Webcast

[rllthomas]

OK, who was the one asking all the predictible questions at the webcast this morning - LOL.

[Anonymous]

Whew, I went back to my post about 5 times to make sure it wasn't me 🙂

Rui


"MikeC" wrote in message
news:E0CA42B679CAFF1047E04D6A68DF87E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> My spell checker went nuts, AIP of course.
> "MikeC" wrote in message
> news:DFC25F0916A8A5E8D1740F3F5EB1D667@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > "I don't see that functionality not pertaining specifically to Piping
and
> > > Wiring (or any other specific area of work) will be added to AIL and
not
> > to
> > > AIRS."
> >
> > I hope your right, like I said, we won't be upgrading to AIL.
> >
> > "Rui" wrote in message
> > news:0BF52F3489830F546F4484D7EBF691AF@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > You're right (you know what you wrote) you never said looked down - my
> bad
> > > misinterpretation.
> > >
> > > I still feel that calling AIP a superior package is the wrong way of
> > looking
> > > at it, albeit an acceptable one.
> > >
> > > Basic enhancements just means that the AIS will get the enhancements
to
> > the
> > > core functionality that AIP will get. AIP will get enhancements to
the
> > > common core and it's specifics.
> > >
> > > >
> > > Example: 3D Sketch with tangency control in R8 is common to both, so
> it's
> > > available to both.
> > >
> > > Rui
> > >
> > >
> > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > news:02C8581CC5B75973701F3E0781780383@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > First, I didn't say looked DOWN upon. All I'm saying is AIP is a
> > superior
> > > > package. What OEM shop wouldn't like to have the added functionality
> in
> > > AIP,
> > > > and there's going to be more added. AIS will have "basic
> enhancements",
> > > AIP
> > > > will get new functionality.
> > > >
> > > > "Rui" wrote in message
> > > > news:7D4BCDD5F36E70CE7C8EA853F335D072@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > Having worked a lot with modular packages, I don't see that as
> > logical.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing I can say (and have said before) is that the
> Marketing
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > name Professional was sad to say the least. Any promises of an
> > > all-in-one
> > > > > package that would _never_ have addin's are before my time (in the
> IV
> > > > world
> > > > > at least).
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have called the Piping and Wiring modules just that, a
> > > module...an
> > > > > addin. Since that is what it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see other software producers looking at those with "less
> > built"
> > > > > packages being looked down on:
> > > > > 2 examples: I don't believe SW looks down on customers with SW as
> > > opposed
> > > > to
> > > > > SW Office
> > > > > or PTC looking down on those with Foundation vs Flex3C.
> > > > >
> > > > > All are customers, and I think Autodesk is smart enough to realise
> > that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > news:7F95F84E72C313632EDEAB8453EFE9FD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > Once ADESK straightens out the specific modules in AIP it will
> > become
> > > > > their flagship. People using AIS will be looked upon like MDT
users
> > are
> > > > now.
> > > > > Of course this is just my prediction. Logically,I don't see it
> > happening
> > > > any
> > > > > other way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tim Dougherty" wrote in message
> > > > > news:089BDC5D44186B8884003ED445CE15A5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > I was one who voiced my disappointment in AIP to our Adesk
rep.
> > I
> > > > > understand why they went down that road...($$$) but that doesn't
> mean
> > I
> > > > > have to like it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The sales pitch went something like : "....but with AIP you
will
> > get
> > > > > every single enhancement Inventor will ever get..."
> > > > > > Well, that's exactly how they sold a seat of Inventor VIP to
us
> in
> > > the
> > > > > first place. Disappointed, that's all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, either the person presenting AIP wasn't too good at
> her
> > > job,
> > > > > or that package is extremely immature. I can't see why anyone
would
> > > > purchase
> > > > > it at this point. I would think it would have been wiser to let
us
> > > (the
> > > > > masses) help de-bug and develop these new features as enhancements
> to
> > > AIS.
> > > > > As it is, it sounds like most of us may never see AIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > news:48832022A250B3F0F3A271E2D6A86B54@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > I didn't ask questions, but I think I heard Buzz Kross or
> Andrew
> > > > > Anagnost say that "molding" features were being considered for AIP
> (I
> > > > might
> > > > > be wrong). One of them did say (paraphrasing) that what they
> > considered
> > > > > "niche" features, that a small amount of users might need, will
> > > > continually
> > > > > be added to AIP. I came away from that webcast thinking my AIS
will
> > soon
> > > > be
> > > > > second dog to AIP. If I could talk my boss into upgrading to AIP,
I
> > > would.
> > > > > IMO, in the not to distant future, AIP will have all the bells and
> > > > whistles
> > > > > and will be superior to AIS.
> > > > > > "rllthomas" wrote in message
> > > > > news:f19f4d4.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > OK, who was the one asking all the predictible questions
at
> > the
> > > > > webcast this morning - LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

When I start talking about AIP my fingers get crazy and my mind goes blank

"Rui" wrote in message
news:BBA9000C08C7DDC19780A0C8F56085F5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Whew, I went back to my post about 5 times to make sure it wasn't me 🙂
>
> Rui
>
>
> "MikeC" wrote in message
> news:E0CA42B679CAFF1047E04D6A68DF87E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > My spell checker went nuts, AIP of course.
> > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > news:DFC25F0916A8A5E8D1740F3F5EB1D667@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > "I don't see that functionality not pertaining specifically to Piping
> and
> > > > Wiring (or any other specific area of work) will be added to AIL and
> not
> > > to
> > > > AIRS."
> > >
> > > I hope your right, like I said, we won't be upgrading to AIL.
> > >
> > > "Rui" wrote in message
> > > news:0BF52F3489830F546F4484D7EBF691AF@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > You're right (you know what you wrote) you never said looked down -
my
> > bad
> > > > misinterpretation.
> > > >
> > > > I still feel that calling AIP a superior package is the wrong way of
> > > looking
> > > > at it, albeit an acceptable one.
> > > >
> > > > Basic enhancements just means that the AIS will get the enhancements
> to
> > > the
> > > > core functionality that AIP will get. AIP will get enhancements to
> the
> > > > common core and it's specifics.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Example: 3D Sketch with tangency control in R8 is common to both, so
> > it's
> > > > available to both.
> > > >
> > > > Rui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > news:02C8581CC5B75973701F3E0781780383@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > First, I didn't say looked DOWN upon. All I'm saying is AIP is a
> > > superior
> > > > > package. What OEM shop wouldn't like to have the added
functionality
> > in
> > > > AIP,
> > > > > and there's going to be more added. AIS will have "basic
> > enhancements",
> > > > AIP
> > > > > will get new functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rui" wrote in message
> > > > > news:7D4BCDD5F36E70CE7C8EA853F335D072@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > Having worked a lot with modular packages, I don't see that as
> > > logical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing I can say (and have said before) is that the
> > Marketing
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > name Professional was sad to say the least. Any promises of an
> > > > all-in-one
> > > > > > package that would _never_ have addin's are before my time (in
the
> > IV
> > > > > world
> > > > > > at least).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would have called the Piping and Wiring modules just that, a
> > > > module...an
> > > > > > addin. Since that is what it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see other software producers looking at those with "less
> > > built"
> > > > > > packages being looked down on:
> > > > > > 2 examples: I don't believe SW looks down on customers with SW
as
> > > > opposed
> > > > > to
> > > > > > SW Office
> > > > > > or PTC looking down on those with Foundation vs Flex3C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All are customers, and I think Autodesk is smart enough to
realise
> > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rui
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7F95F84E72C313632EDEAB8453EFE9FD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > Once ADESK straightens out the specific modules in AIP it will
> > > become
> > > > > > their flagship. People using AIS will be looked upon like MDT
> users
> > > are
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > Of course this is just my prediction. Logically,I don't see it
> > > happening
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tim Dougherty" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:089BDC5D44186B8884003ED445CE15A5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > I was one who voiced my disappointment in AIP to our Adesk
> rep.
> > > I
> > > > > > understand why they went down that road...($$$) but that
doesn't
> > mean
> > > I
> > > > > > have to like it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The sales pitch went something like : "....but with AIP you
> will
> > > get
> > > > > > every single enhancement Inventor will ever get..."
> > > > > > > Well, that's exactly how they sold a seat of Inventor VIP to
> us
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > first place. Disappointed, that's all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Secondly, either the person presenting AIP wasn't too good
at
> > her
> > > > job,
> > > > > > or that package is extremely immature. I can't see why anyone
> would
> > > > > purchase
> > > > > > it at this point. I would think it would have been wiser to
let
> us
> > > > (the
> > > > > > masses) help de-bug and develop these new features as
enhancements
> > to
> > > > AIS.
> > > > > > As it is, it sounds like most of us may never see AIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:48832022A250B3F0F3A271E2D6A86B54@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > I didn't ask questions, but I think I heard Buzz Kross or
> > Andrew
> > > > > > Anagnost say that "molding" features were being considered for
AIP
> > (I
> > > > > might
> > > > > > be wrong). One of them did say (paraphrasing) that what they
> > > considered
> > > > > > "niche" features, that a small amount of users might need, will
> > > > > continually
> > > > > > be added to AIP. I came away from that webcast thinking my AIS
> will
> > > soon
> > > > > be
> > > > > > second dog to AIP. If I could talk my boss into upgrading to
AIP,
> I
> > > > would.
> > > > > > IMO, in the not to distant future, AIP will have all the bells
and
> > > > > whistles
> > > > > > and will be superior to AIS.
> > > > > > > "rllthomas" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:f19f4d4.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > OK, who was the one asking all the predictible questions
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > webcast this morning - LOL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anonymous]

ROTFL

Rui

"MikeC" wrote in message
news:62EB617BC29A71698B0013E4BFD11FE1@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> When I start talking about AIP my fingers get crazy and my mind goes blank
>
> "Rui" wrote in message
> news:BBA9000C08C7DDC19780A0C8F56085F5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Whew, I went back to my post about 5 times to make sure it wasn't me 🙂
> >
> > Rui
> >
> >
> > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > news:E0CA42B679CAFF1047E04D6A68DF87E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > My spell checker went nuts, AIP of course.
> > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > news:DFC25F0916A8A5E8D1740F3F5EB1D667@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > "I don't see that functionality not pertaining specifically to
Piping
> > and
> > > > > Wiring (or any other specific area of work) will be added to AIL
and
> > not
> > > > to
> > > > > AIRS."
> > > >
> > > > I hope your right, like I said, we won't be upgrading to AIL.
> > > >
> > > > "Rui" wrote in message
> > > > news:0BF52F3489830F546F4484D7EBF691AF@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > You're right (you know what you wrote) you never said looked
down -
> my
> > > bad
> > > > > misinterpretation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still feel that calling AIP a superior package is the wrong way
of
> > > > looking
> > > > > at it, albeit an acceptable one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basic enhancements just means that the AIS will get the
enhancements
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > core functionality that AIP will get. AIP will get enhancements
to
> > the
> > > > > common core and it's specifics.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Example: 3D Sketch with tangency control in R8 is common to both,
so
> > > it's
> > > > > available to both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rui
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > news:02C8581CC5B75973701F3E0781780383@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > First, I didn't say looked DOWN upon. All I'm saying is AIP is a
> > > > superior
> > > > > > package. What OEM shop wouldn't like to have the added
> functionality
> > > in
> > > > > AIP,
> > > > > > and there's going to be more added. AIS will have "basic
> > > enhancements",
> > > > > AIP
> > > > > > will get new functionality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Rui" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:7D4BCDD5F36E70CE7C8EA853F335D072@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > Having worked a lot with modular packages, I don't see that as
> > > > logical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing I can say (and have said before) is that the
> > > Marketing
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > name Professional was sad to say the least. Any promises of
an
> > > > > all-in-one
> > > > > > > package that would _never_ have addin's are before my time (in
> the
> > > IV
> > > > > > world
> > > > > > > at least).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would have called the Piping and Wiring modules just that, a
> > > > > module...an
> > > > > > > addin. Since that is what it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see other software producers looking at those with
"less
> > > > built"
> > > > > > > packages being looked down on:
> > > > > > > 2 examples: I don't believe SW looks down on customers with SW
> as
> > > > > opposed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > SW Office
> > > > > > > or PTC looking down on those with Foundation vs Flex3C.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All are customers, and I think Autodesk is smart enough to
> realise
> > > > that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rui
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:7F95F84E72C313632EDEAB8453EFE9FD@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > Once ADESK straightens out the specific modules in AIP it
will
> > > > become
> > > > > > > their flagship. People using AIS will be looked upon like MDT
> > users
> > > > are
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > Of course this is just my prediction. Logically,I don't see it
> > > > happening
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > other way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tim Dougherty" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:089BDC5D44186B8884003ED445CE15A5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > I was one who voiced my disappointment in AIP to our
Adesk
> > rep.
> > > > I
> > > > > > > understand why they went down that road...($$$) but that
> doesn't
> > > mean
> > > > I
> > > > > > > have to like it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The sales pitch went something like : "....but with AIP
you
> > will
> > > > get
> > > > > > > every single enhancement Inventor will ever get..."
> > > > > > > > Well, that's exactly how they sold a seat of Inventor VIP
to
> > us
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > first place. Disappointed, that's all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Secondly, either the person presenting AIP wasn't too good
> at
> > > her
> > > > > job,
> > > > > > > or that package is extremely immature. I can't see why anyone
> > would
> > > > > > purchase
> > > > > > > it at this point. I would think it would have been wiser to
> let
> > us
> > > > > (the
> > > > > > > masses) help de-bug and develop these new features as
> enhancements
> > > to
> > > > > AIS.
> > > > > > > As it is, it sounds like most of us may never see AIP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "MikeC" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:48832022A250B3F0F3A271E2D6A86B54@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > I didn't ask questions, but I think I heard Buzz Kross
or
> > > Andrew
> > > > > > > Anagnost say that "molding" features were being considered for
> AIP
> > > (I
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > be wrong). One of them did say (paraphrasing) that what they
> > > > considered
> > > > > > > "niche" features, that a small amount of users might need,
will
> > > > > > continually
> > > > > > > be added to AIP. I came away from that webcast thinking my AIS
> > will
> > > > soon
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > second dog to AIP. If I could talk my boss into upgrading to
> AIP,
> > I
> > > > > would.
> > > > > > > IMO, in the not to distant future, AIP will have all the bells
> and
> > > > > > whistles
> > > > > > > and will be superior to AIS.
> > > > > > > > "rllthomas" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:f19f4d4.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > OK, who was the one asking all the predictible
questions
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > webcast this morning - LOL.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[rllthomas]

Ok, you know a few people. You can't say they don't matter, here is why. A decade ago 3D parametric modeling was for elite companies. They could find individuals that were good engineers AND good CAD users.



Now fast forward to today, CAD is for the masses. Everyone is expected to do 3D parametric modeling. Everyone counts if they are employed.



Long ago when you bought PTC you would buy something like the designer package (for about 22,000 USD) where you would pick and choose from some modules. You would always end up with a module that sounded useful but in the end you never needed that functionality enough to bother learning that module. I KNOW I'm not the only one that was ever in that boat. Come on everyone, a show of hands. Who has been in a similar situation.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying most users would not take advantage
of the AIP features?

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

"rllthomas" <
href="mailto:rllthomas@attbi.com">rllthomas@attbi.com> wrote in message

href="news:f19f4d4.22@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f19f4d4.22@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Ok,
you know a few people. You can't say they don't matter, here is why. A decade
ago 3D parametric modeling was for elite companies. They could find
individuals that were good engineers AND good CAD users.

Now fast forward to today, CAD is for the masses. Everyone is expected to
do 3D parametric modeling. Everyone counts if they are employed.

Long ago when you bought PTC you would buy something like the designer
package (for about 22,000 USD) where you would pick and choose from some
modules. You would always end up with a module that sounded useful but in the
end you never needed that functionality enough to bother learning that module.
I KNOW I'm not the only one that was ever in that boat. Come on everyone, a
show of hands. Who has been in a similar
situation.

[Anonymous]

I meant that they don't matter in a sense that I've come across people that
have told me that the future is in hand-drawn paper-based drafting......so
their opinions don't count. Would you consider their opinion? 🙂

I probably didn't understand your point completely.

Rui


"rllthomas" wrote in message
news:f19f4d4.22@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Ok, you know a few people. You can't say they don't matter, here is why. A
decade ago 3D parametric modeling was for elite companies. They could find
individuals that were good engineers AND good CAD users.
>
>
> Now fast forward to today, CAD is for the masses. Everyone is expected to
do 3D parametric modeling. Everyone counts if they are employed.
>
>
>
> Long ago when you bought PTC you would buy something like the designer
package (for about 22,000 USD) where you would pick and choose from some
modules. You would always end up with a module that sounded useful but in
the end you never needed that functionality enough to bother learning that
module. I KNOW I'm not the only one that was ever in that boat. Come on
everyone, a show of hands. Who has been in a similar situation.
>

[Anonymous]

Therez sheet metal tools in Inventor?
~Larry

"rllthomas" wrote in message
news:f19f4d4.14@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> OK please answer this question honestly. Do any of you either yourself or
know someone that occaisionally builds sheet metal parts but doesn't use the
IV sheet metal tools because they don't want to learn a new tool set?

[rllthomas]

I haven't actually made my point yet. I was waiting for people to agree that yes, not everyone takes the time to learn all the available aspects of their CAD package because they don't want to learn new things.



How many IV users do you think actually author iParts? iFeatures? Intelligent symbols with proper anchor points? How many do you think actually tried to use adaptive? Sure many have stumbled into Adaptive because they didn't know what they were trying to do but how many actually make adaptive work for them? People reading this newsgroup tend to be either power users, or people who at least try and help themselves by looking for answers. Take all the IV users on the planet, I'm willing to bet 90% never even did a shift-right click-leaf part priority before because they won't learn anything past the most basic.



And to be honest, these people that won't do iParts, iFeatures, sheet metal etc. wouldn't take the time and learn a cable harness because they only need to do one every once in a while anyway and are getting by without it.



I might be wrong, but I've got a decade of experience regarding 3D parametric modeling in both training/supporting users in addition to doing production work. Heck I see a lot of people using IV7 like it was IV2, they never even adopt new work flows based on new features. What scares me........ I think I'm getting the same way.

[Anonymous]

Agreed that there are a lot like that.

My point was just in answer to the fact that AIS and AIP work the same in
what they have in common. In that, Autodesk will (should) not look at an
AIS customer any differently than an AIP customer.

I know I don't....

Rui


"rllthomas" wrote in message
news:f19f4d4.26@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I haven't actually made my point yet. I was waiting for people to agree
that yes, not everyone takes the time to learn all the available aspects of
their CAD package because they don't want to learn new things.
>
>
> How many IV users do you think actually author iParts? iFeatures?
Intelligent symbols with proper anchor points? How many do you think
actually tried to use adaptive? Sure many have stumbled into Adaptive
because they didn't know what they were trying to do but how many actually
make adaptive work for them? People reading this newsgroup tend to be either
power users, or people who at least try and help themselves by looking for
answers. Take all the IV users on the planet, I'm willing to bet 90% never
even did a shift-right click-leaf part priority before because they won't
learn anything past the most basic.
>
>
>
> And to be honest, these people that won't do iParts, iFeatures, sheet
metal etc. wouldn't take the time and learn a cable harness because they
only need to do one every once in a while anyway and are getting by without
it.
>
>
>
> I might be wrong, but I've got a decade of experience regarding 3D
parametric modeling in both training/supporting users in addition to doing
production work. Heck I see a lot of people using IV7 like it was IV2, they
never even adopt new work flows based on new features. What scares
me........ I think I'm getting the same way.
>

[Anonymous]

I heard a rumor the other day that Ford will
not be selling pick-up anymore as we know them.

From now on you will get either wheels OR tires,
but not both.

If you really want both, you have to buy 2 trucks,
hire a driver/mechanic to actually use either.

Sorry, Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Mike,



Regarding a "mold" package.



As I heard Buzz, it was more like "might" be considered "if there is enough user interest", although my VAR told me it was "considered" for R8, and would "probably" be in R9, so who knows whos correct???



At the same time Buzz stated that they "would like to have more MDT users switch to Inventor". Several of the MDT users I know of will not switch to Inventor simply because Inventor does not have a mold package and they use MDT for mold design. I wonder how many MDT users would go to Inventor if a mold package were available. Perhaps this is a question Adesk might want to ask.



There are a lot of molds designed in this world, and do not understand why Adesk would think there is not user interest. Maybe its because mold designers already have "other" (other than MDT) more expensive packages, but who knows. Regardless, I would certianly think that there is a LARGE market available. In this case I would think it is more of a "build it and they will come" type thing.



I for one would welcome a "mold" package, either by Adesk or a third party "add-in" and have considered switching to "SW", as there is 3rd part mold add-in on the market for "SW".



Regards,



Don A 🙂

[Anonymous]

While I agree with the sentiment, don't know if that's a good analogy
because all the options on vehicles are extra cost (hard to get used to the
idea some them dang cars cost mor'n my house).
~Larry

"Jay" wrote in message
news:FC12045A96950E4C302DE98BCFB93DC5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I heard a rumor the other day that Ford will not be selling pick-up
anymore as we know them.
> From now on you will get either wheels OR tires, but not both.
> If you really want both, you have to buy 2 trucks, hire a driver/mechanic
to actually use either.
> Sorry, Just a thought.

[xavierl]

Larry have you checked out the prices of bikes . A new ducati can also cost more than your house.


In mid range 3dcad its about functionality. If the opposition has more items for the same price, then guess what, they will get the sales. There is probably a large loyal autocad userbase that will go to inventor, but inventor being so different from autocad, they could as easily be persuaded to go elsewhere.

Here in Cape Town inventor sells for us$10000 and SW for us$6000 on special at the moment. Easy choice huh...

regards, Frans X Liebenberg

[Anonymous]

Hmmm ... I'd say the choice there seems fairly straightforward, eh? Least
there's one advantage for Inventor users there: can't be many get'n eaten by
lions.
~Larry

"fxlxd" wrote in message
news:f19f4d4.31@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Larry have you checked out the prices of bikes . A new ducati can also
cost more than your house.
> In mid range 3dcad its about functionality. If the opposition has more
items for the same price, then guess what, they will get the sales. There is
probably a large loyal autocad userbase that will go to inventor, but
inventor being so different from autocad, they could as easily be persuaded
to go elsewhere.
> Here in Cape Town inventor sells for us$10000 and SW for us$6000 on
special at the moment. Easy choice huh...
> regards, Frans X Liebenberg

[xavierl]

there use to be a species called a cape lion, but the last one got hunted in about 1680 or so. since then only in the zoo.

Anyway, what was this web cast about anyway. There were just a lot of links to nothing.

Frans X Liebenberg

[Anonymous]

Thanks for confirming that Don. Just a thought for
ADESK, why not give AIP to all subscription holders of AIS (pre AIP sub holders)
and if we like it, we  could sign on for AIP updates and it's extra cost.
If we don't, go back to AIS and it's sub cost. I believe a lot of people would
take advantage of this and ADESK would be the winner in the long
run.

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

"DonA" <djanneken@fuse.net>
wrote in message
href="news:f19f4d4.29@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f19f4d4.29@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...

Mike,


Regarding a "mold" package.

As I heard Buzz, it was more like
"might" be considered "if there is enough user interest", although my VAR told
me it was "considered" for R8, and would "probably" be in R9, so who knows
whos correct???

At the same time Buzz stated that they "would like to
have more MDT users switch to Inventor". Several of the MDT users I know of
will not switch to Inventor simply because Inventor does not have a mold
package and they use MDT for mold design. I wonder how many MDT users would go
to Inventor if a mold package were available. Perhaps this is a question Adesk
might want to ask.

There are a lot of molds designed in this world,
and do not understand why Adesk would think there is not user interest. Maybe
its because mold designers already have "other" (other than MDT) more
expensive packages, but who knows. Regardless, I would certianly think that
there is a LARGE market available. In this case I would think it is more of a
"build it and they will come" type thing.

I for one would welcome a
"mold" package, either by Adesk or a third party "add-in" and have considered
switching to "SW", as there is 3rd part mold add-in on the market for "SW".


Regards,

Don A 🙂