jon_banquer wrote:
>>Really ignorant
>
>
> Gary Knutson who is totally incapable of addressing the following:
>
> 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
>
>
In other words, you want something that you can use without putting
forth any real effort (watching videos probably isn't enough). Probably
not going to happen.
I don't really have any issues with the items you list and I use SW
almost daily for items that range from prismatic to "swoopy" for both
parts and assemblies. Seem to work just fine. Could it be better? I
am sure that any software could be "improved".
With my somewhat limited (not daily) experience with UGNX, Wildfire and
CatiaV5 I really don't see a whole lot of difference. They all do
things somewhat differently with the same end result - a useable
model/assembly and drawings (if needed). IMO, SW is the easiest to
learn but that term is relative.
That help, Jonnie?
gk
|
