What are the major bugs in IV?

[deckart]

Our company is having some Autodesk people over today to sell us on using IV exclusively. Our company works primarily in AutoCAD. Definately getting into the "solids" environment a little late in the game. We've had two licenses of IV for a couple of years now so I learned it for hydraulic manifold design. Works great for manifolds. But, the rest of our company is mechanical engineers and designers that work in 2D. We build large mining machines with enormous structures and conveyor systems. I've been invited to the meeting. For the sake of the mechanical designers, what are some questions I should ask? What are the bugs? Seeing the issues that others are having and knowing that I have some influence on 30 seats of a modeling package, I'm feeling a bit awkward about promoting IV. What are some hard questions you would be asking?

Dennis Eckart
Hydraulic Designer
Rahco, Int'l

[chris88]

I must agree with Jeff. The 2D drawing editor needs quite a bit of refinement. Setting up title blocks and reusing ACAD data using the IV6 tools (sketched symbols and draft views) can be very fustrating for seasoned ACAD users.

I have been a ACAD user for 10 years, SW user for 4 years, and have used Inventor 6 since it was released. SW seems to have an edge with large assembly performance, 3D sketching (pipe/wire routing), it is far better at exporting to ACAD (it supports layers assigned to individual parts), and the assembly/part configurations are much easier to use than the iPart factories.

Another dissapointing experience has been the higher number of small bugs in both parts and assemblies with Inventor. I've have many more calls to the VAR with IV6 in one year that I had with 4 years of SW.

I think IV6 has alot of potential, but it is a less mature package than SW. I'm hopeful that Autodesk will have a better product in a year or two, because I saw SW make big improvements during the same time span.

Perhaps my observations are a bit biased to SW, but I feel I've got past the user interface learing curve of IV6 to where I can offer some useful information to help you ask the right questions.

Respectfully,
Chris H.

[Anonymous]

deckart wrote:
> Good stuff, thank you, Quinn. I see your approach. We definately need to
> look an structured way of implementing IV (if that's what management
> decides on) into our way of doing things. And, luckily, I don't think
> I'll be stuck with the training and structuring side of the package. Not
> officially anyway. Thanks everyone for your input. Off to the meeting I go.

It's the unofficial CAD manger/Guru/Trainer responsibilities that will
make you wish your parents had never meet.

--
Hal Gwin
Mechanical Designer
Xenogen

Dell Precision 650
Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon
1.5 GB DDR
Quadro4 900 XGL
nVidia 6.14.10.4351 drivers
Dell UltraSharp 19" LCD

[Anonymous]

Dennis,

You specifically said, " implementing IV into our way of doing things".

With that attitude, you are already dead in the water. 3D design systems
don't adapt to your (company's) way.... you adapt to it.

Whatever deal is construed, if something gets fouled up a 6months or a year
down the road, make darn sure they can be held accountable for not setting
you straight with your implementation in the first place. It is a nightmare
(to put it mildly) to go in and make things work at a later date.

QBZ


"deckart" wrote in message
news:f17b8e5.16@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Good stuff, thank you, Quinn. I see your approach. We definately need to
look an structured way of implementing IV (if that's what management decides
on) into our way of doing things. And, luckily, I don't think I'll be stuck
with the training and structuring side of the package. Not officially
anyway. Thanks everyone for your input. Off to the meeting I go.

[Anonymous]

I've reset my goals for Inventor (or any modeling package for that matter).
Now I try to a better job on the design project using 3D, try for a similar
time frame as 2D design but measure success in quality of work rather than
the time clocked on the job.

That is what makes ugly .idw's most frustrating.

Anthony


"Quinn Zander" wrote in message
news:2C087C95AE884878B8E6946AD3F6EF9E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Dennis,

> If at any time anyone says anything about IV and 3D design in general
being
> "faster" than 2D, pull the fire extinguisher off the wall and blast him a
> few times. If they insist on such mockery, throw the extinguisher at him
and
> drag him outside to bake in the hot sun for a few hours.
>
> Prepare for war.
>
> QBZ

[Anonymous]

Absolutely.

This is the change in attitude that is needed for a 3D design system to
work.

Quality ends up taking the precedence over raw "speed". Those that cannot
accept this will ultimately fail in their implementation.

From what I've seen over the last while, the point of "enlightenment" (the
point in time where a designer/team says Ahhhh.... it'll work) comes about
as quick in 3D as it did in 2D, but, it is my opinion that when that point
is hit, it is more defined. When the initial point is hit in 2D, there
always seems to be more information needed. In 3D, more of the whole scope
of the challenges and their questions are answered.

Unfortunately, for those who would continue to lie to their customers just
to make a sale, this is where 3D flatlines on the production graph. The idea
is solid, the design is basically proven, but a whole wack of
modelling/detailing must be now done to actually get the product out to the
shop. With 2D, you basically print out your "enlightenment" drawings and
start building.

If I was a lie through my teeth software pushing promise breaking sales
idiot representing any 3D design VAR, I'd be VERY weary of 20pound dry
chemical fire extinguishers hanging on the walls in any boardrooms.

QBZ

presentation to ensure 100% product dispersion>

"Anthony Fettig" wrote in message
news:584773A5D0DF27D0E0712F2A9986A000@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I've reset my goals for Inventor (or any modeling package for that
matter).
> Now I try to a better job on the design project using 3D, try for a
similar
> time frame as 2D design but measure success in quality of work rather than
> the time clocked on the job.
>
> That is what makes ugly .idw's most frustrating.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> "Quinn Zander" wrote in message
> news:2C087C95AE884878B8E6946AD3F6EF9E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Dennis,
>
> > If at any time anyone says anything about IV and 3D design in general
> being
> > "faster" than 2D, pull the fire extinguisher off the wall and blast him
a
> > few times. If they insist on such mockery, throw the extinguisher at him
> and
> > drag him outside to bake in the hot sun for a few hours.
> >
> > Prepare for war.
> >
> > QBZ
>
>

[Anonymous]

> With that attitude, you are already dead in the water. 3D design systems
> don't adapt to your (company's) way.... you adapt to it.

Amen Brother Zander. If people realized this sooner things would go a lot
smoother.

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Quinn Zander" wrote in message
news:E49C9CAC974BF399D0AD6B903EED0816@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Dennis,
>
> You specifically said, " implementing IV into our way of doing things".
>
> With that attitude, you are already dead in the water. 3D design systems
> don't adapt to your (company's) way.... you adapt to it.

[Anonymous]

Are you looking for "just" a design package or
more, say integration with your logistical and financial department trough f.i.
ERP? Anyway you will definitely need some way to organize your files, especially
when groups are working on the same data set. So look beyond just the CAD
possibilities. You will find Inventor has some real value there.

Jerry

style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

"deckart" <
href="mailto:denniseckart@yahoo.com">denniseckart@yahoo.com> schreef in
bericht
href="news:f17b8e5.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f17b8e5.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Our
company is having some Autodesk people over today to sell us on using IV
exclusively. Our company works primarily in AutoCAD. Definately getting into
the "solids" environment a little late in the game. We've had two licenses of
IV for a couple of years now so I learned it for hydraulic manifold design.
Works great for manifolds. But, the rest of our company is mechanical
engineers and designers that work in 2D. We build large mining machines with
enormous structures and conveyor systems. I've been invited to the meeting.
For the sake of the mechanical designers, what are some questions I should
ask? What are the bugs? Seeing the issues that others are having and knowing
that I have some influence on 30 seats of a modeling package, I'm feeling a
bit awkward about promoting IV. What are some hard questions you would be
asking?

Dennis Eckart
Hydraulic Designer
Rahco,
Int'l

[Anonymous]

Quinn,
You just drove a mighty big nail dead nuts flush in one blow.
Good on yer.
Jim

"Quinn Zander" wrote in message
news:24634FFFE48139AF814EC4A1081FED0E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Absolutely.
>
> This is the change in attitude that is needed for a 3D design system to
> work.
>
> Quality ends up taking the precedence over raw "speed". Those that cannot
> accept this will ultimately fail in their implementation.
>
> From what I've seen over the last while, the point of "enlightenment" (the
> point in time where a designer/team says Ahhhh.... it'll work) comes about
> as quick in 3D as it did in 2D, but, it is my opinion that when that point
> is hit, it is more defined. When the initial point is hit in 2D, there
> always seems to be more information needed. In 3D, more of the whole scope
> of the challenges and their questions are answered.
>
> Unfortunately, for those who would continue to lie to their customers just
> to make a sale, this is where 3D flatlines on the production graph. The
idea
> is solid, the design is basically proven, but a whole wack of
> modelling/detailing must be now done to actually get the product out to
the
> shop. With 2D, you basically print out your "enlightenment" drawings and
> start building.
>
> If I was a lie through my teeth software pushing promise breaking sales
> idiot representing any 3D design VAR, I'd be VERY weary of 20pound dry
> chemical fire extinguishers hanging on the walls in any boardrooms.
>
> QBZ
>
the
> presentation to ensure 100% product dispersion>
>
> "Anthony Fettig" wrote in message
> news:584773A5D0DF27D0E0712F2A9986A000@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > I've reset my goals for Inventor (or any modeling package for that
> matter).
> > Now I try to a better job on the design project using 3D, try for a
> similar
> > time frame as 2D design but measure success in quality of work rather
than
> > the time clocked on the job.
> >
> > That is what makes ugly .idw's most frustrating.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > "Quinn Zander" wrote in message
> > news:2C087C95AE884878B8E6946AD3F6EF9E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Dennis,
> >
> > > If at any time anyone says anything about IV and 3D design in general
> > being
> > > "faster" than 2D, pull the fire extinguisher off the wall and blast
him
> a
> > > few times. If they insist on such mockery, throw the extinguisher at
him
> > and
> > > drag him outside to bake in the hot sun for a few hours.
> > >
> > > Prepare for war.
> > >
> > > QBZ
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

>3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now ask
them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many picks
where required to accomplish that task."

Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
intermediate sketch required.

>5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then make
them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.

My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is required.
As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the guys
demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
single product demo.

John Bilton

[Anonymous]

True, very true. However, thanks to stubborn PE's, this is the exact reason we
have not switched to using IV company wide yet.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com



"Quinn Zander" wrote in message
news:E49C9CAC974BF399D0AD6B903EED0816@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Dennis,
>
> You specifically said, " implementing IV into our way of doing things".
>
> With that attitude, you are already dead in the water. 3D design systems
> don't adapt to your (company's) way.... you adapt to it.
>
> Whatever deal is construed, if something gets fouled up a 6months or a year
> down the road, make darn sure they can be held accountable for not setting
> you straight with your implementation in the first place. It is a nightmare
> (to put it mildly) to go in and make things work at a later date.
>
> QBZ
>
>
> "deckart" wrote in message
> news:f17b8e5.16@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Good stuff, thank you, Quinn. I see your approach. We definately need to
> look an structured way of implementing IV (if that's what management decides
> on) into our way of doing things. And, luckily, I don't think I'll be stuck
> with the training and structuring side of the package. Not officially
> anyway. Thanks everyone for your input. Off to the meeting I go.
>
>

[Anonymous]

Was that a crack?

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Jacquemotte" wrote in message
news:7C5A3782D290CF54AF516F3FE05C5823@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> True, very true. However, thanks to stubborn PE's, this is the exact
reason we
> have not switched to using IV company wide yet.
>

[Anonymous]

Yes, but not at you. Our company structure is similar to yours. We have Project
Engineers also. They (edited). You are cool. Big difference. OK?

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com

[Anonymous]

LOL...

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
www.sdotson.com/faq.html

[Anonymous]

5. What I want is a simple contoured flange to adapt the distance as well
as every face. See CF Mouse clicks. The key to this question is that I
want a CONTOURED SHEETMETAL FLANGE to fully adapt. I do not think this is
an unreasonable request. I too can work around the issue. I am required to
use workarounds on a daily basis.

3. Please teach me how. The way I have been doing it (obviously wrong), is
by creating a sketch on the cylindrical face, drawing a line from center to
quad (or wherever I needed), end sketch, Work plane, pick the face and line
that I just created. I guess I have allowed myself to get into the rut of
using this technique since it worked and not finding out a better way.
Using a single cylinder should only require 2 picks. At least that is the
number of picks that I personally feel would be an efficient use of the
software. 1 click issue the "90 Work Plane from a Cylindrical Face" command
and picking the face. The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also.

"John Bilton" wrote in message
news:D2223332D4269EB7BEA58FA28F2F5AF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> >3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now
ask
> them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many picks
> where required to accomplish that task."
>
> Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
> intermediate sketch required.
>
> >5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then
make
> them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.
>
> My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is
required.
> As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the
guys
> demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
> single product demo.
>
> John Bilton
>
>

[Anonymous]

Ah, got wires slightly crossed on this one. Sketch or work axis is
required - I was thinking more about a workplane at an angle on the end of a
cylindrical face.

Sorry about that, you've got me thinking though, there must be another way
surely?

John Bilton

[Anonymous]

No problem, it could have EASILY been my approach which is all to common.
Knowing that your "wheels" are cranking on the problem gives me great
comfort (NO sarcasm there)!

Thx,

Keith

"John Bilton" wrote in message
news:148A3B573D6A69471A5539762ADFFB9A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Ah, got wires slightly crossed on this one. Sketch or work axis is
> required - I was thinking more about a workplane at an angle on the end of
a
> cylindrical face.
>
> Sorry about that, you've got me thinking though, there must be another way
> surely?
>
> John Bilton
>
>

[Anonymous]

"The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also."

--Now that has me thinking too!

Keith



"Keith Bradford" wrote in message
news:8D62734CF5326769719EDF9762D40818@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> 5. What I want is a simple contoured flange to adapt the distance as well
> as every face. See CF Mouse clicks. The key to this question is that I
> want a CONTOURED SHEETMETAL FLANGE to fully adapt. I do not think this is
> an unreasonable request. I too can work around the issue. I am required
to
> use workarounds on a daily basis.
>
> 3. Please teach me how. The way I have been doing it (obviously wrong),
is
> by creating a sketch on the cylindrical face, drawing a line from center
to
> quad (or wherever I needed), end sketch, Work plane, pick the face and
line
> that I just created. I guess I have allowed myself to get into the rut of
> using this technique since it worked and not finding out a better way.
> Using a single cylinder should only require 2 picks. At least that is
the
> number of picks that I personally feel would be an efficient use of the
> software. 1 click issue the "90 Work Plane from a Cylindrical Face"
command
> and picking the face. The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also.
>
> "John Bilton" wrote in message
> news:D2223332D4269EB7BEA58FA28F2F5AF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > >3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now
> ask
> > them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many
picks
> > where required to accomplish that task."
> >
> > Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
> > intermediate sketch required.
> >
> > >5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then
> make
> > them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.
> >
> > My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is
> required.
> > As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the
> guys
> > demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
> > single product demo.
> >
> > John Bilton
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

3. You must mean 90 deg "from" something, right? Usually an origin plane is
used. Easiest way of doing this is, Start WP command, click cylinder face, then
click "base" (origin) plane. Should prompt you for angle from "base". Default is
90deg.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com



"Keith Bradford" wrote in message
news:8D62734CF5326769719EDF9762D40818@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> 5. What I want is a simple contoured flange to adapt the distance as well
> as every face. See CF Mouse clicks. The key to this question is that I
> want a CONTOURED SHEETMETAL FLANGE to fully adapt. I do not think this is
> an unreasonable request. I too can work around the issue. I am required to
> use workarounds on a daily basis.
>
> 3. Please teach me how. The way I have been doing it (obviously wrong), is
> by creating a sketch on the cylindrical face, drawing a line from center to
> quad (or wherever I needed), end sketch, Work plane, pick the face and line
> that I just created. I guess I have allowed myself to get into the rut of
> using this technique since it worked and not finding out a better way.
> Using a single cylinder should only require 2 picks. At least that is the
> number of picks that I personally feel would be an efficient use of the
> software. 1 click issue the "90 Work Plane from a Cylindrical Face" command
> and picking the face. The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also.
>
> "John Bilton" wrote in message
> news:D2223332D4269EB7BEA58FA28F2F5AF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > >3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now
> ask
> > them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many picks
> > where required to accomplish that task."
> >
> > Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
> > intermediate sketch required.
> >
> > >5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then
> make
> > them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.
> >
> > My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is
> required.
> > As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the
> guys
> > demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
> > single product demo.
> >
> > John Bilton
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

Ok, I lied. You do have to create a workplane going thru the center of the
cylinder at the correct angle first. Fortunately, if you have "Repeat Command"
on, it only takes 2 more clicks.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com



"Dave Jacquemotte" wrote in message
news:0533F145F65986B1CBB1BE588F76C01E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> 3. You must mean 90 deg "from" something, right? Usually an origin plane is
> used. Easiest way of doing this is, Start WP command, click cylinder face,
then
> click "base" (origin) plane. Should prompt you for angle from "base". Default
is
> 90deg.
>
> --
> Dave Jacquemotte
> Automation Designer
> www.autoconcorp.com
>
>
>
> "Keith Bradford" wrote in message
> news:8D62734CF5326769719EDF9762D40818@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > 5. What I want is a simple contoured flange to adapt the distance as well
> > as every face. See CF Mouse clicks. The key to this question is that I
> > want a CONTOURED SHEETMETAL FLANGE to fully adapt. I do not think this is
> > an unreasonable request. I too can work around the issue. I am required to
> > use workarounds on a daily basis.
> >
> > 3. Please teach me how. The way I have been doing it (obviously wrong), is
> > by creating a sketch on the cylindrical face, drawing a line from center to
> > quad (or wherever I needed), end sketch, Work plane, pick the face and line
> > that I just created. I guess I have allowed myself to get into the rut of
> > using this technique since it worked and not finding out a better way.
> > Using a single cylinder should only require 2 picks. At least that is the
> > number of picks that I personally feel would be an efficient use of the
> > software. 1 click issue the "90 Work Plane from a Cylindrical Face" command
> > and picking the face. The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also.
> >
> > "John Bilton" wrote in message
> > news:D2223332D4269EB7BEA58FA28F2F5AF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > >3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now
> > ask
> > > them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many picks
> > > where required to accomplish that task."
> > >
> > > Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
> > > intermediate sketch required.
> > >
> > > >5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then
> > make
> > > them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.
> > >
> > > My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is
> > required.
> > > As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the
> > guys
> > > demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
> > > single product demo.
> > >
> > > John Bilton
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

See CF for avi.

--
Dave Jacquemotte
Automation Designer
www.autoconcorp.com



"Dave Jacquemotte" wrote in message
news:49BBC7096A1BB5517BAC05089D54C75D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Ok, I lied. You do have to create a workplane going thru the center of the
> cylinder at the correct angle first. Fortunately, if you have "Repeat Command"
> on, it only takes 2 more clicks.
>
> --
> Dave Jacquemotte
> Automation Designer
> www.autoconcorp.com
>
>
>
> "Dave Jacquemotte" wrote in message
> news:0533F145F65986B1CBB1BE588F76C01E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > 3. You must mean 90 deg "from" something, right? Usually an origin plane is
> > used. Easiest way of doing this is, Start WP command, click cylinder face,
> then
> > click "base" (origin) plane. Should prompt you for angle from "base".
Default
> is
> > 90deg.
> >
> > --
> > Dave Jacquemotte
> > Automation Designer
> > www.autoconcorp.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Keith Bradford" wrote in message
> > news:8D62734CF5326769719EDF9762D40818@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > 5. What I want is a simple contoured flange to adapt the distance as well
> > > as every face. See CF Mouse clicks. The key to this question is that I
> > > want a CONTOURED SHEETMETAL FLANGE to fully adapt. I do not think this is
> > > an unreasonable request. I too can work around the issue. I am required
to
> > > use workarounds on a daily basis.
> > >
> > > 3. Please teach me how. The way I have been doing it (obviously wrong),
is
> > > by creating a sketch on the cylindrical face, drawing a line from center
to
> > > quad (or wherever I needed), end sketch, Work plane, pick the face and
line
> > > that I just created. I guess I have allowed myself to get into the rut of
> > > using this technique since it worked and not finding out a better way.
> > > Using a single cylinder should only require 2 picks. At least that is
the
> > > number of picks that I personally feel would be an efficient use of the
> > > software. 1 click issue the "90 Work Plane from a Cylindrical Face"
command
> > > and picking the face. The "90" could be a could be a prompted value also.
> > >
> > > "John Bilton" wrote in message
> > > news:D2223332D4269EB7BEA58FA28F2F5AF2@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > >3. "How do you create a work plane 90 degree off a circular face? Now
> > > ask
> > > > them what to do with the >sketch they just drew. Now count how many
picks
> > > > where required to accomplish that task."
> > > >
> > > > Using in-line workfeatures it drops out in 5 mouse clicks with no
> > > > intermediate sketch required.
> > > >
> > > > >5. Ask them to adapt ALL face/sides of a sheetmetal contour and then
> > > make
> > > > them flatten it just in case they >use solids and not metal.
> > > >
> > > > My machine here will flatten it, but a bit of smoke and mirrors is
> > > required.
> > > > As an adaptive solid? No problems, you're looking for a solution, the
> > > guys
> > > > demoing the software should show you a solution, not an "out of the box"
> > > > single product demo.
> > > >
> > > > John Bilton
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>