| Author |
Message |
buko
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:28 am Post subject:
Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
Hi,
I heard from many friends working with Works that UGS is thinking about
canceling the contract with DS. What will happen with Works without the
parasolid kernel. Does somebody know if there are migration strategies for
our files?
regards
buko
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 3:45 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
Can you tell us more about where you heard this and what exactly was
said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:17 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
buko wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
I heard from many friends working with Works that UGS is thinking
about
canceling the contract with DS. What will happen with Works without
the
parasolid kernel. Does somebody know if there are migration
strategies for
our files?
regards
buko
|
The best thing that could ever happen to SolidWorks development into a
true seamless, unified, hybrid modeler is dumping Parasolid. I have
said exactly this in this newsgroup for a long time.
jon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
On 30 Dec 2004 18:17:56 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
buko wrote:
Hi,
I heard from many friends working with Works that UGS is thinking
about
canceling the contract with DS. What will happen with Works without
the
parasolid kernel. Does somebody know if there are migration
strategies for
our files?
regards
buko
The best thing that could ever happen to SolidWorks development into a
true seamless, unified, hybrid modeler is dumping Parasolid. I have
said exactly this in this newsgroup for a long time.
jon
|
That's because you are a total idiot without a clue.
Not one.
Been popping kernels much lately?
BTW, UG uses the ParaSolid kernel.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Salvador
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
The question should be, why would UGS want to lo$e the licen$ing
revenue$ and positive marketing SW has on Parasolid??
Anyhow, if this does for some reason happen and if SW starts using the
ACIS kernel, it "should not" be a issue, according to SW Corp's past
statements??
...
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:06 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:38:57 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Salvador"
<paul@zxys.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The question should be, why would UGS want to lo$e the licen$ing
revenue$ and positive marketing SW has on Parasolid??
Anyhow, if this does for some reason happen and if SW starts using the
ACIS kernel, it "should not" be a issue, according to SW Corp's past
statements??
|
There are kernels (topology engines) and there's the Applications
Software ... which SW in this case provides (or the user may have
third party software or have written some themselves) that works
with what SW has provided already (or any other vendor).
SW Could probably switch kernels with a bit of effort & cost ...
but it should then look almost exactly the same to the user. Except
for all the new added bugs.
Poor jb's totally clueless. As always.
After all, it's all just buzzwords ....
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
That70sTick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 01, 2005 4:35 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
Just who are these friends and where do they get their information?
We're all engineering professionals, right? Shouldn't we be checking
the validity of our sources?
I doubt there is much truth to the rumor as you state it. Parasolid is
a product on the open market. It is openly advertised by UGS for
licensing for use in CAD systems.
UGS is not going to unilaterally "cancel" its license to DS and just
walk away from one of its best customer's money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:18 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
Hey, that was my question. Given that buko has never posted before, has
not responded and has a hotmail account this is probably some lurking
marketeer from the competition trying to spread FUD.
And what the heck, AutoDesk switched kernels in midstream with no
change in performance. So why couldn't SW? And then there are all the
really good hybrid modelers out there running multiple kernals
successfully (TIC). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 04:18:53 -0800, "P." <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Hey, that was my question. Given that buko has never posted before,
|
??
Well, there's always that.
| Quote: | and has a hotmail account
|
??
| Quote: | this is probably some lurking
marketeer from the competition trying to spread FUD.
|
Probably not.
They'd have to know *something* at least, right?
| Quote: | And what the heck, AutoDesk switched kernels in midstream with no
change in performance.
|
AutoCad's capabilities may be limited.
| Quote: | So why couldn't SW? And then there are all the
really good hybrid modelers out there running multiple kernals
successfully (TIC).
|
Ummmmmm ... I don't really think so.
Doing translations of data between them perhaps.
But using multiple ones as their core topology data structure?
That would be about like every time you open or file a part
you use a SW part on disk & an AutoCad part.
In addition, even with using translation, only data structures
that are 100% common between them can be bidirectionally
translated.
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Howard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:10 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
| Quote: | ....... AutoDesk switched kernels in midstream
with no change in performance. ...................
|
Shape Manager?
They bought ACIS 7 code and changed the name.
| Quote: | .......... And then there are all the
really good hybrid modelers out
there running multiple kernals ........
|
Just curious:
Which are the "really good" ones? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
P. wrote:
| Quote: | Hey, that was my question. Given that buko has never posted before,
has
not responded and has a hotmail account this is probably some lurking
marketeer from the competition trying to spread FUD.
And what the heck, AutoDesk switched kernels in midstream with no
change in performance. So why couldn't SW? And then there are all the
really good hybrid modelers out there running multiple kernals
successfully (TIC).
|
It may very well be that it's FUD but it's only a matter of time before
ACIS does become the main modeling kernel for SolidWorks. When it does
occur it will be the best thing to happen to SolidWorks since the
SolidWorks database was rewritten to support disjoint solids.
Why would AutoDesk see any change in performance as all Autodesk did
was purchase the ACIS source code and rename it Shape Manager ?
You are correct that IronCAD does run both Parasolid and ACIS and that
this approach does have some advantages.
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 07:41:52 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | P. wrote:
Hey, that was my question. Given that buko has never posted before,
has
not responded and has a hotmail account this is probably some lurking
marketeer from the competition trying to spread FUD.
And what the heck, AutoDesk switched kernels in midstream with no
change in performance. So why couldn't SW? And then there are all the
really good hybrid modelers out there running multiple kernals
successfully (TIC).
It may very well be that it's FUD
|
All your clueless posts?
| Quote: | but it's only a matter of time before
ACIS does become the main modeling kernel for SolidWorks.
|
More of your endless lies & clueless BS?
He**, you don't even have clue #1 what a kernel does.
Just another buzzword .....
| Quote: | When it does
occur it will be the best thing to happen to SolidWorks since the
SolidWorks database was rewritten to support disjoint solids.
|
You don't even have clue 0, do you?
What was that about kernels again?
| Quote: | Why would AutoDesk see any change in performance as all Autodesk did
was purchase the ACIS source code and rename it Shape Manager ?
|
Removing capabilities almost always increases speed <G>.
You just don't have any clues.
| Quote: | You are correct that IronCAD does run both Parasolid and ACIS
|
Nope. It can only use one.
| Quote: | and that
this approach does have some advantages.
|
But you are a flaming idiot, right?
As has been so well noted in the past:
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/beaver.html
Hey, folks, OVER 3,000 hits so far !!!!
HTH
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:08 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
I wouldn't worry about it. I have been told by several SolidWorks
Mangers on different occaisions, in different parts of the U.S. that
SolidWorks has a working up to date version running on ACIS. So if
Parasolid did dump SolidWorks (which would be a shock if it did)
SolidWorks is ready.
Ken M. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_banquer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:24 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
kmaren24@hotmail.com wrote:
| Quote: | I wouldn't worry about it. I have been told by several SolidWorks
Mangers on different occaisions, in different parts of the U.S. that
SolidWorks has a working up to date version running on ACIS. So if
Parasolid did dump SolidWorks (which would be a shock if it did)
SolidWorks is ready.
Ken M.
|
I do believe what you wrote above is true with the exception of it
being a shock. It would be no shock and probably would have happened by
now if ACIS was as robust as Parasolid for solid modeling operations.
My understanding is that ACIS is much closer than it has ever been in
this area.
If PTC, VX and think can start cranking up sales at SolidWorks expense
it would help speed the process of moving to ACIS.
jon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliff
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:46 am Post subject:
Re: Solid Works Kernel |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2005 19:24:18 -0800, "jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
kmaren24@hotmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it. I have been told by several SolidWorks
Mangers on different occaisions, in different parts of the U.S. that
SolidWorks has a working up to date version running on ACIS. So if
Parasolid did dump SolidWorks (which would be a shock if it did)
SolidWorks is ready.
Ken M.
I do believe what you wrote above is true with the exception of it
being a shock. It would be no shock and probably would have happened by
now if ACIS was as robust as Parasolid for solid modeling operations.
My understanding is that ACIS is much closer than it has ever been in
this area.
If PTC, VX and think can start cranking up sales at SolidWorks expense
it would help speed the process of moving to ACIS.
jon
|
Because a blithering idiot said so?
Planting many kernels next spring?
--
Cliff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in