mouse connected to desktop with wire.
Wireless dongle in laptop. Yes, it work both way.

BTW SW can zoom pan rotate well on laptop touch screen. Yes, I got that too. Options.

[bnemec]

Which piques my curiosity, which did you like?

LOL. Right!
all of them

[Pernils]

I watched the video. If you mean the way you would drag a corner of the sketch or extrude and move it, I never tried that since I fully define my sketches with relations and dimensions so they don't get pulled out of place.

I did pick up a couple of other things. First, it seems that in SE you have to go up to the Command Manager (maybe it has a different name in SE) to apply sketch relations instead of having them right there at your cursor. I wouldn't like that.


image.png


Second, I don't know if you're interested in advice, but if you want people who aren't familiar with the software to be able to follow what you're doing when you record a video like that you might want to consider slowing down. If you just want to show how fast you can work, then it's fine.

In SE 2023'isch they introduced something similar. (surely copied from SW land) But my muscle memory is fighting against me.

image.png (7.34 KiB) Viewed 20969 times

From what I have seen, SW users seems to be more keen to fully constrain their sketches. SE user is more sort of loose. Perhaps it have to do that the environment allow one to do it more . You can almost have open sketches everywhere.

In sync mode in SE you even have more ability to push and drag. For many years I was refusing to use as a "real cad driver" always drive the geometry by constrains !

In the end cad is only a tool for testing out ideas of a problem.
When messing around your thinking on how it should be produced. For milling 3 or 4 axis. Maybe you hit a wall that requires and extra setup and therefore the need to switch to 5-axis and in the process also be able to throw in some other functionality or just some design at no extra cost.

So there are a point of not having a "house of cards" (ordered mode) that you must constant keep in order to have your part to be correct "compiled".

Push & drag have its benefits. Just see a blender tutorial how easy they produce geometry.

The movie was just to show a SE newbie how he could tackle his problem. I had no dimension given so I waisted no time to constrain it.
I'm hosting it on my gdrive so I wanted to keep it as short as possible. Have nothing to do with speed. He can reduce the speed in vlc anyway.

[josh]

Okay everyone thinks .. this is exactly what we have been telling you all the time.. but for me example a part behave different selection wise if it have a cosmetic thread or not is a flaw and not a needed feature. Even Matt is pointing out that a consistent behaviour is important element in a software.

But you didn't show a cosmetic thread. You showed a modeled geometry thread with only edges, which should be rarely done. So the only thing available for you to select was a helical edge. This is what a cosmetic thread looks like, and it allows you to still select the cylindrical face.

Incidentally, the thread that you showed in SE was different, more of an acme type profile with flat crests rather than the sharp ones in the SW model. If you'd modeled acme threads in SW, there would still be a cylindrical face to select.

[bnemec]

I'm interested in what you don't like with SE.

Oh man, I had a list somewhere...

For starters:

The Ribbon ruined many a good CAD UI's, but SE took it to a new level by hiding Settings and other things behind this thing. In SW simply pressing R brings up recent file dialog...

Then the settings layout. They literally took all the settings (Document, User, System, etc) put them in a basket, shook them up then kind divided them up by some filter of which I never discovered the secrets of. I don't know they did either. With a tab called "Helpers" in settings? Really? It's like the junk drawer for all the left overs. Kinda reminds me of the stand up comedian that tried to explain the two letter state abbreviations of the USA.

So there is no clear identification of which settings are saved in document, registry, or the various settings files. On the bright side SE settings is less modal and has an Apply button that SW is lacking so the user doesn't need to go through the entire process to test each change.

This one gets a line of its own, SE decided to only show settings that are relevant to the type of files that are currently open. Oh that was so frustrating, and for why I have no idea. Dumbest thing to do. "I see you do not have an assembly file open so I''ll just hide all the settings relating to assemblies because I assume you'll never open another one again."

image.png (34.92 KiB) Viewed 20942 times

Stop hiding the settings!

If you want to know what settings layout should look like, look at how Visual Studio has them.

When ST came along we lost all the free training materials. Back around ST9 we were onboarding some new hires and I pretty much had to make all our own tutorials (which were bad to be honest) because of all the hundreds of tutorials on the Siemens website, a grand total of three were not ST. If they would have just kept the old ones of ordered mode and updated when needed for new menus, icons, options, etc. that would have been great. But they pretty much dropped all training support or ordered mode. We had no training materials for ordered mode of the new releases other than what we made ourselves and a few you tube vids.

There's a bunch of other little stupid things it did that were in the minutia. For example I was making a helical cam-like part and the feature didn't solve correctly when the number of turns was less than one. I had to put in something like .25 to get 1/3 of a turn. Double clicking a view would open the assembly, which was nice; except when the assembly was a FOA, then double clicking a view would open the member assembly, not the family and if the assembly file was saved the family was gone and only the member that the drawing view was connected to remains. A bunch of little things that you'd run into, find out it's a quirk in the software and then find a different way to do it. Like most CAD systems have.

[Pernils]

But you didn't show a cosmetic thread. You showed a modeled geometry thread with only edges, which should be rarely done. So the only thing available for you to select was a helical edge. This is what a cosmetic thread looks like, and it allows you to still select the cylindrical face.

Incidentally, the thread that you showed in SE was different, more of an acme type profile with flat crests rather than the sharp ones in the SW model. If you'd modeled acme threads in SW, there would still be a cylindrical face to select.
image.png

You are right it was what we call in sweden trapestgänga .. whatever it doesn't matter, if you click on geometry you going to get it selected.
So if I click on this I will get the same result

I can use it to mate align hole.

[SPerman]

From what I have seen, SW users seems to be more keen to fully constrain their sketches.

I was taught to fully constrain my sketches using IDEAS 20 years ago. I don't think it is a SW thing as much as a "best practice" thing.

[Pernils]

Oh man, I had a list somewhere...

For starters:
image.png

The Ribbon ruined many a good CAD UI's, but SE took it to a new level by hiding Settings and other things behind this thing. In SW simply pressing R brings up recent file dialog...

Then the settings layout. They literally took all the settings (Document, User, System, etc) put them in a basket, shook them up then kind divided them up by some filter of which I never discovered the secrets of. I don't know they did either. With a tab called "Helpers" in settings? Really? It's like the junk drawer for all the left overs. Kinda reminds me of the stand up comedian that tried to explain the two letter state abbreviations of the USA.
image.png

So there is no clear identification of which settings are saved in document, registry, or the various settings files. On the bright side SE settings is less modal and has an Apply button that SW is lacking so the user doesn't need to go through the entire process to test each change.

This one gets a line of its own, SE decided to only show settings that are relevant to the type of files that are currently open. Oh that was so frustrating, and for why I have no idea. Dumbest thing to do. "I see you do not have an assembly file open so I''ll just hide all the settings relating to assemblies because I assume you'll never open another one again."
image.png
Stop hiding the settings!

If you want to know what settings layout should look like, look at how Visual Studio has them.

When ST came along we lost all the free training materials. Back around ST9 we were onboarding some new hires and I pretty much had to make all our own tutorials (which were bad to be honest) because of all the hundreds of tutorials on the Siemens website, a grand total of three were not ST. If they would have just kept the old ones of ordered mode and updated when needed for new menus, icons, options, etc. that would have been great. But they pretty much dropped all training support or ordered mode. We had no training materials for ordered mode of the new releases other than what we made ourselves and a few you tube vids.

There's a bunch of other little stupid things it did that were in the minutia. For example I was making a helical cam-like part and the feature didn't solve correctly when the number of turns was less than one. I had to put in something like .25 to get 1/3 of a turn. Double clicking a view would open the assembly, which was nice; except when the assembly was a FOA, then double clicking a view would open the member assembly, not the family and if the assembly file was saved the family was gone and only the member that the drawing view was connected to remains. A bunch of little things that you'd run into, find out it's a quirk in the software and then find a different way to do it. Like most CAD systems have.

Yes .. now I remember that I was a bit confused when they decided to "hide" stuff under that icon. But after a few visit there it didn't bother me anymore.
Nice catch anyway...

Also this shortcut for recent R (but surely I will forgot it if I don't start to use it).

SPerman had problems with planes that keeps be hidden, for me is other way around I hate to see every darn plane needed for a feature in the feature tree. And it later explode into madness when you are dealing with assembly. Constant scrolling up and down and passing History, Sensors, Annotations, Solid Bodies, Material on every part.
I just can't grep this enormous focus around the use of the scroolwheel. Its the worst button of them all ergonomics and also in quality.


That Siemen was dumping tutorial for ordered mode was just to force the userbase into this rather unique ST mode.

[Glenn Schroeder]

. . . From what I have seen, SW users seems to be more keen to fully constrain their sketches.

When I took the Essentials class many years ago the instructor told us about a case he knew of where the CAD user didn't take the time to fully define his sketches. Something got moved slightly without anyone noticing it, and it didn't get caught until the part had gone into production. It cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, and cost the CAD his job.