CAD Forum

Pernils wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:21 pm I made a quick tut about planes in edge. Hope it helps somewhat.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13uuSyR ... sp=sharing

I said I wasn't going to reply again, but I changed my mind. I watched most of that video. You were moving so fast that it was difficult for me to follow much of it, but the only thing I saw you do that you can't do in SW was create the angled plane without a sketch or model geometry to drive it.

1. You activated a special command to change the size of the planes. In SW you can just grab a visible plane at any time and change the size, without accessing a specific command (though for all practical purposes the planes don't have a defined size; you're just adjusting the extent of the visible indication of it).
2. You created an offset plane to sketch on for the initial extrude. In SW there's no need to do that. You can have the extrude offset from the sketch plane in the extrude's property manager.
3. When creating a new feature on the extrude you created a new plane coincident with a face. In SW you don't need to do that. You can sketch on, and extrude from, any planar face.
4. When placing a dimension, you accepted the initial value, then later clicked on that value to edit it. With SW you can do the same thing if you have Instant 2d turned on.
5. While I rarely use the feature, I'm pretty sure you can delete and replace faces in SW like you did in your demo.

It was about that time that I lost track of what was going on. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above if you'd like.

Glenn

choice of software also is very dependent on what you are making/designing and what hardware you are using. Try doing a plate in SW that has 1000's of small holes in it, and then add that to a drawing. If you have an under powered (or older) PC it's going to take you some time to display it, or even crash. Do the same plate in Autocad and it has no problem showing the 1000's of holes.

But try doing an assembly in Autocad and showing 3 or 4 views, a section views, and a few detail views, it's going to take you way longer to do then it would in SW, or any 3D package.

I don't have any experience with SE, but I am sure there are some things that are easier to design than in SW, but I am also willing to bet there are things that SW does better.

Glenn Schroeder wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:22 pm I said I wasn't going to reply again, but I changed my mind. I watched most of that video. You were moving so fast that it was difficult for me to follow much of it, but the only thing I saw you do that you can't do in SW was create the angled plane without a sketch or model geometry to drive it.

1. You activated a special command to change the size of the planes. In SW you can just grab a visible plane at any time and change the size, without accessing a specific command (though for all practical purposes the planes don't have a defined size; you're just adjusting the extent of the visible indication of it).
2. You created an offset plane to sketch on for the initial extrude. In SW there's no need to do that. You can have the extrude offset from the sketch plane in the extrude's property manager.
3. When creating a new feature on the extrude you created a new plane coincident with a face. In SW you don't need to do that. You can sketch on, and extrude from, any planar face.
4. When placing a dimension, you accepted the initial value, then later clicked on that value to edit it. With SW you can do the same thing if you have Instant 2d turned on.
5. While I rarely use the feature, I'm pretty sure you can delete and replace faces in SW like you did in your demo.

It was about that time that I lost track of what was going on. Feel free to ask questions about any of the above if you'd like.

Glenn

SPerman said he had some trouble with planes and SE hence why I record it. Wanted to keep it short .. seems that it was to short.

1. Have never changed size of planes in SE but put it in there in case SPermans wants to do it. SW change the planes to more follow the first feature. There are some benefits with it.

2. SE have sort of the same but lacking "from offset" (my cutout). By curiosity have this "from offset" been in there from the beginning ? Also is this a normal thing in SW world, draw on one plane but add and removes something somewhere else. Feels odd but if this is the way it is then one just have to accept it.

3. Both work the same.

5. One thing here in SW is that it only accept replace face with a surface as target face (SW 2021). Bad or good ... its up to each one to decide.

All I am looking for is a quick and easy way to show / hide the reference planes for a body in an assembly. The top level assembly and the sub assembly both give me a checkbox in the history tree to turn them on and off. Is it possible to get the same option for the components in the assembly / sub assembly?

Forget SW and SE.
Inventor do everything better !!!!!

Frederick_Law wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:30 pm
Forget SW and SE.
Inventor do everything better !!!!!

Take off, eh! (Hopefully you are old enough to get that reference.)

SPerman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:37 pm Take off, eh! (Hopefully you are old enough to get that reference.)

Good, I'm not old enough LOL
Probably I didn't watch enough movies? Or TV show?

They might not be as funny now that it's not 1980 and I'm not 12 years old.

SPerman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:28 pm All I am looking for is a quick and easy way to show / hide the reference planes for a body in an assembly. The top level assembly and the sub assembly both give me a checkbox in the history tree to turn them on and off. Is it possible to get the same option for the components in the assembly / sub assembly?

image.png

Hmm .. As hide/show planes is not a button we can't assign a shortkey.
The only thing is select the part and right click -> Show/Hide all component ..

One thing that maybe can make the selection phase more user friendly is to use the toggled selection behavior.
If the pointer an + and - above it you are in that mode.
Toggeled selection means that you select or unselect with only left mouseclick.

There is 2 ways to reach this mode.

1) First select the first part then press spacebar.
2) Hold ctrl while you select 2 parts then you can let go of crtl key.

Perhaps this can also help you ... -- edit --
shift + spacebar will show selection manager didn't know that this menu existed.

I wasn't Canadian for that long.
I grow up watching A-Team and Macgyver.

Now we're way off topic

SPerman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:28 pm All I am looking for is a quick and easy way to show / hide the reference planes for a body in an assembly. The top level assembly and the sub assembly both give me a checkbox in the history tree to turn them on and off. Is it possible to get the same option for the components in the assembly / sub assembly?

image.png

I added these to my ribbon and use them frequently. you can do the same thing by RMB in space then "Show/Hide all component" then you have a bunch of options to turn on/off you can also RMB on an individual component and show/hide items for just that component

@Pernils So basically what you've done is walk into a pizza restaurant, that specializes in thin crust pizza, and complain that it doesn't taste like deep dish pizza!!! Me I'm a fan and can appreciate both and I think at the heart of this is really what you're missing. This isn't a zero sum game, that there can be "only one". As others have mentioned this is, in some cases, about person choice and preferences. As you have agreed that you haven't had enough time in SW and where the company has sold you short is that you HAVE to take the base training with an instructor. Youtube or online videos only aren't enough. You need to be able to listen to the "why" of something or a certain approach to using a feature in a certain way. That initial 4 day essentials training will 100% help you to better understand SW. That you are having to do all of the extra proving that SE is "better" is a waste of your time. At one point you didn't know SE and you struggled through that, it's not like you are a good today as when you first started. None of us were.

For instance.... using the "Loft" feature vs "Boundary" feature, initially looks like they can produce the same results. But when you really start to put the screws to understanding the how and why of it then it gives context and delineation and situational awareness. This isn't something that you are going to have right away and it certainly isn't helpful that you are switching back and forth at the moment.

It's like learning another language, one of the best ways to learn is to just immerse yourself 100% into, don't just dabble and expect to be great in one day.

Besides you're in a SW heavy user group. We all have our gripes with the software, because it isn't perfect, but it's still our imperfect "CAD Babay"!!!! We'd through it out with the bath water sometimes but hey thems are the brakes!!!!

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 7:55 am Let's stop right there.

Why are you trying to learn a new software then? Why did you not look for a job that required SolidEdge?

Looks to me like you're showing only the side that favors your arguments, not the other side.

Are you trying to start a fight! You stop right there! You apparently don't understand the internet...That's what it's here for...
Canadians...French one at that...

Arthur NY wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 5:46 pm @Pernils So basically what you've done is walk into a pizza restaurant, that specializes in thin crust pizza, and complain that it doesn't taste like deep dish pizza!!! Me I'm a fan and can appreciate both and I think at the heart of this is really what you're missing. This isn't a zero sum game, that there can be "only one". As others have mentioned this is, in some cases, about person choice and preferences. As you have agreed that you haven't had enough time in SW and where the company has sold you short is that you HAVE to take the base training with an instructor. Youtube or online videos only aren't enough. You need to be able to listen to the "why" of something or a certain approach to using a feature in a certain way. That initial 4 day essentials training will 100% help you to better understand SW. That you are having to do all of the extra proving that SE is "better" is a waste of your time. At one point you didn't know SE and you struggled through that, it's not like you are a good today as when you first started. None of us were.

For instance.... using the "Loft" feature vs "Boundary" feature, initially looks like they can produce the same results. But when you really start to put the screws to understanding the how and why of it then it gives context and delineation and situational awareness. This isn't something that you are going to have right away and it certainly isn't helpful that you are switching back and forth at the moment.

It's like learning another language, one of the best ways to learn is to just immerse yourself 100% into, don't just dabble and expect to be great in one day.

Besides you're in a SW heavy user group. We all have our gripes with the software, because it isn't perfect, but it's still our imperfect "CAD Babay"!!!! We'd through it out with the bath water sometimes but hey thems are the brakes!!!!

Jeez, another one of these guys suggesting learning how to use the tool before complaining about it...What's up with internet today?...Next you'll be suggesting he read @matt's book...

Kidding aside, this thread is an exercise in futility. The above advice about the Essential's class is sound advice, and @matt's book is the cheapest alternative if trying to learn SW on a budget. There are good online classes, but most of them are more expensive than Matt's book. So, there's a range of alternatives.
You can do A LOT with SW and most users are just scratching the surface of it's capabilities. It has it's flaws, but it is a good tool.

@mattpeneguy Cheers to that one!!!!

@Pernils You can also go to a website like GrabCAD and download a Solidworks model that, in most cases, has the history tree intact which means that instead of being SO focused on specific nit picky things, you can focus more on overall techniques and what they can do. Now not every person models in am optimized way but it at least shows different ways in which the model can be achieved. Even if it's not a model you might not normally make, it will show a methodology of feature used in such a way that you hadn't thought of.

In the end there's VERY little that SW can make that SE can't that Inventor can't with the tools located in each. The steps to get there might be slightly different in each but once you adjust rather than being some old CAD vet that's been using Autocad for 25 years that's pissed that SW doesn't have a command line to type his way through the software!!! (I've trained these types, it's like kicking and screaming or taking candy from a baby!!!!)

mattpeneguy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:09 pm Are you trying to start a fight! You stop right there! You apparently don't understand the internet...That's what it's here for...
Canadians...French one at that...

I'm not trying to start a fight I have just pointed out some oddines that I have found to this date.

Perhaps you can help me with this (which I find a bit odd.)

I want to replace a file named "plain washer 10669...." with a articel. Checked all intances.. Everything seems okay ... Can save so my part tree must be saved as SW shows on screen.

Closing and reopening the assembly .. And SW have replaced it back again.

Do you have a solution for it ?

Arthur NY wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:49 pm that's pissed that SW doesn't have a command line to type his way through the software!!!

Can't use SW, can't do anything without AutoLISP!!!!!
What happened to Paperspace?

Pernils wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:20 am I'm not trying to start a fight I have just pointed out some oddines that I have found to this date.

Perhaps you can help me with this (which I find a bit odd.)

I want to replace a file named "plain washer 10669...." with a articel.
image.png

Checked all intances..
image.png

Everything seems okay ...
image.png

Can save so my part tree must be saved as SW shows on screen.

Closing and reopening the assembly ..
image.png

And SW have replaced it back again.

Do you have a solution for it ?

Solidworks knows best!
And my comment was directed at @AlexLachance, I was joking that's why it was in purple.

I don't use Replace Component often, but it usually works well for me when I do. What you posted is buggy behavior. I've seen it show up with mate conflicts in sub assemblies and external sketch relations getting lost, but not with Replace Component.

Just the other day I was having an issue and posted here. The advice I got was to reboot. Sure enough, that fixed my problem. I'm not saying that it will definitely fix your problem, but I'd start there.
Next I'd try a Pack and Go of the ASM to a file with a prefix or suffix such that all the files are different named and see if the problem persists. Could the ASM file be "locked", read-only?
I've even had problems such that I had to get into the registry and rename the SW folder and lost all my settings over something similar to what you describe.

I'll concede that I believe IV and SE are much better in this respect. SW is flaky. But, as posted above SW allows the most flexibility, and with that flexibility comes buggy behavior.

Pernils wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:20 am I'm not trying to start a fight I have just pointed out some oddines that I have found to this date.

Perhaps you can help me with this (which I find a bit odd.)

I want to replace a file named "plain washer 10669...." with a articel.
image.png

Checked all intances..
image.png

Everything seems okay ...
image.png

Can save so my part tree must be saved as SW shows on screen.

Closing and reopening the assembly ..
image.png

And SW have replaced it back again.

Do you have a solution for it ?

Did you check if the file even actually saved?


Edit: As a side note and advice, I find hidden messages to be one of the worst 'features' in SolidWorks. Sure you can have them show up again, but the amount of problem caused by these hidden messages is inexplicable.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 8:45 am Did you check if the file even actually saved?

lol....been there, done that, got the t-shirt!

Also, if you are saving to a network drive, and/or a "remote" offsite location (Onedrive/Dropbox) you might have to wait a bit for the assembly to sync up before reopening it. We recently went to Onedrive storage and it takes 5 to 10 minutes sometimes, especially with larger assemblies for it to save a change to the server.

Pernils wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 4:20 am I want to replace a file named "plain washer 10669...." with a articel.

Checked all intances..

Everything seems okay ...

Can save so my part tree must be saved as SW shows on screen.

Closing and reopening the assembly ..


And SW have replaced it back again.

This is intended behavior based on a setting you have checked. First question, do you use toolbox and have it configured or just using it out of the box?

This checkbox here will turn off the auto creation of missing toolbox parts that are not in this location. When you do a "save as" on a Toolbox part, you must either build it using the Toolbox database or use a utility to remove the toolbox flag.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:34 pm This is intended behavior based on a setting you have checked. First question, do you use toolbox and have it configured or just using it out of the box?

This checkbox here will turn off the auto creation of missing toolbox parts that are not in this location. When you do a "save as" on a Toolbox part, you must either build it using the Toolbox database or use a utility to remove the toolbox flag.

image.png

Yes I found later on that I had to uncheck it.
I was messing around with renaming my local "plain washe.." file but SW didn't liked that.

This kind of things could be okay'isch but not the midpoint line thing that I made a video of it. It must be extremely hard for total newbie if the tool for the job show one thing but do another thing little bit random.

Pernils wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:28 am It must be extremely hard for total newbie if the tool for the job show one thing but do another thing little bit random.

Probably much simpler for a total newbie. To use Soliworks after being proficient in Solid Edge you must forcefully forget everything concerning UI; only retain the core, parametric modeling theories. Until you let go of every notion you have about communicating with the program you're going to struggle.

Pernils wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 9:28 am Yes I found later on that I had to uncheck it.
I was messing around with renaming my local "plain washe.." file but SW didn't liked that.

This kind of things could be okay'isch but not the midpoint line thing that I made a video of it. It must be extremely hard for total newbie if the tool for the job show one thing but do another thing little bit random.

I agree, SolidWorks should not allow you to do that or should warn you.....or give the option to remove the Toolbox flag.

You need to rename toolbox parts using the Toolbox Settings program. Same applies if you want to disable or copy and add new toolbox parts.

After some more extensive experience I have to reconsider my statement and I must say SW more or less sucks.

Its inconsistent, clunky and crashfriendly.
I'm also messing around in Freecad due I need the simulation possibility that you have in the optics bench and the modelling weirdness its almost in pair with SW.
This forums page after page of bug talks in the SW section shows also that I'm not totally alone of experience "road bumps" to investigate and testing out ideas by using this product from Dassault.

With that said, I'm happy for those souls that finds this product to fit their needs and thinks that nothing could beats its workflow and user interface.

cheers ..

Oh someone finally see the light LOL

Sometimes it is the person that is self powered in charge of themselves to decide to leave SW. So successful!
I gather that OP decided not to learn.
Good luck in your new job that doesn't use SW.

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 ..

Tom G wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:07 am Sometimes it is the person that is self powered in charge of themselves to decide to leave SW. So successful!
I gather that OP decided not to learn.
Good luck in your new job that doesn't use SW.

It could also be that I'm thinking of what's best for the company.
Lots of molden plastic parts that have lost their history tree. For me this talks in favour of cad software that have built in process to dealing with non history based modelling.
The subdivison modelling in SE could also a push to more creavity designs.

Coworkers that just shrug their shoulders and say .. its a bug ... when I show the oddines.

Pernils wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:15 am 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 ..

Hmmm I wonder how many could see your attachment.

Frederick_Law wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 5:08 pm I wasn't Canadian for that long.
I grow up watching A-Team and Macgyver.

Now we're way off topic

SPEED RACER and AIRWOLF

Pernils wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:00 am After some more extensive experience I have to reconsider my statement and I must say SW more or less sucks.

One more month on the software still doesn't equate to "Extensive experience". That's not to say that SW doesn't "suck" for what "your company does". You need to start posting examples of problems you are running into (In new separate ports for each question please, this one is already too big and it would get lost).

There is a wealth of experience here in all areas of the software. Like any software, it has strengths and weaknesses depending on what you want to do. We can provide the best way to do what you are trying, or straight up tell you.....SolidWorks sucks for that.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:11 pm One more month on the software still doesn't equate to "Extensive experience". That's not to say that SW doesn't "suck" for what "your company does". You need to start posting examples of problems you are running into (In new separate ports for each question please, this one is already too big and it would get lost).

There is a wealth of experience here in all areas of the software. Like any software, it has strengths and weaknesses depending on what you want to do. We can provide the best way to do what you are trying, or straight up tell you.....SolidWorks sucks for that.

I have already posted several cases where i find sw falls short. But it seems that a normal sw user just thinks... nah thats how a cad should behave .. move on . . .

Ok to give another example. Stock install have geometry edges and lines in sketch mode in the same color. (Yes i know that i can edit this) the same goes with construction surfaces. For surfaces it will become hard to distinguish them from the shaded geometry. And you are forced to use them as the crippled replace face will only work with construction surfaces.
If recall correct a open sketch is only allowed to extrude in its normal direction, a closed sketch can be extruded against the normal vector. Go figure.

You are sort of loosing the design intent with this batteling to overcome things that should be a straight forward thing.
I agree that after years "traning" you know where the rattholes are and you go around them.

@Pernils Like I said, post your questions with screenshots in separate posts if your are serious about getting help with the software. No one wants to dig through this post and it's just counter productive.

The BEST CAD SOFTWARE EVER CREATED is the first one you get really proficient at. After that everything else sucks. This goes for whatever range of the software hierarchy you became proficient at. Cheap, Mid-range or high end. Been that way since the first days of CAD.

They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

CAD user since 1988... FWIW

Best one is the one you don't need to use.

@Pernils Just gonna put this line in the sand right here for you so you can stop shoveling your wanting this software to be bad when it's quite capable of doing exactly what you need to do. GET SOME TRAINING!!!!

You're looking for reasons to want to hate the software and that's ok, at least be willing to admit it. No one here thinks this, or any 3D Software is perfect. Most parametric software follow the same paradigm just in slightly different methods. If you don't take the training class that gets you base understanding of why then you and your company are doing yourself a disservice.

You've stated things that show your lack of understanding and then try to pass it off as a short coming of the software.... point in case

- "Ok to give another example. Stock install have geometry edges and lines in sketch mode in the same color."
- This isn't true, sketches are blue when under defined and black when fully defined. Sure edges of models are black but HOW is that a bad thing is beyond me.

- "The same goes with construction surfaces. For surfaces it will become hard to distinguish them from the shaded geometry. And you are forced to use them as the crippled replace face will only work with construction surfaces."
- You are going to have to a better job at explaining exactly what this means to you. Yes if using the surface tools they are the same color as solid geometry for which there are two folders at the top of the feature manager tree that show how many Surface and Solid Bodies are in your model. I've never had any issues with either of the geometry types being the same color. (This is 20+ years of using the software speaking in a wide range of different design and engineering work done). It's generally NOT best practices to use replace face vs just making that geometry as part of the model. But there are times when it is needed.

- "If recall correct a open sketch is only allowed to extrude in its normal direction, a closed sketch can be extruded against the normal vector. Go figure."
- Again you are showing more of what you lack in understanding..... there is ALWAYS a direction vector box in the property manager when using the extrude feature that allows both open and closed sketches to not have to go normal.

There are some big advantages to SubD modeling when in the early design phases. I use this type of direct modeling all the time and I know when and how to leverage it to get the best out of it for what I need to do. As others have posted what example can you point to or show where and why you're having issues or show a model that you know needs SubD modeling that can't be done with the tools in Solidworks. I'm not saying that Solidworks is the be all end all but you've got a lot to learn and you're choosing to be stubborn about wanting to take the time actually learn.

I'm not sorry for sounding a bit harsh but you really needed a wake up call. You need to ask your senior manager to have you take the base training course so that you get a base understanding of the software. You have to put your time in before you can start to really come here and make brash statements that aren't really based in reality.

Geez, let the guy stir his glass of water and make it seem like it's a huge storm, if he doesn't want to see past the glass then there's no point in trying to show him further then that. He's already shown plenty of times that he isn't trying to learn the software, he's trying to convince people that the previous software he used is better then the one he's being told to use.

This feels like when the company I work for transitionned from AutoCAD 2000 to SolidWorks.

"BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER AND FASTER TO STRETCH ON AUTOCAD"

lol...

"I can draw faster on a piece of tissue"

I might actually agree with him that the software sucks for what's he's doing if he would actually post examples of what his company needs the software to do. But so far, the examples have been fairly basic and nitpicking small things. Post screenshots, setup the use case.....and create a new thread for each so we aren't buried in this already negative thread.

The point I think he misses (and with which I am currently struggling) is that the cost to change is enormous. I would love to abandon solidworks, but even for an operation with a single license, I can spend a lot time cussing solidworks and rebooting and still be ahead when compared to the cost of migrating all of my data and re-training me.

SPerman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:08 am the cost of migrating all of my data

The question is, how much data really need migrating?
I can see most can be archive and never get use again.

Frederick_Law wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:46 am The question is, how much data really need migrating?
I can see most can be archive and never get use again.

Boo Hsss. Now you sound like the VAR trying to sell the other CAD system.

In some cases, yeah much can be archived or simply imported as dumb solids.

In other cases (one of which I am painfully close to), every part needs a model, a real model with features that can be maintained, revised and copied to new similar parts for eternity. Furthermore, similar parts like hardware and groups of similar but different interchangeable parts should all be spawned from one initial model for the sake of consistent geometry IDs. Coordinating that is difficult when everyone just takes part numbers and starts modeling in the new system.

I could go on with paragraphs of all the potential pitfalls full of sharpened stakes and fecal matter involved with changing CAD systems, but I'll just stop here.

Exactly, it depend on the company and products.
Looking at companies I worked at and current one.
Lots of old products just run on old drawings.
Lots not even in production.
Current projects could be done in any CAD.

Lots of old files are there just because "we want to keep it".
I'm trying to "keep" them somewhere I won't see daily.

A CAD change means a new start with clean plates.

We still sell the first product we developed. I can't just abandon all of my legacy data.

SolidMuse wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:57 pm The BEST CAD software ever created is the first one you get really proficient at. After that everything else sucks. This goes for whatever range of the software hierarchy you became proficient at. Cheap, Mid-range or high end.

Mostly true, although my first 3d cad system was Catia V4 for 3 years, and when we started looking at Solid Edge and SolidWorks in the late 90s, it was like a breath of fresh air. For what we did (mechanical design), they blew Catia v4 away. Part of the reason was we couldn't afford all of the fancy Catia modules we really needed. And v4 didn't do parametric sketching well at all. We switch to SolidWorks and never regretted it.

I started on Autocad and still use it for some things, we use LT version since it's pretty cheap and doing 2D stuff in it is easy.

But I use my seat of Solidworks much more often for more things. Doing assemblies and drawings in SW is way easier and much faster to make changes.

jcapriotti wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:12 pm Mostly true, although my first 3d cad system was Catia V4 for 3 years, and when we started looking at Solid Edge and SolidWorks in the late 90s, it was like a breath of fresh air. For what we did (mechanical design), they blew Catia v4 away. Part of the reason was we couldn't afford all of the fancy Catia modules we really needed. And v4 didn't do parametric sketching well at all. We switch to SolidWorks and never regretted it.

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.

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:51 am 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.

That's the dirty little secret that DSS doesn't want you to know about. And you better believe it will be very time consuming and costly to extricate your data from that cloud. There's no incentive for them to make it easy...The reverse is actually true.

Edit to Add: The above could just happen organically. Being able to extricate your data has to be planned out in the system. And there's absolutely no motivation for them to expend the resources on that. So, even if it isn't maliciously planned out, it'll still be the case. How can they justify to the stock holders that they are expending resources on making it easy for customers to leave their platform?...not gonna happen...

AlexLachance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:51 am 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.

We need to store data in a format that can be reuse.