|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: jon_banquerjon_banquer Date: May 11, 2008 11:09
> Whatever is free people will use.
Not when it can't get the job done.
I want you to stop using Mastercam with the CIMCO HSM toolpaths. I'm
going to send you my personal copy of BobCRAP to use on your trodes.
> Not the big guys like motorolla, but our country isnt made up of giant
> companies anymore. Small buissiness dominates.
In order to survive many small companies (machining job shops) are
going to have to do more with better tools.
> solidworks and mastercam dominate the industry because they are the best
> COUGH.....yah right.
Here's to hoping Siemens/UGS knows how to market and can change this.
Without a doubt they have better technology than SolidWorks or
Mastercam.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: vinnyvinny Date: May 11, 2008 12:41
>> Whatever is free people will use.
>
> Not when it can't get the job done.
>
> I want you to stop using Mastercam with the CIMCO HSM toolpaths. I'm
> going to send you my personal copy of BobCRAP to use on your trodes.
I have stopped using cimco all together. I'm willing to bet a paycheck
nobody at that company ever uses it again. A total waste of money.
(friggenSAD)
The reason isn't because it's not "kickass"....I assure you it is, but
because the average worker has no incentive to go above and beyond the call
of duty.
Companies seem to be turning into the sum of their parts. Nobody is
investing anything in cad cam programming anymore. if they are, it's simply
an upgrade of old technology.
|
| Show full article (3.55Kb) |
|
| | 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: jon_banquerjon_banquer Date: May 11, 2008 12:59
> The reason isn't because it's not "kickass"....I assure you it is, but
> because the average worker has no incentive to go above and beyond the call
> of duty.
We see evidence of that in this newsgroup, in the SolidWorks
newsgroup, on the CADCAM forum of Practically Worthless Machinist
which is headed by a guy who can barely use Dolphin CADCAM , on the E-
Mastercam forum which is nothing more than the James Meyette / John
Paris / Dave Thompson clique. If you complain about wanting X2 to be
fixed before X3 comes out you’re going to get blasted by clique
assholes. Mastercam X2 MR2 needs a ton of work done to it to make it
robust. See the post I put up on this subject this week.
> I don't know whats going on over there on the west coast, but here on the
> east coast NOBODY is investing in R and D. Nobody is investing in "new"
> technology. minor investing is being spent on "upgrading" existing junk, but
> there's NOBODY out there taking chances.
The company I work for invests huge dollars in R&D. :>)
|
| Show full article (2.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Joe788Joe788 Date: May 11, 2008 13:12
On May 11, 12:59 pm, jon_banquer yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> SolidWorks is so successful only because they put a huge emphasis on
> building and maintaining their VAR network. Doing the exact same thing
> is the only way Siemens/UGS will break through the SolidWorks /
> Mastercam dominance. Superior technology alone won't do it.
> Unfortunately for smarter customers a VAR network drives up the cost
> of the product and makes decent training very, very expensive.
>
> Jon Banquer
> San Diego, CA
Jon, can you please elaborate in YOUR OWN WORDS from YOUR OWN
experience, what kind of "superior technology" UGS is using?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 11, 2008 13:44
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe788 aol.com> wrote:
>On May 10, 7:02 am, jon_banquer yahoo.com> wrote:>> Siemens/UGS doesn't think so:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6z2f8n
>>
>> "Competition
>>
>> How does this distance you from the competition...
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 11, 2008 13:50
On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer yahoo.com>
wrote:
>SolidWorks is so successful
Which you claim is no good ...
>only because they put a huge emphasis on
>building and maintaining their VAR network.
Which you hate .. after all, they provide training & support ....
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 11, 2008 13:53
On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:59:18 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> Of course they do. But be serious, how many people using solidworks are
>> frustraited at what it can't do?
>> .005%%?
>
>Anyone who has to work with someone elseÂ’s design and modify it in
>SolidWorks is frustrated. Anyone who makes major changes to their
>design is frustrated.
What major changes do YOU have to make to designs
& design intent to DRILL ONE HOLE?
WHY NOT LEARN TO USE SOFTWARE?
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jon_banquerjon_banquer Date: May 11, 2008 14:06
Siemens/UGS doesn't think so:
http://tinyurl.com/6z2f8n
"Competition
How does this distance you from the competition? Do you
expect your competitors to offer something similar in the
near future?
We believe that we now have a sustainable lead based
on the technical merits of the application layer. It takes
years of intimate knowledge of the solid modeling kernel
and constraint solver, as well as a unique perspective on
how to apply these tools to be able to put such an
application layer together."
Siemens/UGS owns Parasolid.
Siemens/UGS own D-Cubed.
Years ago I said SolidWorks should have dumped Parasolid. Looks like I
was right on this front as well. With the proper marketing from
Siemens, SolidWorks bells and whistles aren't going to cut it
anymore.
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brewertrbrewertr Date: May 11, 2008 14:57
On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:06:46 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
yahoo.com> wrote:
>Years ago I said SolidWorks should have dumped Parasolid. Looks like I
>was right on this front as well.
[
Just another reason to dump Parasolid as the main modeling kernel
for SolidWorks.
I think we WILL see ACIS become the main kernel for CATIA and for
SolidWorks in 2004.
]-Jon Banquer-
Yes Jon your predictions sure seem to always happen.....LOL...
Tom
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: jon_banquerjon_banquer Date: May 11, 2008 15:16
Siemens/UGS doesn't think so:
http://tinyurl.com/6z2f8n
"Competition
How does this distance you from the competition? Do you
expect your competitors to offer something similar in the
near future?
We believe that we now have a sustainable lead based
on the technical merits of the application layer. It takes
years of intimate knowledge of the solid modeling kernel
and constraint solver, as well as a unique perspective on
how to apply these tools to be able to put such an
application layer together."
Siemens/UGS owns Parasolid.
Siemens/UGS own D-Cubed.
Years ago I said SolidWorks should have dumped Parasolid. Looks like I
was right on this front as well. With the proper marketing from
Siemens, SolidWorks bells and whistles aren't going to cut it
anymore.
|
| Show full article (0.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
