On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:12:58 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
<jon_banquer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 8:59 am, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> http://dezignstuff.com/blog/2007/02/27/solidmap/
>>
>> "In particular, SolidMap would have value to me if it had stuff that
>> is either difficult or impossible to get from SolidWorks currently:
>>
>> - detail about incontext relations (sketch, feature, part, assembly)
>> - warnings about circular relations in assemblies
>> - warnings about relations to things in assemblies that require
>> multiple rebuilds (incontext features, component patterns, etc.)
>> - the interface to be laid out so you can see more than a few features
>> at a time
>> - option to show the feature tree in a purely history based
>> representation (not indented and reordered for parent/child)
>> - identify orphan features (have no relatives in the tree, and also
>> features with no children in the tree)
>> - information about inserted parts, split parts, etc.
>> - information about references as relating to configurations
>> - possibly combine Feature Statistics, since that info is already
>> available"
>>
>> Jon Banquer
>> San Diego, CA
>
>Bump
[
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:42:13 -0800 (PST), larryrozer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(jon
banquer)
wrote:
>>Your wallet gets _much_ lighter. That's definitely a real world benefit
>>if you're working on lowering the cars left side weight percentage.
>
>Don't really know what you have got yourself involved in but here are
>some of my thoughts :>) :
>
>One of the major problems in building race engines for a living is
>that you have to have customers who really want to spend very large
>dollars. Without this type of customer you can't purchase the
>technology / equipment that you need to stay competitive. Many / most
>high performance engine customers have no clue how much work and money
>it really takes to build / develop an engine properly.
>
>I don't think it's any accident that Edelbrock is a lot more
>successful than Crower. One big reason is Edelbrock is a better
>businessman than Crower is. I doubt he's the kind of thinker that old
>man Crower is. Edelbrock can now invest a lot more money in R&D and in
>people than Crower can and this really has hurt Crower. While Crower
>uses SolidWorks and CAMWorks, Edelbrock uses Pro/E. It costs a lot
>more money to find, keep and train Pro/E users. Are the benefits
>always worth it to use Pro/E? No they aren't, especially in a
>machining job shop, but in Edelbrocks and many other company's cases
>it most certainly is worth it.
>
>http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_new/misc/company/about_the_company.shtml
>
>"Beginning with Pro/Engineer(R), this sophisticated design program
>utilizes 3D imagery to produce an exact rendering that can be made
>into a working composite model using a rapid prototyping process known
>as Stereolithography. The sample is so accurate that it can be tested
>as if it were the finished product using tools like our SuperFlow SF
>1020 Flowbench. It can then be modified for optimum performance before
>it even makes production, saving countless man-hours. The R&D process
>improves the product while it's being developed, and is a true
>testament of the commitment to performance that goes into all of our
>products."
Does anybody else need further proof that he's a CAD/CAM clueless
drooling idiot?
]
--
Cliff
|
