Yes, the whole use of the STEP and IGES seems to routinely get complaints by CAD users that while it's necessary for cross-platform collaboration, it really doesn't address the key rekeying and translation issues that are part and parcel of multi-CAD environments. What about some of the direct modelers and direct modeling capabilities? Aren't they designed to address some of the thorny data sharing issues? Have you had much success with them?
I was just trying to deal with other SolidWorks users. Then there is the version pain. If I'm on 2012 and you are on an earlier version you cannot read my files.
The meta data about the CAD file should be platform nuteral so it can be shared with ERP and even differnet CAD systems. Another word if is use fastener in a SolidWorks assembly some working in Solid Edge should be able to match the part with a native file. That way only some parts would have to be step it igs.
I get it now. So what you are describing does seem to promote some sort of standardization to mitigate much of that reworking of models between CAD systems--a process that is time consuming and fraught with error. I too, though many of these new systems were making progress solving some of that back and forth. I guess not nearly as much as they could be.
I cannot provide a complete explanation but the objective of the Parts Library was to eliminate making each company build their own models of a bolt or other commonly purchased part. This would make collaboration faster and simpler. If we design an assembly with 20 common parts and mate them to the product specific parts we have a complete design. To send that to a customer who has SolidWorks we do a pack and go. When the customer opens the assembly it will have our 20 common parts in it. Since our model is not the same as their model they will need to exchange the 20 parts and fix 60 mates to be able to create a parts manual page that reflects their part numbers. This repair is a significant waste of time for both parties. We had to complete the design to insure it is physically correct and the customer has to repair it to make it usable in their system.
"Lean" in engineering and design has to start with the CAD software concept. I had hoped Space Claim would do more towards creating and supporting at least a basic library, but that doesn't look like it will happen.
@EdDanzer: Thanks for wading in, Ed. Not sure I completely understand the correlation between the stuff SolidWorks is doing now (or says it's going to do) and the scenario you describe. Would you mind elaborating more specifically on what you wanted them to do and why? It sounds like you had a pretty interesting vision around collaboration for a specific purpose--reuse of models and standardized design processes, perhaps?
Also, FYI, the date of the announced definitive agreement to merge the two companies was June 1997--at least according to press releases on their Web sites.
I tried to get SolidWorks to do this from 1997-1999. The start was to supply a large quantity of common parts with a separate database for non geometry information. We would provide our semi-intelligent parts library so every user had the same model of an item so when you shared assemblies you did not have to send the common models. This could save every owner of SolidWorks several thousand dollars in the first year alone. In 1999 I estimated the cost to duplicate the library at $20,000.00 in labor. The down side for SolidWorks was the update cost. Every time a new version shipped the files would have to be checked and updated.
@Beth, Dassault acquired SolidWorks later than 1997.
Intranets and the Internet are definitely different things. Intranets are not necessarily campus-specific, but they are usually company-specific, even if some outsiders can access certain portions of them. Of course, the more complex they get and the more outsiders that can access even only small pieces of them, the more security holes there are to plug. For instance, Anonymous claimed a few days ago that it hacked and temporarily shut down the CIA's website. Now we hear that the Chinese have infiltrated JPL. As has been often said in both hardware and software, anything an engineer can build another engineer can take apart. When it comes to a planet-wide cloud., there are major issues and problems that have to be fixed first.
Beth, et al, I don't want to give the impression that I am against collaboration technologies, I am not. I do have a concern where critical information is concerned. I just saw a headline at the Fox News website declaring that Chinese hackers had gained control over NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). These government networks are open because they are doing non-commercial research, just like the example of Neptune Canada. So, if the hackers had done something bad at the JPL site, no company would be out of business. On the other hand, most of what NASA works with is very expensive, and it is our money. Another example of Chinese hackers getting into a commercial company is NORTEL Networks. They were evidentially in there for ten years. NORTEL is now out of business. This is the type of situation you need to be aware of.
As an example of where the NASA network stands in the estimation of companies comes from my personal experience. I was at a large aerospace contractor. We had a company wide DECnet at the time (pre-Internet). One of our technicians accidentially connected our plant, and thus the whoe company, to the NASA network. We were supposed to go through a special bridging set-up. The corporate people who ran the network saw it at once. They threatened to cut our plant out of the corporate network. We did fire someone. From that and the recent hacking experiences, you can see where my concern comes from.
Vendors like Dassault are always looking at ways to make their products more useful and more attractive to their customers. That is a good thing. This is an area, though, where there are some major issues that have to be resolved. The same can be said of the public cloud in general.
I think a lot of this collaboration and social development will happen organically via closed "intranets" within companies, if you can still call them that since they tend to scale across companies and global boundaries. I agree the IP issue is huge and will need to be figured out. Exactly how and what people collaborate on will be an evolving issue as use cases arrive.
But the security issue is a different story. Of course, there are some industries where critical IP and company processes can't leave or exist outside of the firewall. But in instances where regulations don't govern that, I think cloud security has really evolved to a point where it's not this gaping hole that some describe it to be. Cloud providers have been working for years on building out secure data centers along with redundancy, disaster recovery, and scalability capabiltiies. In many cases, they've can do more on the security front than companies that might have limited IT budgets.
Intranet apps make more sense to me for this technology, sand other collaborative techniques, than Internet apps. But I think you're right, RNDDUDE, communication and security holes still have to be extremely tightly controlled for even that to be successful without the risk of leaks.
A middle school team from Rochester, Mich., has again nabbed the grand prize in the annual international Future City Competition, which drew students from 37 regions of the United States, as well as from England and China.
The word “smart” is becoming the dumbest word around. It has been applied to almost every device and system in our homes. In addition to smartphones and smart meters, we now hear about smart clothing and smart shoes, smart lights, smart homes, smart buildings, and every trendy city today has its smart city project. Just because it has a computer inside and is connected to the Web, does not mean it is smart.
Are you being paid enough? Do you want a better job? According to a recent survey Manpower released just before Engineers Week, employers and engineers don't see eye-to-eye about the state of US engineers' skills and experience.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.