Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Is there any merit to the the "mirroring error" mentioned in the article? I have had a mirrored feature cause me some problems but I can find no reason why it occurred.Also who wrote that article? SW marketing??
Dave
FWIW - CadCamNet is a very informed organization. All of their articles are
for purchase unless you have a subscription which is not cheap.
Jim S.
"KJohnson" wrote in message
news:365C33B6C1112318B6BDDAD3D132B49E@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> And it is only part of the full article too. They want you to pay for the
> rest.
>
> Kathy Johnson
>
>
"Autodesk said in an e-mail that the defect is caused by a programming error
that the development team is “working to fix...as quickly as possible.”
"d_taylor" wrote in message
news:f1a3165.2@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Is there any merit to the the "mirroring error" mentioned in the article?
I have had a mirrored feature cause me some problems but I can find no
reason why it occurred.Also who wrote that article? SW marketing??
> Dave
perhaps SW marketing... but certainly a lame-o article -- Anyone with their nose inside a complex model knows that the ability to manipulate the model correlates with the quality of its design. If the writer wanted to argue a case rather than report some flair as if to get attention, he or she might have included some model details to gain some credit from people who are actually interested-to-know....
You'll want to be careful on how much weight you
put into this Fair and Balanced "Shootout". It was widely discredited and at the
time it was conducted, created quite a stir in many circles. To say the least it
was regarded as very controversial, the methods and results. Heavy dose of
salt recommended. There are extensive threads in both these newsgroups and the
newsgroup for the other SoftWare.
can you give me the who what where and why of that?
I'd check the soldiworks newsgroups, but hey i only have a personal edition, and
not a subscription holder
You'll want to be careful on how much weight you
put into this Fair and Balanced "Shootout". It was widely discredited and at
the time it was conducted, created quite a stir in many circles. To say the
least it was regarded as very controversial, the methods and results.
Heavy dose of salt recommended. There are extensive threads in both these
newsgroups and the newsgroup for the other SoftWare.
If someone else has pointed you to the info by this
evening I'll do some rootin' around. But trust me a lot of folks were crying
foul on that one. It was pretty bloody. Even made the editorials of Cadence. Or
was it Cadalyst?
can you give me the who what where and why of
that? I'd check the soldiworks newsgroups, but hey i only have a personal
edition, and not a subscription holder
You'll want to be careful on how much weight
you put into this Fair and Balanced "Shootout". It was widely discredited
and at the time it was conducted, created quite a stir in many circles. To
say the least it was regarded as very controversial, the methods and
results. Heavy dose of salt recommended. There are extensive threads in both
these newsgroups and the newsgroup for the other SoftWare.
If you have read some of the posts in this group, you'd know that Autodesk
users aren't necessarily biased in favor of Solidworks.
--
Kevin Wehner
"Brian Debelius" wrote in message
news:7A6F3DFEA1781052AC9F4AAE0BA398F8@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> This was a biased panel. Most of the audience were autodesk users.
>
>
> J.CROTEAU wrote:
> > Did you read this article
> > http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/adsk_inventor/select/moss_shootout.htm
>
can you give me the who what where and why of
that? I'd check the soldiworks newsgroups, but hey i only have a personal
edition, and not a subscription holder
You'll want to be careful on how much weight you
put into this Fair and Balanced "Shootout". It was widely discredited and at
the time it was conducted, created quite a stir in many circles. To say the
least it was regarded as very controversial, the methods and results.
Heavy dose of salt recommended. There are extensive threads in both these
newsgroups and the newsgroup for the other SoftWare.
Yes, I read that part but I took it with a grain of salt as I did with the rest of the article. Is there a list somewhere of issues that are being dealt with? Probably if there is, no one could tell me anyway.
Dave
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")