Here's a challenge for Autodesk to rise to.....

[Anonymous]

When I got to work this morning, the latest edition of Desktop Engineering
magazine was waiting for me. Featured on the cover was the newest release
of one of Inventor's competitors.

The accompanying article was interesting. The first part of the article
spent some time talking about how the software offered some nice looking
features for importing existing AutoCAD data and using it as a foundation
for the transition to 3D. Later in the article, there was a screenshot of a
sheet metal part, beautifully dimensioned--in an isometric view.

So here's the challenge. One of those two features is hugely useful in the
real-world of 3D communication. The other is pure marketing hype that will
eventually bite users in the tush if they actually use it...and it's no
better an idea in Inventor than it is in any of Inventor's competitors. I'm
sure that this article will be read by folks in Autodesk, and that it will
prompt discussion and maybe even determine action. Autodesk: why don't you
chose to concentrate on the feature that's really useful, and that your
users have been requesting--pleading for--for years now, and ignore the
empty and dangerous market-hype feature. Let the competition shaft their
own customers.

Cheers,
Walt

[Anonymous]

Walt,

I must be a little dense this morning. Which is the marketing hype
to be ignored, importing existing Autocad data, or dimensioning
sheet metal parts in isometric views?

Bob

Walt Jaquith wrote:

> The accompanying article was interesting. The first part of the article
> spent some time talking about how the software offered some nice looking
> features for importing existing AutoCAD data and using it as a foundation
> for the transition to 3D. Later in the article, there was a screenshot of a
> sheet metal part, beautifully dimensioned--in an isometric view.

[Anonymous]

I have had a long standing request to be able to have "true" dimensions in isometric views.

One notable application is 3d tube bends. Being able to give true dimensions for the straight lengths between tangents and/or between vertices is a common industry standard. Instead Inv will give the apparent dimension based on the viewing angle.

Dave

[Anonymous]

The ability to dimension isometric views is a desperately needed feature in
Inventor.

Importing Autocad data to use as a base for a transition to 3D is a recipe
for disaster. Autodesk (and everyone else) promotes the practice by
introducing tools to make it "easier", featuring it in their product demos
and advertisement, and dumbing down Inventor to make it more familiar to the
AutoCAD folks. Everyone's convinced that they have to do this or risk
losing market share, so no one will take the high road and tell people the
truth--that if you're going to play in the parametric world, you have to
leave Autocad and it's ways behind and learn how to do it right. And
starting out with a 3D database all mucked up with old acad crud is not
doing it right.

BTW, By the time I was brought in by one company to clean up the mess, I
figure that trying to come into 3D by the back door had cost them something
on the order of $60K above what a clean transition should have cost them.
Yet all they did was try to do it the way they were allowed to believe it
could be done.

Walt



"Bob S." wrote in message
news:5324577@discussion.autodesk.com...
Walt,

I must be a little dense this morning. Which is the marketing hype
to be ignored, importing existing Autocad data, or dimensioning
sheet metal parts in isometric views?

Bob

Walt Jaquith wrote:

> The accompanying article was interesting. The first part of the article
> spent some time talking about how the software offered some nice looking
> features for importing existing AutoCAD data and using it as a foundation
> for the transition to 3D. Later in the article, there was a screenshot of
> a
> sheet metal part, beautifully dimensioned--in an isometric view.

[Anonymous]

Yes Walt, I agree whole heartedly.




"Walt Jaquith" wrote in message
news:5324648@discussion.autodesk.com...
The ability to dimension isometric views is a desperately needed feature in
Inventor.

Importing Autocad data to use as a base for a transition to 3D is a recipe
for disaster. Autodesk (and everyone else) promotes the practice by
introducing tools to make it "easier", featuring it in their product demos
and advertisement, and dumbing down Inventor to make it more familiar to the
AutoCAD folks. Everyone's convinced that they have to do this or risk
losing market share, so no one will take the high road and tell people the
truth--that if you're going to play in the parametric world, you have to
leave Autocad and it's ways behind and learn how to do it right. And
starting out with a 3D database all mucked up with old acad crud is not
doing it right.

BTW, By the time I was brought in by one company to clean up the mess, I
figure that trying to come into 3D by the back door had cost them something
on the order of $60K above what a clean transition should have cost them.
Yet all they did was try to do it the way they were allowed to believe it
could be done.

Walt



"Bob S." wrote in message
news:5324577@discussion.autodesk.com...
Walt,

I must be a little dense this morning. Which is the marketing hype
to be ignored, importing existing Autocad data, or dimensioning
sheet metal parts in isometric views?

Bob

Walt Jaquith wrote:

> The accompanying article was interesting. The first part of the article
> spent some time talking about how the software offered some nice looking
> features for importing existing AutoCAD data and using it as a foundation
> for the transition to 3D. Later in the article, there was a screenshot of
> a
> sheet metal part, beautifully dimensioned--in an isometric view.

[Anonymous]

>Everyone's convinced that they have to do this or risk losing market
>share, so no one will take the high road and tell people the truth--that if
>you're going to play in the parametric world, you have to leave Autocad and
>it's ways behind and learn how to do it right.

Actually I can think of one major mCAD company who does not stress this at
all.

...but it sure isn't ADSK...

--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com

[Anonymous]

I think the answer is very simple.
Autodesk keeps doing what it is doing because there haven't been any consequences to what they are doing. In addition there are business consequences and personal consequences, if they do not maintain the growth that AD has indicated to Wall St.
Poor performance, non-working features; reduced performance, customer paid troubleshooting, etc. , customers are just buying whatever AD releases.
AD will not change, as subscriptions are renewed and upgrades sold.

[Anonymous]

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5311057

Just think. In a few more years you might get another bit of Acad
functionality back; the ability to show 3D annotations in a drawing
viewport. Maybe even format them independantly of the model. `;^)

[Anonymous]

What you saw annotated was a 3D model with PMI (Product Manufacturing
Information) on it. In addition, the software can also do what you
insinuated, dimension an isometric, trimetric or dimetric view on the
drawing (which has been possible for many versions now).

Unfortunately, the AutoCAD import/data reuse issue is going to be with us
for a long time and it is a big issue for the folks who still use it, so it
is important to find a tool that translates them well.

I have included a link to the article Walt mentioned for reference:
http://www.deskeng.com/Articles/Cover-Story/Solid-Edge-19-Muscles-into-the-Limelight-200608181205.html

Ken
"Walt Jaquith" wrote in message
news:5324483@discussion.autodesk.com...
When I got to work this morning, the latest edition of Desktop Engineering
magazine was waiting for me. Featured on the cover was the newest release
of one of Inventor's competitors.

The accompanying article was interesting. The first part of the article
spent some time talking about how the software offered some nice looking
features for importing existing AutoCAD data and using it as a foundation
for the transition to 3D. Later in the article, there was a screenshot of a
sheet metal part, beautifully dimensioned--in an isometric view.

So here's the challenge. One of those two features is hugely useful in the
real-world of 3D communication. The other is pure marketing hype that will
eventually bite users in the tush if they actually use it...and it's no
better an idea in Inventor than it is in any of Inventor's competitors. I'm
sure that this article will be read by folks in Autodesk, and that it will
prompt discussion and maybe even determine action. Autodesk: why don't you
chose to concentrate on the feature that's really useful, and that your
users have been requesting--pleading for--for years now, and ignore the
empty and dangerous market-hype feature. Let the competition shaft their
own customers.

Cheers,
Walt

[Anonymous]

Inventor can't dimension iso views because it would be too difficult to export them to Autocad. hehe

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about the "extra,irrelevant stuff in the sketches". My workflow
must be a little different in that it keeps the irrelevant stuff out. It
ends up being a multi step process to use the ACAD stuff, but it is pretty
straight forward.
1. Convert into a drawing
2. Copy what you want (only the elements copy)
3. Paste into a part sketch
4. "Include" the relevant portions into a feature sketch (basic constraints
added automatically).

There is another workflow geared towards using the complete orthographic
views (elements only) to create base sketches in a part file, and then the
4th step is used to build the individual features.

The question is: Does the software allow utilization in a way that makes it
efficient, and are the individuals using the software properly trained? I
have seen some real garbage in AutoCAD in the past by those fresh from the
board without proper training. This is really no different.

Ken

"Walt Jaquith" wrote in message
news:5325424@discussion.autodesk.com...

[Anonymous]

Having first hand coding of Isometric and 3D to 2D dimensioning in
AutoCAD (many years ago), I disagree. It isn't that difficult and I was
coding it back in R12.

I think Walt's point is well taken, it is more of a resource issue.

Diemaker wrote:

>Inventor can't dimension iso views because it would be too difficult to export them to Autocad. hehe
>
>

[Anonymous]

> and are the individuals using the software properly trained?

Of course not. No one who really understands how the software works wants
to have anything to do with importing legacy DWG stuff to base their models
on. The people who are trying to use this workflow are the poor
unsuspecting saps who don't know any better than to listen to the sales
pitch of marketers like you.

This is pretty funny. We may have found something that you and your
counterparts in Autodesk marketing can agree on. Your living both depends
on selling your software, and people wont buy it unless you tell them they
can import DWG data. Fine, so that's what you tell them. But what you
can't tell them is what it's going to cost them, and you side-skirted that
issue with me, too. I'm aware that there's a workflow, Ken. Inventor has
one, and your brand has one. I have less than no interest in getting into a
discussion with you over which one works best. I'm telling you flatly that
based on all my experience actually using the software and teaching others
to use the software that it's a bad idea. My reasons are in the article.

Walt

[R.Corriveau]

"We may have found something that you and your
counterparts in Autodesk marketing can agree on. Your living both depends on selling your software, and people wont buy it unless you tell them they can import DWG data."

Why bother. All they have to tell them is, no need Acad can do 3D. 🙂

[kstate92]

There's this example too.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S390120CD

You'd think Adesk would want to comply with AMSE Y14.41. Maybe they're waiting until it's in AutoCAD first.

[Anonymous]

Walt,
I do not work for a CAD vendor in any way. I am very much in the same
shoes as you. And while I agree that Copy, Past, Extrude is a piss poor
workflow for using ACAD data to build 3D models, I do see benefit from using
controlled portions in a limited manner. In my case, this just speeds up
the drawing process, but in no way impedes it (hence my question about the
Inventor workflow which, by your description, appears to give the user no
way around it). Not to mention, there is the entire workflow of being able
to bulk convert the DWG files into a native format so that users don't have
to flip-flop back and forth between CAD systems and aren't tempted to keep
using ACAD because it is temporarily more convenient.

Ken
"Walt Jaquith" wrote in message
news:5326051@discussion.autodesk.com...
> and are the individuals using the software properly trained?

Of course not. No one who really understands how the software works wants
to have anything to do with importing legacy DWG stuff to base their models
on. The people who are trying to use this workflow are the poor
unsuspecting saps who don't know any better than to listen to the sales
pitch of marketers like you.

This is pretty funny. We may have found something that you and your
counterparts in Autodesk marketing can agree on. Your living both depends
on selling your software, and people wont buy it unless you tell them they
can import DWG data. Fine, so that's what you tell them. But what you
can't tell them is what it's going to cost them, and you side-skirted that
issue with me, too. I'm aware that there's a workflow, Ken. Inventor has
one, and your brand has one. I have less than no interest in getting into a
discussion with you over which one works best. I'm telling you flatly that
based on all my experience actually using the software and teaching others
to use the software that it's a bad idea. My reasons are in the article.

Walt

[Anonymous]

adesk writes the standards they don't follow them ;>)...

14.41 is just another un-embraced standard left dying beside the rode. But wouldn't that be cool if you could send out one file and actually get parts back??? Instead of wasting resources chasing a new format (.dwf). Wouldn't it have paid higher dividens to actually work on Y14.41 and been able to convey intent with one file??? But alas .dwf will be dead soon too and we will still be sending out .pdf + .stp... Or are there some other options?

[Anonymous]

> adesk writes the standards they
> don't follow them ;>)...

That's funny.

Discussion about dimensioning isometric views is funny, too. You don't
dimension the 2D projections. You dimension and annotate the model then show
the annotations in the view; any view, not just a true iso of an ortho edge.

> 14.41 is just another un-embraced
> standard left dying beside the rode.

Sure 'bout that? UGS and Dassault are leading the way, PTC is following, who
knows where Autodesk (AutoCAD was ahead of it's time in that regard) is going.
(Don't get me started on their poorboy approach to having an advertisable
function.)

Some interesting reading ...

http://www.ugs.com/products/nx/docs/wp_4_asme.pdf

http://foia.msfc.nasa.gov/docs/NAS8-01121/5-CDM%20Standards/CM-EDAL_1-11-06.pdf

http://www.theorem.co.uk/pr/PA1.pdf

http://www.deskeng.com/Articles/Feature/CAD-to-CAM:-Where-it-Started-and-Where-I
t%92s-Going-20050201302.html

http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/imis/presentatio
ns/Hendrix.pdf

http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=57173&strS
ite=MDSite&catId=0

Additionally, read thru some government or major manufacturers' SOWs.

[Anonymous]

I hope your right. I'd like to see 14.41. I've got a copy laying on my desk right now, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for it getting embraced...