<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Should I trust simulation results? in Machining Discussions Forum</title>
    <link>https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/machining-discussions-forum/should-i-trust-simulation-results/m-p/6084011#M5916</link>
    <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;TABLE border="1"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TH&gt;Dave Ault  wrote:&lt;/TH&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks Lauren. My apprehension comes from past bad results from CAMWorks where the faceting going into cavities did show up in the cut. The metallic "material" setting looks so similar to the one in CW4SE that I assumed the same graphics program drove them both.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It should look much better in a higher quality setting.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Laurens-3DTechDraw</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-13T16:57:00Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
</rss>

