but do we really know our cad?

[painaz]

It's a question, but also a kind of survey.

leave from a personal statement: I use little surfaces, I always associated them with modeling carriages or similar things. However, almost by game, modeling the head of a motor and the base I tried to use them and the first thing I thought was "holy, but why did I never use them before? "
for example on the head I found convenient to shape for surfaces valve ducts, valve seat, candle hole. then, find the surfaces, I made the external skin, sewn everything and solidified.

It is the classic question of Friday to chat, but in my opinion it is also an interesting point: discussions on the various cads, on who is the best and the "longer" are a classic. But when I read them I always feel that they are false by the fact that few, really few (and I certainly are not among those), really exploit all the tools that this and that cad make available.

p.s: use wildfire 4 for years and recently solidworks for work.

 

[cacciatorino]

It's a question, but also a kind of survey.

leave from a personal statement: I use little surfaces, I always associated them with modeling carriages or similar things. However, almost by game, modeling the head of a motor and the base I tried to use them and the first thing I thought was "holy, but why did I never use them before? "
for example on the head I found convenient to shape for surfaces valve ducts, valve seat, candle hole. then, find the surfaces, I made the external skin, sewn everything and solidified.

It is the classic question of Friday to chat, but in my opinion it is also an interesting point: discussions on the various cads, on who is the best and the "longer" are a classic. But when I read them I always feel that they are false by the fact that few, really few (and I certainly are not among those), really exploit all the tools that this and that cad make available.

p.s: use wildfire 4 for years and recently solidworks for work.

is the subject with which the cocreate technician tells me that he can sell the cad to mechanical companies: It is true that the parametric are more powerful, but it turns out to be too complex for the average user (medium as to skills and motivation) that is in the technical offices. Let's take into account that we frequent the forum are all power-users more or less, if it does not anchoara as to skills at least for motivation, which then is what will lead us to be competent in the future.

given the meditude, or mediocrity, of the designers, better a tool perhaps not powerful, but simple to use.

 

[numero1]

It's a question, but also a kind of survey.

leave from a personal statement: I use little surfaces, I always associated them with modeling carriages or similar things. However, almost by game, modeling the head of a motor and the base I tried to use them and the first thing I thought was "holy, but why did I never use them before? "
for example on the head I found convenient to shape for surfaces valve ducts, valve seat, candle hole. then, find the surfaces, I made the external skin, sewn everything and solidified.

It is the classic question of Friday to chat, but in my opinion it is also an interesting point: discussions on the various cads, on who is the best and the "longer" are a classic. But when I read them I always feel that they are false by the fact that few, really few (and I certainly are not among those), really exploit all the tools that this and that cad make available.

p.s: use wildfire 4 for years and recently solidworks for work.

The answer is noooooooooooooo
I started out in the far 88 with autocad to pull lines and lines, and I jumped from one cad to another, and this probably was a damage.
but still today, talking about autocad that is the sw I know better I would say............. Well, I think I know how to use 20% of his skills.
Maybe I'm too hypercritical to myself, but at least they took out a release every 2/3 years, and not one a year.
You don't even have the physical time to get used to that......... :

 

[re_solidworks]

the average you see is quite low... There is still a reverse of the medal: If you really know your cad can't change anymore, or at least you do an incredible effort.

 

[painaz]

Today, for example, I realized a very trivial trick that I had never noticed: on the wildfire, even the old ones, you can make a copy-paste of the parameters between two parts. At the time I even studied modelcheck to do this.

 

[painaz]

The answer is noooooooooooooo
I started out in the far 88 with autocad to pull lines and lines, and I jumped from one cad to another, and this probably was a damage.
but still today, talking about autocad that is the sw I know better I would say............. Well, I think I know how to use 20% of his skills.
Maybe I'm too hypercritical to myself, but at least they took out a release every 2/3 years, and not one a year.
You don't even have the physical time to get used to that......... :

In my opinion, the worst problem is that the average small companies in general do not recognize the undue benefits of training.
So, as a self-taught, when you find a solution, you do it simply because you do not have time to delve into the problem and see if there is another one or it is worth changing approach. another example that comes to mind for ptc products is that in general few use "motion skeleton" (and there are also very few examples and tutorials around), which are not even a novelty: if I don't remember badly they were introduced with wildfire 3.
However, those ten minutes a day that a correct approach saves you the correct procedures over a year will reward you with the training investment. not to mention that the models (we don't talk about complex assemblies..) well set hold well the changes and reuse, which in general with the parametric is always delicate.

 

[numero1]

the average you see is quite low... There is still a reverse of the medal: If you really know your cad can't change anymore, or at least you do an incredible effort.

Right, the reverse of the medal.........

In my opinion, the worst problem is that the average small companies in general do not recognize the undue benefits of training.
So, as a self-taught, when you find a solution, you do it simply because you do not have time to delve into the problem and see if there is another one or it is worth changing approach. another example that comes to mind for ptc products is that in general few use "motion skeleton" (and there are also very few examples and tutorials around), which are not even a novelty: if I don't remember badly they were introduced with wildfire 3.
However, those ten minutes a day that a correct approach saves you the correct procedures over a year will reward you with the training investment. not to mention that the models (we don't talk about complex assemblies..) well set hold well the changes and reuse, which in general with the parametric is always delicate.

ah... the training courses, always to hear the usual phrases, that the course does not need, that there is to work, that, that.......
When 10 100 1000 hours of training, if done well, they save you a mountain of hours later.

 

[calacc]

the average you see is quite low... There is still a reverse of the medal: If you really know your cad can't change anymore, or at least you do an incredible effort.

I honestly don't see a connection between the two things. In my opinion, there is no "rovex of the medal" between knowing in depth a cad and struggling to change. I see them as two completely distinct things.
the difficulty of changing cad is only a mental obstacle that must be overcome. instinctively a user is reluctant to change because it is something that destabilizes and exposes to risks of error.

 

[cacciatorino]

the difficulty of changing cad is only a mental obstacle that must be overcome. instinctively a user is reluctant to change because it is something that destabilizes and exposes to risks of error.

More than an emotional or psychological problem, it's just that it's more time to do certain things than the old cad were automatic. So this involves a drastic drop in productivity and therefore gains in the first period.

 

[tartufon80]

:finger:

as far as I'm concerned, it's "maybe! at least one..."

ah... the training courses, always to hear the usual phrases, that the course does not need, that there is to work, that, that.......
When 10 100 1000 hours of training, if done well, they save you a mountain of hours later.

I agree with you number1, it is the "if done well" that does not hold in your speech!!! I'm polemic of course!
To make you understand what you say to those who pay, but also to those who do not pay, it is very difficult.
so then what says re_solidworks, which I share. It's a situation where I find myself firsthand: I know what I need but it's not said it's the best I can do.

the example of painaz on the use of surfaces is soothing!

the sellers know and take advantage of it, as it says hunter, without anything to remove to the specific tool mentioned by him that I do not know, and that maybe it goes well for many applications.

 

[tartufon80]

I honestly don't see a connection between the two things. In my opinion, there is no "rovex of the medal" between knowing in depth a cad and struggling to change. I see them as two completely distinct things.
the difficulty of changing cad is only a mental obstacle that must be overcome. instinctively a user is reluctant to change because it is something that destabilizes and exposes to risks of error.

Bye-bye!

I lived this thing personally: the more time I spent with a cad, and the more time I used to go to regime with the new one.
Surely there is a subjective component, but also hearing other colleagues, more or less have had my own impressions.
who averagely changes falls every 2-3 years, will not know him well, but passes from one to another with more simplicity.

I'm afraid we're going.

 

[calacc]

More than an emotional or psychological problem, it's just that it's more time to do certain things than the old cad were automatic. So this involves a drastic drop in productivity and therefore gains in the first period.

This is why training and on-job training sessions are needed. I'm not free to realize, so you always have to do a cost analysis before you decide whether or not you should.