Comments on: Siemens PLM Excites Onlookers With ‘New’ 3D CAD Technology; Many Soaked

By: svenomatic

svenomatic — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:04:10 +0000

I apologize to Bob. We work in different worlds.

By: svenomatic

svenomatic — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:04:10 +0000

I apologize to Bob. We work in different worlds.

By: Bob Mileti

Bob Mileti — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:52:58 +0000

@svenomatic – I don’t understand you attacking me just because I made a very common mis-spelling of Michelangelo on this blog. You then go on to ridicule me as to the fact that I am an Industrial Designer (by education) however most of my day is spent as a Design Engineer in the development of custom packaging equipment and not an Industrial Engineer as you mis-state above. Again the personal attacks on me personally on such trivial points is totally off base.Seems like your more interested in insulting others then explaining yourself… Start by trying to explain why a vendor needs to see the history tree of a finished part…What’s with you svenomatic?

By: svenomatic

svenomatic — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:25:20 +0000

Okay Michaelangelo. It’s Michelangelo – if you refer to the Italian renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer. Here you are an Industrial Designer and on Matt’s blog you claim to be an Industrial Engineer. I think you are an Industrial Chameleon. I hope Siemens is good to you. Everyone in the field knows the creative part happens 90% pre-CAD. But that is the curvy stuff and figuring out what features and tricks the product will have. A box full of napkin sketches and all the other wall paper created make for good history. I’m thinking more of what happens after. The structural stuff you know? And what about collisions and interferences? If you would work on very large or very complex products, which Michelangelo didn’t, let’s say a 65 meter yacht, you will deal with lots of different people in lots of different disciplines plus vendors, sub-contractors, etc. Some of them just need to know what you did; on the mechanical level; to be able to wrap their bean around the project. And if they can roll back and forth you have much less explaining to do. Let me ask you: What about “In Context Features” and “External References”?

I am not saying I don’t want “ST” – if it is the real thing. If it really works and it comes to a CAD application on a computer near me, I will take it in with vigor and excitement and use it to my fullest advantage. I would enjoy doing swoopy stuff faster. All I’m saying is that the old tree is not a bad thing to have around.

By: Bob Mileti

Bob Mileti — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:02:46 +0000

Svenomatic: “I am an Industrial Designer now and I am being asked almost every day: “How did you come up with this idea; thing; beauty; monster? One will have to explain. There is a tread you can follow back – if you have a tree.”

Sorry but I doubt Michaelangelo was asked to explain how he came up with David… nor did he need a history tree to create other great pieces of art and design.

As an Industrial Designer as well, I look at CAD as just another tool in the process. Hand sketches for ideation and CAD for documentation is my principle method for design. Anyone who relies on tools available in CAD for inspiration are limiting their ability to be creative in my opinion.

Why I’m so enthused about ST in Solid Edge, is because for the first time there’s a CAD program that now favors creativity versus the documentation side of the process. The History may be helpful in recreating the documentation part of the model, but it certainly has no critical place in the creative development of a design.

If you let your “boss” define your value by your creative solutions simply by the “history tree” in a CAD model, then he/she has no true understanding of design or problem solving.

Furthermore the pinnacle of good design, is simplicity… and unfortunately for the designer it’ll always seem obvious once completed. The truth is: “simple is hard” and “complicated is easy”; so therefore forget about validating a good design with a history tree and stop defining your good design by giving credit to the CAD program. Software is only a tool and hopefully ST will be a better one then we have now.

By: svenomatic

svenomatic — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:19:24 +0000

It’s always hard to except the new and especially if it looks like it’s a threat to how things are being done in the field by us, the crème de la crème. Everyone will catch up and the pros will still be the pros. Being able to build something with a tree will still be valuable because that is something that will never completely go away. With a tree you can reason and explain why and how one came up with a specific design. If you have no history it will be hard to remember how the darn thing evolved. Evolution is more important than we want to admit. I am an Industrial Designer now and I am being asked almost every day: “How did you come up with this idea; thing; beauty; monster? One will have to explain. There is a tread you can follow back – if you have a tree. Bosses and customers get turned off if you tell them you just came up with it out of the blue or – you went through too many steps to trace back how you got here, there, whatever. Does Synchronous Technology keep a history of what has been changed? when and where? It will be important. New tricks will be helpful but old once are better. I was trained as a model maker in the late eighties when CAD was synchronous with G-code. When the real CAD back then like Pro-E and Alias|Studio rolled around, everyone said model making is dead. And look – they still build scale models out of tangible materials today; and lots of them. Solidworks and CATIA will catch up. Everyone will catch up. It’s the nature of evolution. But then there is SketchUp and it’s free. Has anyone lost their job to someone who can do SketchUp? Embrace the new and enjoy the old.

By: Jon Banquer

Jon Banquer — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:07:15 +0000

I’ve put links to all the Synchronous Technology videos posted to You Tube on my blog along with descriptions of what they show so others can see just how powerful Synchronous Technology is for themselves.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

By: Bob Mileti

Bob Mileti — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:51:31 +0000

Josh, I watched a demo whereby a CNC Vise was widened using ST. It allowed full freedom to widen the vise using symmetry (from center) to all parts associated with the edit. You had full capability to select which parts were edited, and the beauty was this was all done at the Assembly level. Also features were graphed from one part to another from within the Assembly. In the past things like this could cause a “ripple effect” through the other parts that had associative relationships with the one part being edited. This in itself will save countless hours.

I’ve been using CAD for over 25 years and I’m very reserved in my enthusiasm for new technologies unless they are smart and intuitive. I’d be the first person to cry foul, if this was just smoke and mirrors. Sure there may be a few bumps in the road early on, but from what I saw first hand, I’m truly impressed. This reminds me of when I moved from wire frame CAD to parametric CAD. It’s that refreshing!

By: Jon Banquer

Jon Banquer — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:32:32 +0000

Bob,

I agree with you when you say it’s “game changing” technology. It’s just pathetic to see Synchronous Technology labeled/called “Ho-Hum” technology by those who have no clue and are just covering their own SolidWorks special interests.

I think someone should be asking Mike Payne of SpaceClaim how long it would take to integrate SpaceClaim technology with SolidWorks or Inventor and if the same level or greater of functionality could be obtained that Siemens has shown they have with Solid Edge and NX with Synchronous Technology.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:16:23 +0000

Hey Bob! Thanks for the comment. Fill us in! I think the Live Rules and active dimensioning of the solid are the most attractive feature to me. I’m wondering how it all acts with complicated parts and assemblies. any thoughts?

By: Bob Mileti

Bob Mileti — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:11:21 +0000

Wow what a lot of sour grapes… I played with this yesterday at the EASTEC show and trust me IronCAD, Spaceclaim, and Co-Create can’t hold a candle to Synchronous Technology. Most here who are being critical sound like those AutoCAD users who still insist they can still out perform any 3D modeler with AC12.

This is “game changing” technology, and if your so entrenched in your ways then that’s fine. Just don’t mouth off about anything you have no real understanding of. I only hope this thread is so quiet over the past 10 days is due to reality setting in!

By: Jon Banquer

Jon Banquer — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:01:50 +0000

Synchronous Technology is a tool that has been badly needed for many years in SolidWorks. Why aren’t more people demanding to know when SolidWorks will have it? Perhaps because many/most SolidWorks users get paid to remodel the part. Perhaps because many/most SolidWorks users think they own their design intent for life and don’t want others to modify their model? Siemens/UGS has the potential to tap into this frustration on the part of many of us who are sick of being held hostage in this manner.

By: hui2008

hui2008 — Sun, 11 May 2008 09:14:18 +0000

I am newer here, but I would like say “Synchronous Technology is a good thing.”

By: hui2008

hui2008 — Sun, 11 May 2008 09:14:18 +0000

I am newer here, but I would like say “Synchronous Technology is a good thing.”

By: CADMan

CADMan — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:25:14 +0000

The ability to have history and non-history in a single environment has been enjoyed by IronCAD users for over 10 years now. Many systems are either non-history or history. As mentioned, many are trying to add the non-history editing to the history environment. However, there are many other aspects that really help make the system more productive to the user in addition to this functionality. For IronCAD users, these announcements are old news and others are really now just scratching the surface.