• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

engineering reference non gira sulla 20x64

  • Thread starter Thread starter gerod
  • Start date Start date

gerod

Guest
another discovery not pleasant. one buys the 64-bit machine, mounts the 64-bit ox and then discovers that the solid edge features were not all developed.
one of these is the engineering reference that does not go on 20!
Yay! !
 
I understand gerod!!!I also told you in another post and I am inc@@@@@ato nero with the seller!! !for that it is 20 years that we always renew the license and instead of always promoting the positive characteristics every now and then you should be serious and say also any problems.cmq if you can console the 64 bit for er it only works with st2, only that from me the customer works with the 20 for which I too have been screwed!
 
I agree!
These are limits! !
Fortunately, we have a floating license in the office and can by-pass the problem even if it is not a proper way of working! You're losing us a lot of time!
 
64bit was requested back!
will also be written, in like all contracts!

It's like I bought the same petrol car model with the spare wheel. then I take the diesel model and I don't find it (dog, I find it just when I drilled!).
but on the manual it was written! ! !
Hi.
 
gerod said:
64bit was requested back!
will also be written, in like all contracts!

It's like I bought the same petrol car model with the spare wheel. then I take the diesel model and I don't find it (dog, I find it just when I drilled!).
but on the manual it was written! ! !
Hi.
Click to expand...
in fact not in all cars is given the spare wheel. :biggrin:

Hi.
 
I have the impression that the passage to the siemens did not do you too well.
I had already expressed myself a couple of years ago on the subject... and someone made spatters.
st is not having the great success that was desired, customers are pissed black in most cases, and does not have the gift of reversibility, in the sense that or work in one way or another.
At this point it is worth having two software, and if you have to choose a contextual software you know well what is the one that works properly.

the contextual technology I see fit with a real advantage in very few areas.
parametric technology, in most contexts, is unsurpassed:
1) because it allows you to change and control very quickly on complex assemblies;
2) because the table is a fairy tale, all the quotas I used for the construction I find them in drawing environment.
trying to integrate two ways of working in one software does not seem like a great product strategy.

the problem then of the packages in part to 64 and in part to 32 bit is worthy of low profile companies ... not of a leviathan like the siemes
 
maxopus said:
the problem then of the packages in part to 64 and in part to 32 bit is worthy of low profile companies ... not of a leviathan like the siemes
Click to expand...
Sometimes I think that developing if they were left in 3 or 4, the rest all fired to increase profits. difficult otherwise to understand how many mistakes can be made in such a short time, after so many years of excellent quality. . .
 
cacciatorino said:
Sometimes I think that developing if they were left in 3 or 4, the rest all fired to increase profits. difficult otherwise to understand how many mistakes can be made in such a short time, after so many years of excellent quality. . .
Click to expand...
really have never been many.

france
 
maxopus said:
I have the impression that the passage to the siemens did not do you too well.
I had already expressed myself a couple of years ago on the subject... and someone made spatters.
st is not having the great success that was desired, customers are pissed black in most cases, and does not have the gift of reversibility, in the sense that or work in one way or another.
At this point it is worth having two software, and if you have to choose a contextual software you know well what is the one that works properly.

the contextual technology I see fit with a real advantage in very few areas.
parametric technology, in most contexts, is unsurpassed:
1) because it allows you to change and control very quickly on complex assemblies;
2) because the table is a fairy tale, all the quotas I used for the construction I find them in drawing environment.
trying to integrate two ways of working in one software does not seem like a great product strategy.

the problem then of the packages in part to 64 and in part to 32 bit is worthy of low profile companies ... not of a leviathan like the siemes
Click to expand...
If you're referring to osd, maybe there's a bottom misunderstanding.

It is true that the st is contextual, but it actually has many more things, such as the possibility to impose relationships to contextual changes (imposing that two faces should form a certain angle, that they should remain parallel with or without offset, etc), which for which on osd you need an additional module, and also in the st the model can be modified also by editing the guide quotas, which is ultimately not seeming to me.

Plus with se-st you can create mixed assemblies with traditional parts and synchronous parts, thus leaving the user the freedom of choice on which methodology is preferable part by side, and you obviously have the constraints of assemblies!

The reason why users are pissed off in my opinion is mainly the new interface, and the fact that to develop synchronous technology has practically abandoned itself traditional mode, which from a couple of releases has nothing new. Then there are other reasons but that have nothing to do with st but well with the trade policy of siemens that is totally indisposable to customers, as if they were not the customers themselves who eventually keep the boat afloat.
 
maxopus said:
a question answer, osd from 20 turns to the st package of siemens.
Click to expand...
Look, I think we're both good at stretching-torci-accorcia-long. st problems jump out when you go to do more complex things, than in osd are not taken into consideration.....
 
cacciatorino said:
Look, I think we're both good at stretching-torci-accorcia-long. st problems jump out when you go to do more complex things, than in osd are not taken into consideration.....
Click to expand...
probably before launching "more complex" things should be tested.
If those of osd haven't introduced them yet, one reason I think there is.

It's like the multi-corps speech never introduced by ptc in solid modeling.
What do you think it's nice not to give the customers happy?
the problem is that that type of modeling (cut, weld, cuckoos stretch) in the same part, at the end of the fair leads you to make monstrous cases (I have seen them really big) and the model often becomes uncontrollable and very heavy to handle.
I never needed the multibody, and I don't feel any lack of it, but there are people who are now able to shape just like that.
multibody... if you know it, avoid:biggrin:
 
maxopus said:
probably before launching "more complex" things should be tested.
If those of osd haven't introduced them yet, one reason I think there is.
Click to expand...
the most complex things can do even osd, but since the parametric module doesn't buy it anyone, we can't know if using it in push maneira they can happen or not. And anyway we're talking about a cad that's been on the market for over twenty years, clearly that its workflow has been optimized.


the problem of the st, to read the comments of the users on the American forum, is that if you claim to bind univocally (and who is accustomed to the parametric has a sort of horror vacui to leave untied primitives), then it is very easy to fall into the extreme opposite, and that is to have superwined and therefore unmistakable models. It is also on this that the group of developers is currently working on if, that is, trying to figure out how to make the user intelligible with the constraints on the model.

However it seems the st is not mature enough to be used in production, at least to hear user comments.
 
cacciatorino said:
However it seems the st is not mature enough to be used in production, at least to hear user comments.
Click to expand...
That's the hunting point.
2 years ago they said it would be the revolution of the world cad.
in the rush to feed something revolutionary have thrown on the market an immature product.
They would have done better to be quiet for 3 years, develop how much they had to, and once tested properly, go out with valid product.

So they're risking losing their credibility in so many years.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top