|
|
|
 |
Reply From: Troy Grose
Date: Jun/29/06 - 07:57
(EDT) |
    |
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Martin Tarling wrote:
> iParts - isnt that like
using the cold blowers on your car even though you
> have
paid for Climate Control. Just my thoughts on the issue.
I
guess you could say that, but then of course you would be assuming
that Climate Control was simply a big chunck of ice sitting in
the
trunk, and whenever you got to hot you would have to stop
the car, pop
the trunk, get out of the car, open the trunk, get
out the chisle, get
out the hammer, start chipping, continue
chipping, put some ice in your
pockets, put some ice in you
hand, carry it over to the driver seat,
throw the ice from your
hands into the drivers seat, go back and close
the truck, then
back to the drivers seat, get nestled into your ice
filled seat,
put on your seat belt, start the car, and get going again.
I
think I will just stick with the cold blower for now.
Troy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Sean Dotson
Date: Jun/29/06 - 09:06
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
(A bit of warning, I'm working on very little sleep and
too much coffee. If
this post does not make sense my
apologies)
As some have pointed out it's not a problem
because, we do not use the
thing. However I would agree that
this is a shame because we ARE paying for
it. Just like we are
paying for the Design Accelerator however I'll be
damned if I
can make that thing work most of the time.
The issue is
bigger than just the CC. Time and time again we have asked
ADSK
to take the time to research and develop a feature before it is
released. Time and time again it is rushed out the door without
adequate
research and testing. Just a few highlights...
-
Anyone remember weldments back in R6? Are they full functional yet?
Who
knows, I gave up on them.
- Design Accelerators? Looks
and feels like a completely different program.
I recently saw a
belt and chain tool by SWX. It was amazing. Come to find
out
that IV has the same tool. Just look about 5 times hard to use.
-
Basic sketching - try to select a region in a sketch filled with
lines and
projected geometry. Anyone NOT have to sketch over
lines to get regions to
select?
- Revision Blocks (only took
11 releases and it's still 90% done)
- AutoLimits - does anyone
really use this? Another feature that had great
potential that
fell short
- LODs - crash crash crash
- Global BOM - getting
there but still not GLOBAL
- MDE, SQL, ISS -and a load of other 3
letter acronyms. Why such a reliance
on this technology? It
seems like you will soon need a MSCE license to
install
IV.
and of course the content center. We're on what.,
revision 4 or 5 of the
content center. Each time the new one
does not play nice with the
previous...
We're paying for
all of this. And if it does not work we should be asking
some
hard questions.
Alas nothing will change until the user base
as a whole makes a stand. The
colonists were just grumpy
weirdoes across the Atlantic and the French
peasants were told
to eat cake. Not until muskets and guillotines were put
to use
did things change. So not until the users as a collective decide to
stop paying subscription will these things change.
The
lip service of "we are committed to making IV the best product" does
not
cut it anymore. I'm tired of hearing, sorry, that did not
make the cut for
this release.
I too have been paying
subscription for 9 years now. Quite frankly I'm
getting tired of
it as well. My subscription is due in August. For the
first time
I am seriously contemplating if we should pay it or not.
I
would however gladly pay it if ADSK spent an entire release just
fixing
all the stuff that is wrong with the program. I know that
the marketing
types don't have the mental capacity to understand
this but we users do not
just need shiny pretty trinkets to make
us happy. Especially if those
trinkets are polished junk. We
want stability, ease of use, good workflows.
You cannot build
a house on an unstable foundation. This is what is
happening to
our (yes OUR) product. More and more stuff is being piled on
the
cracking, patched foundation. It needs to be fixed before it all
comes
tumbling down.
Can you image how nice it would be
to have a release where all of these
pesky problems were fixed.
Man! We wouldn't have anything to complain
about.
That
would be a good day.
--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation
& Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Martin Tarling
Date: Jun/29/06 -
09:21 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I agree, time for a show of hands.
I think Sean
has summed up the Inventor problem in one great
post.
"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:5222710@discussion.autodesk.com...
(A bit of warning,
I'm working on very little sleep and too much coffee. If
this
post does not make sense my apologies)
As some have pointed
out it's not a problem because, we do not use the
thing. However
I would agree that this is a shame because we ARE paying for
it.
Just like we are paying for the Design Accelerator however I'll
be
damned if I can make that thing work most of the
time.
The issue is bigger than just the CC. Time and time
again we have asked
ADSK to take the time to research and develop
a feature before it is
released. Time and time again it is rushed
out the door without adequate
research and testing. Just a few
highlights...
- Anyone remember weldments back in R6? Are
they full functional yet? Who
knows, I gave up on them.
-
Design Accelerators? Looks and feels like a completely different
program.
I recently saw a belt and chain tool by SWX. It was
amazing. Come to find
out that IV has the same tool. Just look
about 5 times hard to use.
- Basic sketching - try to select a
region in a sketch filled with lines and
projected geometry.
Anyone NOT have to sketch over lines to get regions
to
select?
- Revision Blocks (only took 11 releases and it's
still 90% done)
- AutoLimits - does anyone really use this?
Another feature that had great
potential that fell short
-
LODs - crash crash crash
- Global BOM - getting there but still
not GLOBAL
- MDE, SQL, ISS -and a load of other 3 letter
acronyms. Why such a reliance
on this technology? It seems like
you will soon need a MSCE license to
install IV.
and of
course the content center. We're on what., revision 4 or 5 of
the
content center. Each time the new one does not play nice with
the
previous...
We're paying for all of this. And if it
does not work we should be asking
some hard
questions.
Alas nothing will change until the user base as a
whole makes a stand. The
colonists were just grumpy weirdoes
across the Atlantic and the French
peasants were told to eat
cake. Not until muskets and guillotines were put
to use did
things change. So not until the users as a collective decide
to
stop paying subscription will these things change.
The
lip service of "we are committed to making IV the best product" does
not
cut it anymore. I'm tired of hearing, sorry, that did not
make the cut for
this release.
I too have been paying
subscription for 9 years now. Quite frankly I'm
getting tired of
it as well. My subscription is due in August. For the
first time
I am seriously contemplating if we should pay it or not.
I
would however gladly pay it if ADSK spent an entire release just
fixing
all the stuff that is wrong with the program. I know that
the marketing
types don't have the mental capacity to understand
this but we users do not
just need shiny pretty trinkets to make
us happy. Especially if those
trinkets are polished junk. We want
stability, ease of use, good workflows.
You cannot build a
house on an unstable foundation. This is what is
happening to our
(yes OUR) product. More and more stuff is being piled on
the
cracking, patched foundation. It needs to be fixed before it all
comes
tumbling down.
Can you image how nice it would be to
have a release where all of these
pesky problems were fixed. Man!
We wouldn't have anything to complain
about.
That would be
a good day.
--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation &
Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Troy Grose
Date: Jun/29/06 - 09:34
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
That pretty much sums up all my feels as well. This is
also the first
year that I have felt very compelled to not renew
our subscription
contract. We have customers who use Iv's
competing software, and my boss
has asked me numerous times "is
there anyway we can convert solidworks
files to IV" and I of
course tell him not unless we get a seat of
solidworks (or pay
someone else to translate it) We have no other
customers that
use IV, so the only reason we use it is because we have
been
using it for years. It wouldn't take much to jump ship, although I
would not look forward to redrawing everything, but with the
direction
Autodesk is traveling this year, it really is a toss
up right now.
What really gets me going is the REV block.
Year after year after year
after year...we get a release that
has no time or effort spent on this
tool, A tool that USERS NEED
TO USE. "Sorry we didn't have enough
resources to get this done
the past 11 releases, maybe next year"...ya
right like I
actually believe that even when Autodesk does work on it
that
they will even get it half right. Sean you said they are 90%
percent there, and I think you are just being liberal about.
They are
maybe 50% there. Like pretty much every feature they
release it is only
a half baked job.
If Autodesk did
spent R12 fixing all the bugs that have been around
around for
years, I would be a happy camper. I could care less if only a
handfull of new features made it into the release, but I would
love it
if it was packed full of bug fixes. I wouldn't think
twice about paying
my subscription. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: c.henry
Date: Jun/29/06 - 10:31
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
not all customers buy based on the demo , most look to
what others are using , i don't know about elsewhere but where we
are
the pecking order goes like this
solidworks
pro/e
or wildfire
catia 5
solidedge
inventor
and while
inventor claims to have the most seats , i don't see it
and
i have seen some companies that were part of the autodesk dog and
pony show ( one real big one here in nashville )
dump
Autodesk and switch , at a cost of over a million dollars
total
to a competitor
i personally would not change
except for the content center
and autodesk poor response
about it and blame shifting
is tiresome
its not CC its
your workstation / network / somebody else fault
they clearly
made sweeping changes in the way it works , did not
beta it
thoroughly , did not inform the users / did not prepare any source
of documentation , and still have not
we are aware and we
are working on it
which to me says they are using this
opportunity to add some
more neato features , and integrate it
further into the .net / my sql
general microsoft maze , which
might turn out to be a good strategy looking forward , but is wholly
unstable and unusable now
i should not need to be a software
engineer to run this program.
autodesk clearly has a
substandard product , with a try to please
all attitude , instead
of making a razor sharp product
maybe they could borrow a
couple of guys from the AutoCAD group , they seem to be on the ball
.
how long before the gorilla runs's out of bananas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Robert Davis
Date: Jun/29/06 -
10:12 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Amen!!!!
--
Robert Davis
QC/CMM
Dept.
robert@easmfg.com
E.A.S. Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
804 Via Alondra
Camarillo, Ca 93012
805-987-3665
Voice
805-987-7948 Fax
eas@easmfg.com - General
E-Mail
www.easmfg.com - Web Site
"Sean Dotson" wrote in
message
news:5222710@discussion.autodesk.com...
(A bit of
warning, I'm working on very little sleep and too much coffee.
If
this post does not make sense my apologies)
As some
have pointed out it's not a problem because, we do not use
the
thing. However I would agree that this is a shame because we
ARE paying for
it. Just like we are paying for the Design
Accelerator however I'll be
damned if I can make that thing work
most of the time.
The issue is bigger than just the CC. Time
and time again we have asked
ADSK to take the time to research
and develop a feature before it is
released. Time and time again
it is rushed out the door without adequate
research and testing.
Just a few highlights...
- Anyone remember weldments back in
R6? Are they full functional yet? Who
knows, I gave up on
them.
- Design Accelerators? Looks and feels like a completely
different program.
I recently saw a belt and chain tool by SWX.
It was amazing. Come to find
out that IV has the same tool. Just
look about 5 times hard to use.
- Basic sketching - try to select
a region in a sketch filled with lines and
projected geometry.
Anyone NOT have to sketch over lines to get regions
to
select?
- Revision Blocks (only took 11 releases and it's
still 90% done)
- AutoLimits - does anyone really use this?
Another feature that had great
potential that fell short
-
LODs - crash crash crash
- Global BOM - getting there but still
not GLOBAL
- MDE, SQL, ISS -and a load of other 3 letter
acronyms. Why such a reliance
on this technology? It seems like
you will soon need a MSCE license to
install IV.
and of
course the content center. We're on what., revision 4 or 5 of
the
content center. Each time the new one does not play nice with
the
previous...
We're paying for all of this. And if it
does not work we should be asking
some hard
questions.
Alas nothing will change until the user base as a
whole makes a stand. The
colonists were just grumpy weirdoes
across the Atlantic and the French
peasants were told to eat
cake. Not until muskets and guillotines were put
to use did
things change. So not until the users as a collective decide
to
stop paying subscription will these things change.
The
lip service of "we are committed to making IV the best product" does
not
cut it anymore. I'm tired of hearing, sorry, that did not
make the cut for
this release.
I too have been paying
subscription for 9 years now. Quite frankly I'm
getting tired of
it as well. My subscription is due in August. For the
first time
I am seriously contemplating if we should pay it or not.
I
would however gladly pay it if ADSK spent an entire release just
fixing
all the stuff that is wrong with the program. I know that
the marketing
types don't have the mental capacity to understand
this but we users do not
just need shiny pretty trinkets to make
us happy. Especially if those
trinkets are polished junk. We want
stability, ease of use, good workflows.
You cannot build a
house on an unstable foundation. This is what is
happening to our
(yes OUR) product. More and more stuff is being piled on
the
cracking, patched foundation. It needs to be fixed before it all
comes
tumbling down.
Can you image how nice it would be to
have a release where all of these
pesky problems were fixed. Man!
We wouldn't have anything to complain
about.
That would be
a good day.
--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation &
Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: John-IV8SP1
Date: Jun/29/06 - 11:12
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Sean,
A few years ago, you posted in disgust
about the IV product to which I
replied "Lead the Exodus". I
think I might just start a new thread every
Monday morning and
post this sermon. Mabye someday we'll get a real rain and
wash
all the scum off the streets! :)
"Sean Dotson" wrote in
message
news:5222710@discussion.autodesk.com...
(A bit of
warning, I'm working on very little sleep and too much coffee.
If
this post does not make sense my apologies)
As some
have pointed out it's not a problem because, we do not use
the
thing. However I would agree that this is a shame because we
ARE paying for
it. Just like we are paying for the Design
Accelerator however I'll be
damned if I can make that thing work
most of the time.
The issue is bigger than just the CC. Time
and time again we have asked
ADSK to take the time to research
and develop a feature before it is
released. Time and time again
it is rushed out the door without adequate
research and testing.
Just a few highlights...
- Anyone remember weldments back in
R6? Are they full functional yet? Who
knows, I gave up on
them.
- Design Accelerators? Looks and feels like a completely
different program.
I recently saw a belt and chain tool by SWX.
It was amazing. Come to find
out that IV has the same tool. Just
look about 5 times hard to use.
- Basic sketching - try to select
a region in a sketch filled with lines and
projected geometry.
Anyone NOT have to sketch over lines to get regions
to
select?
- Revision Blocks (only took 11 releases and it's
still 90% done)
- AutoLimits - does anyone really use this?
Another feature that had great
potential that fell short
-
LODs - crash crash crash
- Global BOM - getting there but still
not GLOBAL
- MDE, SQL, ISS -and a load of other 3 letter
acronyms. Why such a reliance
on this technology? It seems like
you will soon need a MSCE license to
install IV.
and of
course the content center. We're on what., revision 4 or 5 of
the
content center. Each time the new one does not play nice with
the
previous...
We're paying for all of this. And if it
does not work we should be asking
some hard
questions.
Alas nothing will change until the user base as a
whole makes a stand. The
colonists were just grumpy weirdoes
across the Atlantic and the French
peasants were told to eat
cake. Not until muskets and guillotines were put
to use did
things change. So not until the users as a collective decide
to
stop paying subscription will these things change.
The
lip service of "we are committed to making IV the best product" does
not
cut it anymore. I'm tired of hearing, sorry, that did not
make the cut for
this release.
I too have been paying
subscription for 9 years now. Quite frankly I'm
getting tired of
it as well. My subscription is due in August. For the
first time
I am seriously contemplating if we should pay it or not.
I
would however gladly pay it if ADSK spent an entire release just
fixing
all the stuff that is wrong with the program. I know that
the marketing
types don't have the mental capacity to understand
this but we users do not
just need shiny pretty trinkets to make
us happy. Especially if those
trinkets are polished junk. We want
stability, ease of use, good workflows.
You cannot build a
house on an unstable foundation. This is what is
happening to our
(yes OUR) product. More and more stuff is being piled on
the
cracking, patched foundation. It needs to be fixed before it all
comes
tumbling down.
Can you image how nice it would be to
have a release where all of these
pesky problems were fixed. Man!
We wouldn't have anything to complain
about.
That would be
a good day.
--
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation &
Engineering
www.RNDautomation.com
www.mcadforums.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Stephan Rose
Date: Jun/30/06 -
08:10 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:59:19 +0000, designengineer
<> wrote:
>I probably shouldn?t say this, but AD is
probably fully aware of this:
>The comp I work in is
plc.
>I say to my boss "I not sure subs are worth the money,
cant we have another 2 seats instead of subs, and review an upgrade
in say 2 years time?? He says, "We are keeping them! It was an
almighty struggle to persuade them to let us have the money for
subs, and now its built into our budget, not to mention the what
monetary traps we might face, when trying to upgrade, IT WILL cost
in the long run"
>
>What?s the theory behind the new dwf
extension for "subscription users only?"
One question on
that, just occured to me...
DWF for subscription users
only..so what if say you get a subscription
now, and a year from
now...your subscription runs out...can't work
with DWF files
anymore? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Troy Grose
Date: Jun/30/06 - 08:17
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
These addins are usually incorporated into the core
product when the
next release is issued, so you will likely see
it in R12 as part of the
package. The only reason I can see that
Autodesk did what they did by
releasing it as a subscription
only based addin is that they might
"scare" a few of their
customers into getting onto subscription.
Customers might say to
themselves "oh we had better get on subscription
or we miss out
on all these addins that get released." Other than that I
don't
see any reason why it was not released to everyone with
R11.
When it seems like there is no common sense involved,
it's usually
because marketing IS involved.
Stephan Rose
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:59:19 +0000, designengineer
<> wrote:
>
>> I probably shouldn?t say this,
but AD is probably fully aware of this:
>> The comp I work
in is plc.
>> I say to my boss "I not sure subs are worth
the money, cant we have another 2 seats instead of subs, and review
an upgrade in say 2 years time?? He says, "We are keeping them! It
was an almighty struggle to persuade them to let us have the money
for subs, and now its built into our budget, not to mention the what
monetary traps we might face, when trying to upgrade, IT WILL cost
in the long run"
>>
>> What?s the theory behind
the new dwf extension for "subscription users only?"
>
> One question on that, just occured to me...
>
> DWF for subscription users only..so what if say you get a
subscription
> now, and a year from now...your subscription
runs out...can't work
> with DWF files anymore? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Stephan Rose
Date: Jun/29/06 -
21:49 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I think I got a pretty good idea where the bottleneck
is...I may be
wrong but...
Looking at the CPU usage while
waiting on the content center I see the
EDMWS process pegging
multiple times. I already scratched my head
seeing inventor
install the .Net framework 2.0, and I found out that
EDMWS
process actually is .Net 2.0 based.
If I understand it right,
that EDMWS server acts as a bridge between
inventor and the
actual SQL Database. Taking ildasm to some of the
DLLs reinforces
this assumption this as I saw some SQL statements that
are
definitely content center related.
Now the .Net framework is
a really great thing, for me it's the best
thing since sliced
bread. In the right hands it is extremely powerful
and fast. Been
using it for years ever since 1.0 was in beta, and
know it inside
and out including its various and numerous performance
traps. I
think it's safe to say that someone that doesn't follow
.Net
naming conventions in their code (and ildasm clearly shows
this)...is
either too stubborn to switch to more modern naming
conventions, or
just recently started working with the
framework.
If it's the latter case (which is my guess), its
also very likely that
there are plenty of things in that bridge
that utterly destroy the
performance. Easily done...very easily
done. Case in point, I just
recently drastically improved
performance on one of my own .Net
projects (EDA App I am
designing) from 480 milliseconds for 1,000,000
operations to 80
milliseconds...without actually changing how it
works, just by
restructuring the flow of parameters.
Bottom line,
personally...I think that the content center performance
problems
are in that EDMWS bridge...just my gut
feeling.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
kimi no koto
omoidasu hi
nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai
kara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: John-IV8SP1
Date: Jun/29/06 - 23:44
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Somebody give this man a job at ADSK.
\8^P
"Stephan Rose" wrote in
message
news:5223714@discussion.autodesk.com...
I think I got
a pretty good idea where the bottleneck is...I may be
wrong
but...
Looking at the CPU usage while waiting on the content
center I see the
EDMWS process pegging multiple times. I already
scratched my head
seeing inventor install the .Net framework 2.0,
and I found out that
EDMWS process actually is .Net 2.0
based.
If I understand it right, that EDMWS server acts as a
bridge between
inventor and the actual SQL Database. Taking
ildasm to some of the
DLLs reinforces this assumption this as I
saw some SQL statements that
are definitely content center
related.
Now the .Net framework is a really great thing, for
me it's the best
thing since sliced bread. In the right hands it
is extremely powerful
and fast. Been using it for years ever
since 1.0 was in beta, and
know it inside and out including its
various and numerous performance
traps. I think it's safe to say
that someone that doesn't follow .Net
naming conventions in their
code (and ildasm clearly shows this)...is
either too stubborn to
switch to more modern naming conventions, or
just recently
started working with the framework.
If it's the latter case
(which is my guess), its also very likely that
there are plenty
of things in that bridge that utterly destroy the
performance.
Easily done...very easily done. Case in point, I just
recently
drastically improved performance on one of my own .Net
projects
(EDA App I am designing) from 480 milliseconds for
1,000,000
operations to 80 milliseconds...without actually
changing how it
works, just by restructuring the flow of
parameters.
Bottom line, personally...I think that the
content center performance
problems are in that EDMWS
bridge...just my gut feeling.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha
R6
kimi no koto omoidasu hi
nante nai no wa
kimi no
koto wasureta toki ga nai kara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Jun/30/06 -
11:12 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I drafted up a particularly virulent and inflammatory
rant about CC, then
didn't post it. Maybe I should have. I
really do feel that Autodesk's
performance on this issue has
been reprehensible, and whatever beating
they're taking over it
is no more than they deserve. It really twists my
knickers when
I see them doing all sorts of goofy things to whiz up the
software to try to compete with the other guys, when the obvious
answer
seems to elude them entirely. It's broke, doggonnit. Just
fix the bloody
thing.
Autodesk is facing a crisis. This
is more than just an issue with a broken
feature. The ongoing
fiasco with CC, which has been dogging Inventor for
years, the
(also ongoing) debacle with Pro, and the painfully obvious fact
that corporate Autodesk considers the stockholders, and not the
users of the
software to be its true customers, have combined to
create a really serious
situation. Autodesk: your users don't
trust you anymore.
Yes (sigh), you had probably better drop
whatever else you were doing and
make good and sure that the
Content Center is fixed--really fixed--for R12.
More wasted
resources, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm still not going
to use the thing. But if you don't you're going to lose even
bigger. You
had better put this one to bed for good.
But
is anyone working on the trust thing? Does anyone in Autodesk see
where
it's going? Or are you all too busy trying to make
Inventor look more like
Autocad so you don't lose business to
the other guys? Is anyone feeling the
irony? Someone else
already brought up the blue pills, the really
embarrassing
corporate VIP videos, and the fact that VARs are obviously
forbidden to admit that water is wet. Autodesk may be the
industry's 300lb
gorilla, but lately that gorilla has been
dressed in a clown suit, doing
tricks on a leash. And the
kiddies are laughing. Oh, yes they are.
Sean also brought up
the point that a relative handful of newsgroup users
refusing to
re-up their subscription isn't enough to cause a ripple. But
our
opinions expressed here and on other public forums can make some
waves.
Sean's opinion carries a lot of weight in the industry,
and there are others
here who's expressed disapproval is worth a
few subscriptions as well. Like
many here, I have a serious
investment in Inventor. I'm only a single
subscription, but it's
mine personally, and I either have to pay it out of
my own
pocket or negotiate with an employer to pay it for me (which I
ultimately pay for, because I can only negotiate so many
benefits). But
I've also got years of time in becoming
proficient with the software. I
could switch, but it wouldn't be
an easy thing. So do I pay my
subscription? For now, yes. Why
pour that investment down the drain, and
hurt myself over this?
As long as I'm using Inventor to make my living,
keeping my copy
current is really the only sensible option for me. But I'll
also
make a monumental stink on Autodesk's own forum, about how
absolutely
crappy Autodesk has treated us by their continued
refusal to deal correctly
with these issues. And if it looses
Autodesk some business--if the sales
guys from the competition
gleefully send prospective buyers here to read for
themselves
what the users are saying about Autodesk and their product--then
so be it. Autodesk only deserves the sales they can earn. That's
how the
free market system works. My goal is to force them to
pull their heads out.
If they don't, there will come a time when
I'll simply jump ship. There's
nothing in the other software
that I can't learn.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Stephan Rose
Date: Jun/30/06 -
15:00 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:29:33 +0000, Josh_Petitt
<> wrote:
>Have you looked into Open Scene Graph or
wxWindows?
Naw, I am extremely firm on no 3rd party or open
source...and I am
proven right on a constant basis. The thing
with 3rd party code is,
it's great as long as it works and your
requirements are within the
constraints of what you can do with
it. But if it doesn't work...you
got problems.
In most
cases, 3rd party code is used particularly in areas where
a
company has no clue how to actually do that. So they buy some
library
to do it for them. In theory, a great idea. In reality, a
really bad
idea. Because the next thing that happens is that
something breaks!
Something always does...Since nobody had a clue
in the first place,
nobody knows how to fix the problem. Now you
are stuck with some code
you don't know how it works that you
can't possibly debug (if you
don't understand how it works, how
are you gonna figure out what is
wrong?). If it's at least paid
for code you have a company you can
scream and yell at. But if
it's open source...you are totally out of
luck.
Also many
times, even if the 3rd party code works...many times it is
so
feature packed it becomes cumbersome to use and bloats
the
application it is used in. Case in point, the graphics
library I have
to use on one of my projects. That thing must have
several dozen
features of which I use maybe 3. Normally I would
just write my own
lightweight library containing just what I
need. It would be less than
10% the size, and a lot faster...but
since I am not in charge of that
project and can't make those
decisions...
On top of that, if I were to actually write
parametric modeller,
rendering the models would be the least of
my worries. I have written
half a game engine before in my spare
time (back when I actually had
that) just because I was bored. I
have no problems with DirectX, so I
would have zero need for any
3rd party graphics engines.
What makes the core of any
parametric modeller is the polygon
triangulation. Convex /
concave polygon triangulation without
intersections isn't all
that terribly hard. It gets a little more
complex though once you
put holes in the stupid things and get line
segment
intersections. Arcs and circles and such would actually not be
an
issue because they would be converted to line segments prior
to
triangulation based on LOD and performance settings to control
the
number of segments. The only thing you need the triangulation
for is
for display purposes to get a list of triangles you can
let the video
hardware chew on. Rendering a 3D Model these days
once you got it down
to triangles is trivial. Spatial division
such as quad-trees or
oct-trees is really easy as well to improve
performance. It's
definitely something I would want to write on
my own though as it does
constitute a core part of the
application.
So what else you need? You need the ability to
do boolean operations
between faces and the intersecting
extrusion / cut. This essentially
involves taking the outline you
are extruding, projecting it onto that
face you are intersecting,
and combine the existing outlines on that
face with your
projected outlines adding / removing / trimming
segments as
necessary. Not all that difficult on planar faces (the
problem
reduces itself to 2 Dimensions with simple line / line, line
/
arc, etc. intersections to create the new outlines). A little
trickier
with curved faces or lofts.
Once you got those 2
components working, you have your barebone
foundation for a
parametric modeller.
Bottom line, nothing here I would need
3rd party or open source for =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha
R6
kimi no koto omoidasu hi
nante nai no wa
kimi no
koto wasureta toki ga nai kara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: crank
Date: Jun/30/06 - 18:54 (EDT)
|
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
> Actually creating a barebone parametric
>
modeller is rather simple.
What about not
barebones?
> The key thing you need is a good,
>
efficient and robust polygon triangulator.
What does that
have to do with mechanical CAD apart from the render
engine?
> Boolean intersections are not all that bad
either.
True for primitives, otherwise False. It's what
separates the real guys from
the would be's where geometry
engines are concerned. Few have developed
fast and accurate
intersection functions and fewer have developed robust
exception
handling, tolerant modeling if you will, functions. ACIS and
"Shape
Manager" get no mention.
Now let's go beyond simple
and consider constraining surface boundaries,
etc.
`;^)
> 3rd party stuff, you generally spend
at
> least double the time it would have taken
> you to
do it yourself in the first place because
> nothing ever works
right or the way that you
> particularly need
it.
That's the Autodesk 3D story? It's foundations have
always been licensed or
acquired 3rd party code vs. integrating
aquisitions into a solid foundation of
their own development.
That's, imo, why the software has been so lackluster
generation
after generation. Just doesn't seem like a viable path to
high
performance mechanical design software to me even if that is
Autodesk's goal
which I do not believe for a
minute.
Diemaker has a point. Running with the CAD
performance big dogs is no cake
walk. He (/ she? ... still got
that good party dress or did you leave it
hanging on the fence? )
is also missing a point, I believe. As long as
Autodesk's
mechanical solutions division makes money processing large
numbers
of entry level users, Acad users or not, through the
lower levels of 3D, keeping
some of them long term and the rest
at least a few years, there is no incentive
to raise the bar. To
do so would be negligent. The cost of raising the bar
is
exponentially more expensive with each successive step. It's
the old 90 / 10
rule at work and they'd be going up against
companies that have more than a
decade headstart with far fewer
false starts and that have no other interest
than high
performance 3D.
That a parts library is such a bone of
contention indicates little of this is
pertinent to most users of
the software, though, and Autodesk has done their
homework in
identifying a lucrative, cheaply supported and profitable
market.
Keeping the right balance, maintaining status quo is
their current problem and,
really, they seem to be doing a fair
job of that. Keep in mind that the
rantings of us cranks is no
indicator of how they are doing. That's the
function of quarterly
financial reports. The rest is just a natural
evolutionary
progression, painful and expensive as it is.
Of course,
managing a part catalog is among the simplest aspects of
putting
together a mechanical design software. If analysis,
projections, quarterly
reports, etc. indicate it's needed you can
expect to see improvement and a lot
"see we be lisnin"
advertising here. OTOH, if the parts catalog proves to be no
more
significant in the big picture than SAT imports, for instance, those
that
rely on it will be unhappy campers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Russ Walker
Date: Jun/30/06 - 12:34
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
"Why do all you IV’ers always use stock price as a
scape goat?"
Probably because based on stock price ADSK (and
Inventor) is successful. When the glossy brochures and canned demos
wow the customers and they buy, it looks like success. Sales goes
up, share price goes up etc... However, down in the trenches, the
mouse wranglers are scowling and gnashing their teeth. It doesn't
smell of success, but of something else.
So you could infer
that ADSK is listening to its shareholders, whose measure of success
is stock price, and not to its users whose measure of success is
productivity with the product.
"Isn’t it possible creating
parametric modeler is extremely hard?"
I think so. With all
the resources ADSK has, they are still struggling. The question is,
are they not successful on "half-baked" stuff because it is too hard
or are those issues being ignored and resources being put on new
stuff? If the answer is the latter, then you end up back to where
you started - ADSK is listening to the shareholder, not the
user.
-Russ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Jul/01/06 -
11:52 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
wrote in message
news:5225050@discussion.autodesk.com...
You believe? It
appears?
Been there, done that. the top dogs layout
pie-in-the-sky parameters. and
the workers enthusiastically take
on the challenge against the odds. When
things go sour, each
side blames the other.
Really, it's middle managements job to
dampen idealistic vision with cold
hard reality. But you know. I
picture Adsk being a paradise of eternal
optimism, and cold hard
reality is negative thinking and just not acceptable
behavior.
Anyway. I'm basing the following from my
observations of this newsgroup
since 2001.
Adsk IS
listening to it's customers. Fillets work now. You have beautiful
drawings now . you have Iassy now. because people complained and
Adsk worked
on them. The whole reason you have CC is because SW
came out with Toolbox
and everyone here was aghast that IV
didn't. I remember people saying: how
can IV call itself
mechanical cad when they don't even have bolts.
So Adsk
provided that TOO. They just didn't succeed. You don't always
succeed. You can prove me wrong. But if it's your belief against
my belief.
I believe they have frantically worked on CC and just
can't get it. Doesn't
matter if failure came from a bad decision
at the top. They are all one
team. right?
Personally, CC
wasn't even on my list of reasons to switch. And it's not on
your list either, is it
Walt.
__________________________________________________
Nope.
It's not.
Your memory/observations aren't too far off from
mine. As long as I can
remember Inventor has had some sort of
hardware utility. I'd have to find
my beta CD from R1 to see if
it went back that far, but I think R3 did and
I'm pretty sure R4
did. As I've remarked many times before, they have
always been
junk, and they've switched from one goofy and dysfunctional
version to another about every two versions of Inventor. I've
never seen a
version of Content Center that passed my initial
scrutiny for day to day
usability.
And you're right;
Autodesk does listen and fix things. Usually. But not in
this
case. What we're currently seeing in the newsgroup is not unique or
new. We've had widescale dissatisfaction and general rebellion
over
whatever flavor of CC was not working a number of times in
the past. And
Autodesk has assured us that they were working on
the problem, and would
yadda yadda yadda.... And then a new
version would come out. Half the time
it was worse than the
last, and the other half it was only just as bad.
Autodesk's
entire approach to hardware in Inventor is wrong. It's
fundamentally flawed, and as much as I hate to admit it, they
need to throw
the whole thing into the dumpster and start again
from a clean sheet of
paper. If it was fixable, they would have
fixed it. They've had *lots* of
opportunities.
And that's
what makes me think that whoever's calling the shots on this one
must be very far removed from the reality we all work and live
in. I don't
think this is a case where they just tried and
couldn't get it. CC is way
too far off the mark for that. It's
just not that hard. Inventor will
easily handle all manner of
hardware, as those of us using iParts can
quickly demonstrate.
With CC, the problems is deeper than a simple bad
execution of
an otherwise workable system. The guys I know at Autodesk who
are writing the spec and coding the software just wouldn't do
this to us if
they had any choice. Some desk jockey in a suit
who has funny pointy hair
and wouldn't know a hex bolt from a
hammerhead shark has to be driving it.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Diemaker
Date: Jul/02/06 - 08:15
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Toolbox has been around for many years. 2001 was a big
release for SW, maybe then.
I’m still confused why so many of
you feel IV problems are related to the stock price.
High
stock price does not create a strong company. Stock price is the
MEASURE of a company’s strength. Financial firms run the numbers, if
the numbers say strength, they issue a buy recommendation and the
price goes up. If adsk does a business blunder, they get downgraded
and price falls. Stock market is just gambling. They assess the odds
and bet accordingly. But Adsk will still be the same company with
the same products. Sales might hiccup, but no one buys software on
stock price… do they?
A company can benefit from high stock…
they can sell stock to raise cash for venture capital, to pay debt,
or buy a company yacht. Company can make cash just by selling high
and buying it back low. In 2003 you saw a lot of companies buy back
bargain priced stock.
Enron had to keep it’s stock high for
collateral to borrow money to pay debt from bad
investments.
I’m sure a company can do many things to
increase their stock price. A big layoff usually raises the price.
Anything that gives the analyst the numbers they want. Like
increasing sales even though sacrificing profit. Any businessman
will tell you if you want to move merchandise, have a sale and
advertise. IV certainly did that. And… I suppose…what you all think
is happening… they can ignore existing product defects, which cost
time and money to repair, to focus on improvements that sell. I’m
sure the traders rate “new sales” way above “customer satisfaction”
when placing their bets.
Right?
Since business is
war, now would be a good time for a battle analogy. If a General
(adsk) wants to conquer “hamburger hill” (raise stock price) he has
to decide if he can spare the dead soldiers (disgruntled IV users).
I’d say adsk now occupies hamburger hill.
But MY question is…
why does Adsk need a high stock price? They got cash.
They
got plenty of cash.
Why?
Maybe…
Is there a
group of executives sitting on a mountain of stock and ready to
retire???
Just a thought. I’m not going to elaborate but I
know people do come up with some phenomenally twisted schemes.
Otherwise I can’t imagine why Adsk would NEED to increase stock
price. Unless they are bulking up for a really big move. Like buying
UG.
Naw… I think they just can’t get CC to work.
And next
year you will all be complaining about something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Dickery
Date: Jul/02/06 - 18:09
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
wrote in message
news:5225241@discussion.autodesk.com...
Toolbox has been around
for many years. 2001 was a big release for SW,
maybe
then.
Iâ?Tm still confused why so many of you feel
IV problems are related to the
stock price.
High stock
price does not create a strong company. Stock price is the MEASURE
of
a companyâ?Ts strength. Financial firms run the numbers, if
the numbers say
strength, they issue a buy recommendation and the
price goes up. If adsk does a
business blunder, they get
downgraded and price falls. Stock market is just
gambling. They
assess the odds and bet accordingly. But Adsk will still be
the
same company with the same products. Sales might hiccup, but
no one buys
software on stock priceâ?¦ do they?
A company
can benefit from high stockâ?¦ they can sell stock to raise cash
for
venture capital, to pay debt, or buy a company yacht. Company
can make cash just
by selling high and buying it back low. In
2003 you saw a lot of companies buy
back bargain priced
stock.
Enron had to keep itâ?Ts stock high for collateral to
borrow money to pay debt
from bad investments.
Iâ?Tm sure
a company can do many things to increase their stock price. A
big
layoff usually raises the price. Anything that gives the
analyst the numbers
they want. Like increasing sales even though
sacrificing profit. Any businessman
will tell you if you want to
move merchandise, have a sale and advertise. IV
certainly did
that. Andâ?¦ I supposeâ?¦what you all think is happeningâ?¦
they
can ignore existing product defects, which cost time and
money to repair, to
focus on improvements that sell. Iâ?Tm sure
the traders rate â?onew salesâ? way
above â?ocustomer
satisfactionâ? when placing their bets.
Right?
Since
business is war, now would be a good time for a battle analogy. If
a
General (adsk) wants to conquer â?ohamburger hillâ? (raise
stock price) he has
to decide if he can spare the dead soldiers
(disgruntled IV users). Iâ?Td say
adsk now occupies hamburger
hill.
But MY question isâ?¦ why does Adsk need a high stock
price? They got cash.
They got plenty of
cash.
Why?
Maybeâ?¦
Is there a group of
executives sitting on a mountain of stock and ready
to
retire???
Just a thought. Iâ?Tm not going to elaborate
but I know people do come up with
some phenomenally twisted
schemes. Otherwise I canâ?Tt imagine why Adsk would
NEED to
increase stock price. Unless they are bulking up for a really big
move.
Like buying UG.
Nawâ?¦ I think they just canâ?Tt get
CC to work.
And next year you will all be complaining about
something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Vaclav Prchlik (Adesk)
Date:
Jul/04/06 - 04:50 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Hello,
Please would you help me to understand
your 8 minutes workflow?
As you can imagine CC performance is
our big priority for SP2. We are already working on addressing a lot
of issues including start of CC, Family dialog, Filters, etc. But I
have a problem to reproduce your 8 minutes workflow. Numbers that I
can see are not great in any mean, but I don't see minutes.
For example:
- When using Filters then showing of CC
dialog takes about 30 seconds. (And we are already working on hotfix
to make it 3 seconds.)
- Instancing (part creation) can take
about 20 seconds now
- etc.
The AVI will be perfect, or if
you can at least describe approximate time step by step. Also I need
to understand what operating system are you using, how much memory,
what processor, graphics card, if you have server installed locally
or on network (10/100/1G?), number of attached libraries (can be
seen in Vault manager).
Thanks in advance for your time. I
need to understand your 8 minutes problem to make sure that we are
not missing important problem in SP2.
Thanks,
Vasek
(Autodesk) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Stephan Rose
Date: Jul/04/06 -
06:43 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:29:12 +0000, Vaclav Prchlik
(Adesk) <> wrote:
>Hello Kristina,
>
>We
are working on SP2 to solve the problem with Content Center. Our
current focus is performance (load of CC main dialog, load of Family
dialog, instancing time, Filters, etc.) and stability (customer
crashes and problems in main workflows).
>
>I'm trying
to make sure that what we are doing in SP2 is really addressing your
problem. Please would you be willing to help with a little detailing
of what makes CC unusable?
>
>Is it performance? What
workflow? What your expectations are (same as R10)?
>Or do you
experience defects that didn't allow you to finish your
workflow?
>Or do you see crashes?
>
>Please let me
explain why I'm asking for this information. We have doubled the
size of CC team. And we need to direct people to work on things that
are critical for you (customers). Our current plan is based on
feedback from newsgroups, application engineers and our own QA, etc.
>
>In summary I'm trying to find what we need to change
so you will not perceive CC as unusable
anymore.
>
>Thanks,
>Vasek (Autodesk)
One
issue I have is as follow.
At my office on the LAN, CC is
just simply slow as we all know. But I
can deal with it. You guys
are fixing that so this is great.
The next major issue I have
is that on the odd rare occasion that I
may use inventor from
home and connect to my work server, CC is 100%
unusuable!! It is
impossible...
The server sits on a 1mbit DSL connection,
outgoing bandwidth
about..380kbit or so. I forget the exact
number. So if I use my server
vault from home, it is impossible
to use CC. After a little while I
get a dialog that says "Server
busy" with a retry butto (and I think
continue button).. And
doesn't matter which button I press how often,
the dialog comes
back instantly. Only way out now at this point is to
kill the
inventor process from the task manager.
It may very well be
that your change you are already making might be
enough to
eliminate this problem. That...I can't say. But I thought I
would
mention it =)
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
kimi no
koto omoidasu hi
nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga
nai kara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Dave Hoder
Date: Jul/05/06 - 13:12
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
See the thread "IV11 Content Center -
iPart Why" dated 4/16/2006. It mostly comes down to 2 things for us
(forget the time to place a part issue):
Lack of
documentation:
- How does the new auto-size
functionality work?
- Can I publish my own parts that detect
hole size?
- What are all those cryptic
parameters?
- There are several places to map
parameters, where do those property lists come from? They don't
match iProperties, or do they?
Inconsistent behavior with
iParts:
- Formulas don't convert when
publishing
- Color can't be controlled
- File names are impossible to control
without a complete re-work
The CC gives us the ability to publish
our own parts but seems to assume we'll all just publish different
kinds of nuts and bolts. We don't use nuts and bolts but have
hundreds of hardware parts modeled.
>Is it performance? What
workflow? What your expectations are (same as R10)?
Or do you
experience defects that didn't allow you to finish your
workflow?
Or do you see crashes?
Please let me explain why
I'm asking for this information. We have doubled the size of CC
team. And we need to direct people to work on things that are
critical for you (customers). Our current plan is based on feedback
from newsgroups, application engineers and our own QA, etc.
In summary I'm trying to find what we need to change so you
will not perceive CC as unusable anymore.
Thanks,
Vasek
(Autodesk)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Vogt
Date: Jul/06/06 - 18:00 (EDT)
|
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Quote
>Is it performance? What workflow? What
your expectations are (same as R10)?
Or do you experience defects
that didn't allow you to finish your workflow?
Or do you see
crashes?
Vasek,
My concerns with CC in 11 mirror many of
the posts on this thread.
1. The parts need to be drawn
correctly. The Auto size feature is great, but it needs to be
accurate. Always. All the errors I have seen have already been
posted. If I find another, I will certainly post it. If I find 1
mistake I can no longer trust the data. If I can't trust it, I have
to check the accuracy every time. This saves NO time. I will just
use an ipart from a source I trust. It is my name on the design.
2. I get errors on some files that had parts from IV10's CC.
No, I can't post the files because I already fixed them because I
needed them. I will post any future ones I find. This makes me not
trust the CC. My company gets the new version of IV every year. I
can't have old files being corrupted every time. I can't have files
going bad just for a stupid bolt! I need to be able to trust that CC
won't be my model's Achilles heel.
3. Why is it sooo slow.
This seems trivial, but there really is no reason for it. CC 10 was
faster, so I know it is possible. I can model very complicated
assemblies, why is it so hard to open a list of bolts? I know it
takes under a minute or so, but I spend that whole minute thinking
angry thoughts about IV. If ADSK was the Kristina Vogt company, I
would want to minimize any time my customers had to think angry
thoughts.
4. Why are there so many strange bolts? I have the
ANSI filter on, and that thins it down some. Put the generic bolts
(one english and one metric) in the main folder for each type and
make subfolders for all the weird things only 1 out of 100 people
need. I know I can add to the favorites, but I don't want to have to
set that every year with my new release.
You asked if I was
looking for the function I saw in 10. No, but it was better than 11.
The reason for the preference is for speed only. 11's auto size
would be nice if I could trust it and had the patience to use it.
Bottom line: I don't want this incredibly powerful tool that
has everything I could ever imagine. I want a trusted, quick source
to drop in basic hardware. The point of CC is that people should not
have to waste their time modeling basic hardware.
On a
positive note, I haven't had the crashing problems I see reported
here. (knocking on wood) I must be lucky.
As a side note
about bolted connection generater, the dialog box in 11 is a step
down from 10. Most dialog boxes in IV are fairly simple to
understand. A veteran IV user should not have to read the help to
place hardware. I don't mind reading how to use complex modeling
techniques, but the point of bolted connection is that hardware is
too basic to waste extra time on.
As Sean already pointed
out, this thread was not just about why CC 11 is obnoxious, it is
about release quality. It is really a slap in the face, as a user,
to get a new release with these problems. I will not believe for one
minute that there was no tester at ADSK that was looking over
release 11 and said, "crap this CC runs too slow!" Why did it take
weeks of complaining by the IV community to get the CC team
doubled?!?!
That's what makes me think the angry thoughts
while waiting for the CC to open......knowing that this problem
won't be fixed unless there is an uproar on the discussion groups
about it.
I bet you are sorry you asked :)
Thank you
for what you are at last doing to correct the problem, and I would
really like to eat my words when 12 comes out next year.
Kristina Vogt
Project Engineer
Nigrelli Systems Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Jul/05/06 -
16:22 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
1) If it isn't faster that iParts, don't
bother.
2) If the interface isn't more efficient that iParts
(which could use a
little work), don't bother.
3) If it
isn't truly universal and customizable, don't bother.
4) If
it isn't absolutely bulletproof, don't bother. It's hardware, for
crying out loud.
5) If it requires Vault, MS SQL Server,
ADMS or an act of Congress to run,
it's too complicated. See
#4.
6) If you're going to have stuff like 3/8" washers that
don't fit on 3/8"
bolts, don't bother. That's
embarrassing.
7) If you're going to feature over 30 types of
SHCS, and all of them turn
out to be metric (even the ones that
say they conform to a standard spec),
don't bother.
8) If
you're planning on changing it all in a year anyway...well, at least
you're consistent. But why did you bother?
I'm working in
aerospace, by the way. Got any AN/MS or NAS spec hardware in
there? I rejected the current version of CC before I even got to
the point
where I found out.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Cory McConnell
Date: Jul/05/06 -
20:53 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
As usual Walt - you are bang on...
--
Cory
McConnell, AICE
www.mechanixdesigns.com
"Walt Jaquith" wrote
in message
news:5227824@discussion.autodesk.com...
1) If it
isn't faster that iParts, don't bother.
2) If the interface
isn't more efficient that iParts (which could use a
little work),
don't bother.
3) If it isn't truly universal and
customizable, don't bother.
4) If it isn't absolutely
bulletproof, don't bother. It's hardware, for
crying out
loud.
5) If it requires Vault, MS SQL Server, ADMS or an act
of Congress to run,
it's too complicated. See #4.
6) If
you're going to have stuff like 3/8" washers that don't fit on
3/8"
bolts, don't bother. That's embarrassing.
7) If
you're going to feature over 30 types of SHCS, and all of them
turn
out to be metric (even the ones that say they conform to a
standard spec),
don't bother.
8) If you're planning on
changing it all in a year anyway...well, at least
you're
consistent. But why did you bother?
I'm working in aerospace,
by the way. Got any AN/MS or NAS spec hardware in
there? I
rejected the current version of CC before I even got to the
point
where I found out.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Sean Dotson
Date: Jul/06/06 - 08:05
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I won't speak for Walt but since he and I share many
similar views I'll give
you my take on it.
>Was
Inventor R10 Content Center for you OK?
No. Why? For the very
reasons Walt listed.
>>1) If it isn't faster that
iParts, don't bother.
iParts are extremely fast. It takes
mere seconds to find and place an
iPart.
>>2) If
the interface isn't more efficient that iParts (which could use
a
little work), don't bother.
The key methodology is
extremely efficient and fast. If you want to change
any aspect
of the iPArt the keys allow you to jump there quickly. The table
view also lets you see what's available
easily.
>>3) If it isn't truly universal and
customizable, don't bother.
CC does not have a quick and
efficient way of customizing parts or part
descriptions. With
iParts this is as simple as using Excel.
>>5) If it
requires Vault, MS SQL Server, ADMS or an act of Congress to run,
>>it's too complicated. See #4.
I do not want SQL
running to insert hardware. Why has this gotten so damn
complicated? In CC10 I attempted to copy the library so I could
edit it.
In 10 attempts it crashes every time.
>>6)
If you're going to have stuff like 3/8" washers that don't fit on
3/8"
bolts, don't bother. That's embarrassing.
And we need
to be able to fix these things easily because after 3-4 years
there are STILL parts that are not drawn correctly. Cory
inserted a valve
the other day from CC. The part name was
Part1.ipt and it looked like it
had been chiseled out of stone
by a drunk caveman.
>>7) If you're going to feature
over 30 types of SHCS, and all of them turn
>>out to be
metric (even the ones that say they conform to a standard spec),
>>don't bother.
This one really gets me going. In
my world there are basically (99% of the
time) 2 types of
hardware. English and Metric (and of course a few
different
material version of each, carbon steel, stainless etc...). I do
not want to have to dig through dozens of different types of
SHCS. It's
insane. This is CAD, not art class. A bolt,
fundamentally, looks like a
bolt. We do not need 30 different
models. We need 1 model with the ability
to easily change the
description and file name. When I did attempt to use
CC I almost
gave up after not being able to find a plain-jane English SHCS.
It took 5 mins.
>>8) If you're planning on changing
it all in a year anyway...well, at least
>>you're
consistent. But why did you bother?
Yeah, I never get too
comfortable with a CC because I know it will all
change next
year. Which is frustrating. But you know, I hope you DO change
it again. because in it's current incarnation it's not
usable.
And the day you take away or regress iParts is the
day I drop IV. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Cory McConnell
Date: Jul/06/06 -
09:40 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I agree 100% Sean. All that was needed was a wizzy
interface for iparts.
The valve was called 1.ipt (even
worse)
--
Cory McConnell,
AICE
www.mechanixdesigns.com
"Sean Dotson" wrote in message
news:5228418@discussion.autodesk.com...
I won't speak for
Walt but since he and I share many similar views I'll give
you my
take on it.
>Was Inventor R10 Content Center for you
OK?
No. Why? For the very reasons Walt
listed.
>>1) If it isn't faster that iParts, don't
bother.
iParts are extremely fast. It takes mere seconds to
find and place an
iPart.
>>2) If the interface isn't
more efficient that iParts (which could use a
little work), don't
bother.
The key methodology is extremely efficient and fast.
If you want to change
any aspect of the iPArt the keys allow you
to jump there quickly. The table
view also lets you see what's
available easily.
>>3) If it isn't truly universal and
customizable, don't bother.
CC does not have a quick and
efficient way of customizing parts or part
descriptions. With
iParts this is as simple as using Excel.
>>5) If it
requires Vault, MS SQL Server, ADMS or an act of Congress to run,
>>it's too complicated. See #4.
I do not want SQL
running to insert hardware. Why has this gotten so
damn
complicated? In CC10 I attempted to copy the library so I
could edit it.
In 10 attempts it crashes every
time.
>>6) If you're going to have stuff like 3/8"
washers that don't fit on 3/8"
bolts, don't bother. That's
embarrassing.
And we need to be able to fix these things
easily because after 3-4 years
there are STILL parts that are not
drawn correctly. Cory inserted a valve
the other day from CC. The
part name was Part1.ipt and it looked like it
had been chiseled
out of stone by a drunk caveman.
>>7) If you're going
to feature over 30 types of SHCS, and all of them turn
>>out to be metric (even the ones that say they conform to
a standard spec),
>>don't bother.
This one really
gets me going. In my world there are basically (99% of the
time)
2 types of hardware. English and Metric (and of course a
few
different material version of each, carbon steel, stainless
etc...). I do
not want to have to dig through dozens of different
types of SHCS. It's
insane. This is CAD, not art class. A bolt,
fundamentally, looks like a
bolt. We do not need 30 different
models. We need 1 model with the ability
to easily change the
description and file name. When I did attempt to use
CC I almost
gave up after not being able to find a plain-jane English
SHCS.
It took 5 mins.
>>8) If you're planning on
changing it all in a year anyway...well, at least
>>you're
consistent. But why did you bother?
Yeah, I never get too
comfortable with a CC because I know it will all
change next
year. Which is frustrating. But you know, I hope you DO change
it
again. because in it's current incarnation it's not
usable.
And the day you take away or regress iParts is the
day I drop IV. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Jul/06/06 -
08:22 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
wrote in message
news:5228346@discussion.autodesk.com...
Walt,
Please
help me to better understand your expectations for Content Center.
Was Inventor R10 Content Center for you OK? (In another words
I'm wondering
if we get R11 CC performance close to R10 CC is it
going to make it good for
you?)
I'm going to response to
your points #6 and #7 as soon as I find how and
when we can fix
that.
Thanks,
Vasek
___________________________________
Vaclav,
if you read my earlier posts, you will understand that Inventor's
hardware handling utility (it wasn't always called Content
Center) and I go
back a long ways. It's very likely, the way
Autodesk tends to move people
around, that this is all fairly
new to you, but I have looked at it every
release starting at
R4. From that time to this I have actually got to the
point
where I've tried to use it about twice. Each time I have quickly
abandoned it as useless. The current crop of performance issues
have
nothing to do with that. If I seem hostile towards Content
Center, I've
come to be that way from long experience. This time
around, I didn't even
look hard enough at CC to uncover any
performance issues. Content Center
failed my examination on the
basis of what it is: clunky, inaccurate,
inelegant and
inflexible. Let me elaborate on some of the points I made in
that last post:
1&2) No flavor of Content Center I've
ever seen has been faster and more
convenient to use than simply
using iParts. I'm at a loss to explain why
the thing was even
created in the first place when iParts were obviously
developed
to do this job. Its been frustrating to see so much effort go
into developing this thing while such a useful feature has
received
relatively little attention over the
releases.
3) This is where CC has failed the test most often.
If it's hardware, and
someone needs to use it, a hardware
utility had better have provisions to
handle it. There's no
flexibility in this requirement. The minute I have
to use CC for
*some* of my hardware, and some other method for the rest
because CC has no provisions for dealing with the type of bolt
or whatever I
need to put into my assembly, then CC is not worth
using. Period. It has
also better be able to deal with any odd
method I might need to display or
store data about the hardware
I use. For example, I'm currently working in
aerospace, where
all hardware must be of a certain specification. The specs
have
been juggled around over the years. Some of them are still the old
AN-
numbers, some have the newer MS (Military Specification)
numbers, and still
newer is the NAS specification. Because
documentation for stuff that flies
has to be so exacting, and it
can be impossible to get a certain bolt in an
MS number, but an
exact equivalent might be readily available in the AN
series, I
have to specify in the BOM what possible replacements are
acceptable. Is CC going to accommodate me, or am I going to have
to use
some "workaround" to get it done? Let's face it; if I
have to use a
workaround--any workaround--for placing hardware
in my assemblies, it's just
not going to be worth the
trouble.
4 & 5) See my last statement above. It's
hardware. It had better be
simple, fast and nearly impossible to
break. I can't be using some fragile,
clunky, bloated thing that
needs a bunch of complicated setup and
maintenance. On this
point I believe that CC has failed at the most basic
level, and
is probably unfixable. It's too complicated to use for such a
fundamental operation as sticking bolts in holes.
6 &
7) These are just two examples I've personally found over the years
of
the miserable level of accuracy and quality in CC's dataset.
There are
others; the problem has been chronic. Again, it's
embarrassing to use a
utility that shows such a basic lack of
understanding of what it's all
about.
8) As I've noted,
CC is just the current flavor in a long line of failed
hardware
and fastener handling utilities in Inventor. For a while there we
were literally seeing a new version (which was promised as the
final fix,
but turned out to be another piece of junk) every two
releases. That made
upgrades very interesting. I don't trust CC,
and I don't trust Autodesk not
to do it again. You have forced
your users to spend way too much time
dealing with something
that should have been established and done with years
ago.
This fiasco might be new to you, Vaclav, but it's
nothing new to me. We've
been here before, and because Autodesk
insists on trying to "fix" a system
that's fundamentally flawed,
I firmly believe that we will be here again.
Autodesk has given
me no reason to think otherwise.
So...I really do hope you
guys can get the current, unfortunate performance
issues under
control. But to answer your question, no. That will not cause
me
to use CC. I don't trust CC. I don't like the way it works. It's too
complicated. It's too clunky. It wants me to work it's way
instead of
conforming to my needs. And it's currently hogging
development resources
that I'd like to see go to something more
useful. Like developing iParts.
But by all means, fix the
performance issues. The sooner you do, the sooner
we can get on
with life.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Cory McConnell
Date: Jul/06/06 -
09:40 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Walt is right on the money.
--
Cory
McConnell, AICE
www.mechanixdesigns.com
"Walt Jaquith" wrote
in message
news:5228424@discussion.autodesk.com...
wrote in
message
news:5228346@discussion.autodesk.com...
Walt,
Please
help me to better understand your expectations for Content
Center.
Was Inventor R10 Content Center for you OK? (In another
words I'm wondering
if we get R11 CC performance close to R10 CC
is it going to make it good for
you?)
I'm going to
response to your points #6 and #7 as soon as I find how and
when
we can fix
that.
Thanks,
Vasek
___________________________________
Vaclav,
if you read my earlier posts, you will understand that
Inventor's
hardware handling utility (it wasn't always called
Content Center) and I go
back a long ways. It's very likely, the
way Autodesk tends to move people
around, that this is all fairly
new to you, but I have looked at it every
release starting at R4.
From that time to this I have actually got to the
point where
I've tried to use it about twice. Each time I have
quickly
abandoned it as useless. The current crop of performance
issues have
nothing to do with that. If I seem hostile towards
Content Center, I've
come to be that way from long experience.
This time around, I didn't even
look hard enough at CC to uncover
any performance issues. Content Center
failed my examination on
the basis of what it is: clunky, inaccurate,
inelegant and
inflexible. Let me elaborate on some of the points I made in
that
last post:
1&2) No flavor of Content Center I've ever
seen has been faster and more
convenient to use than simply using
iParts. I'm at a loss to explain why
the thing was even created
in the first place when iParts were obviously
developed to do
this job. Its been frustrating to see so much effort go
into
developing this thing while such a useful feature has
received
relatively little attention over the releases.
3)
This is where CC has failed the test most often. If it's hardware,
and
someone needs to use it, a hardware utility had better have
provisions to
handle it. There's no flexibility in this
requirement. The minute I have
to use CC for *some* of my
hardware, and some other method for the rest
because CC has no
provisions for dealing with the type of bolt or whatever I
need
to put into my assembly, then CC is not worth using. Period. It
has
also better be able to deal with any odd method I might need
to display or
store data about the hardware I use. For example,
I'm currently working in
aerospace, where all hardware must be of
a certain specification. The specs
have been juggled around over
the years. Some of them are still the old AN-
numbers, some have
the newer MS (Military Specification) numbers, and still
newer is
the NAS specification. Because documentation for stuff that
flies
has to be so exacting, and it can be impossible to get a
certain bolt in an
MS number, but an exact equivalent might be
readily available in the AN
series, I have to specify in the BOM
what possible replacements are
acceptable. Is CC going to
accommodate me, or am I going to have to use
some "workaround" to
get it done? Let's face it; if I have to use a
workaround--any
workaround--for placing hardware in my assemblies, it's just
not
going to be worth the trouble.
4 & 5) See my last
statement above. It's hardware. It had better be
simple, fast and
nearly impossible to break. I can't be using some
fragile,
clunky, bloated thing that needs a bunch of complicated
setup and
maintenance. On this point I believe that CC has failed
at the most basic
level, and is probably unfixable. It's too
complicated to use for such a
fundamental operation as sticking
bolts in holes.
6 & 7) These are just two examples I've
personally found over the years of
the miserable level of
accuracy and quality in CC's dataset. There are
others; the
problem has been chronic. Again, it's embarrassing to use
a
utility that shows such a basic lack of understanding of what
it's all
about.
8) As I've noted, CC is just the current
flavor in a long line of failed
hardware and fastener handling
utilities in Inventor. For a while there we
were literally seeing
a new version (which was promised as the final fix,
but turned
out to be another piece of junk) every two releases. That
made
upgrades very interesting. I don't trust CC, and I don't
trust Autodesk not
to do it again. You have forced your users to
spend way too much time
dealing with something that should have
been established and done with years
ago.
This fiasco
might be new to you, Vaclav, but it's nothing new to me.
We've
been here before, and because Autodesk insists on trying to
"fix" a system
that's fundamentally flawed, I firmly believe that
we will be here again.
Autodesk has given me no reason to think
otherwise.
So...I really do hope you guys can get the
current, unfortunate performance
issues under control. But to
answer your question, no. That will not cause
me to use CC. I
don't trust CC. I don't like the way it works. It's
too
complicated. It's too clunky. It wants me to work it's way
instead of
conforming to my needs. And it's currently hogging
development resources
that I'd like to see go to something more
useful. Like developing iParts.
But by all means, fix the
performance issues. The sooner you do, the sooner
we can get on
with life.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: John-IV8SP1
Date: Jul/06/06 - 11:24
(EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
What it boils down to is way back in 1996 when Autodesk
bought out the
Genius package and billed it as MDT with
PowerPack.
It sucked then and it was equally unwieldy to
manipulate. Pathetically
unwieldy.
Then when the clamor
arose from the users "WE NEED HARDWARE", they looked
around at
their acquisitions and said, "Hey we can recycle the Genius
product and port it into Inventor."
Nevermind that it was
patheticly overwrought when the bought it from Genius.
Nevermind
that it was patheticly overwrought in its manifestion in
Mechanical Desktop.
Nevermind that it was a pathetic porting
over to Inventor.
Autodesk doesn't have the balls to trash
something that ain't worth a
tinker's damn (IMHO) as long as
they already have millions socked into it.
Nevermind that no
user has EVER liked the product, in any
manifestation.
"Walt Jaquith" wrote in message
news:5228424@discussion.autodesk.com...
wrote in
message
news:5228346@discussion.autodesk.com...
Walt,
Please
help me to better understand your expectations for Content
Center.
Was Inventor R10 Content Center for you OK? (In another
words I'm wondering
if we get R11 CC performance close to R10 CC
is it going to make it good for
you?)
I'm going to
response to your points #6 and #7 as soon as I find how and
when
we can fix
that.
Thanks,
Vasek
___________________________________
Vaclav,
if you read my earlier posts, you will understand that
Inventor's
hardware handling utility (it wasn't always called
Content Center) and I go
back a long ways. It's very likely, the
way Autodesk tends to move people
around, that this is all fairly
new to you, but I have looked at it every
release starting at R4.
From that time to this I have actually got to the
point where
I've tried to use it about twice. Each time I have
quickly
abandoned it as useless. The current crop of performance
issues have
nothing to do with that. If I seem hostile towards
Content Center, I've
come to be that way from long experience.
This time around, I didn't even
look hard enough at CC to uncover
any performance issues. Content Center
failed my examination on
the basis of what it is: clunky, inaccurate,
inelegant and
inflexible. Let me elaborate on some of the points I made in
that
last post:
1&2) No flavor of Content Center I've ever
seen has been faster and more
convenient to use than simply using
iParts. I'm at a loss to explain why
the thing was even created
in the first place when iParts were obviously
developed to do
this job. Its been frustrating to see so much effort go
into
developing this thing while such a useful feature has
received
relatively little attention over the releases.
3)
This is where CC has failed the test most often. If it's hardware,
and
someone needs to use it, a hardware utility had better have
provisions to
handle it. There's no flexibility in this
requirement. The minute I have
to use CC for *some* of my
hardware, and some other method for the rest
because CC has no
provisions for dealing with the type of bolt or whatever I
need
to put into my assembly, then CC is not worth using. Period. It
has
also better be able to deal with any odd method I might need
to display or
store data about the hardware I use. For example,
I'm currently working in
aerospace, where all hardware must be of
a certain specification. The specs
have been juggled around over
the years. Some of them are still the old AN-
numbers, some have
the newer MS (Military Specification) numbers, and still
newer is
the NAS specification. Because documentation for stuff that
flies
has to be so exacting, and it can be impossible to get a
certain bolt in an
MS number, but an exact equivalent might be
readily available in the AN
series, I have to specify in the BOM
what possible replacements are
acceptable. Is CC going to
accommodate me, or am I going to have to use
some "workaround" to
get it done? Let's face it; if I have to use a
workaround--any
workaround--for placing hardware in my assemblies, it's just
not
going to be worth the trouble.
4 & 5) See my last
statement above. It's hardware. It had better be
simple, fast and
nearly impossible to break. I can't be using some
fragile,
clunky, bloated thing that needs a bunch of complicated
setup and
maintenance. On this point I believe that CC has failed
at the most basic
level, and is probably unfixable. It's too
complicated to use for such a
fundamental operation as sticking
bolts in holes.
6 & 7) These are just two examples I've
personally found over the years of
the miserable level of
accuracy and quality in CC's dataset. There are
others; the
problem has been chronic. Again, it's embarrassing to use
a
utility that shows such a basic lack of understanding of what
it's all
about.
8) As I've noted, CC is just the current
flavor in a long line of failed
hardware and fastener handling
utilities in Inventor. For a while there we
were literally seeing
a new version (which was promised as the final fix,
but turned
out to be another piece of junk) every two releases. That
made
upgrades very interesting. I don't trust CC, and I don't
trust Autodesk not
to do it again. You have forced your users to
spend way too much time
dealing with something that should have
been established and done with years
ago.
This fiasco
might be new to you, Vaclav, but it's nothing new to me.
We've
been here before, and because Autodesk insists on trying to
"fix" a system
that's fundamentally flawed, I firmly believe that
we will be here again.
Autodesk has given me no reason to think
otherwise.
So...I really do hope you guys can get the
current, unfortunate performance
issues under control. But to
answer your question, no. That will not cause
me to use CC. I
don't trust CC. I don't like the way it works. It's
too
complicated. It's too clunky. It wants me to work it's way
instead of
conforming to my needs. And it's currently hogging
development resources
that I'd like to see go to something more
useful. Like developing iParts.
But by all means, fix the
performance issues. The sooner you do, the sooner
we can get on
with life.
Walt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Cory McConnell
Date: Jul/07/06 -
09:19 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
See embeded...
Walt,
Thanks for your
in-depth answer. I appreciate time you spend with it.
Please
let me share with you couple of thoughts about Content Center
related to you comments:
I see your point about iParts.
Actually this is one of the possible future direction that were
discussing. You can go even one step further and say iAssemblies -
why to duplicate table functionality of iAssemblies in CC if we can
use iAssemblies directly. Then CC will be a management, search,
filter and browsing environment for iParts, iAssemblies, and so on.
In this case it will be fast, very easy to use and all legacy
existing iParts will be instantly compatible with it.
This has
been suggested directly to Autodesk multiple times since
R6.
But there are downsides as well: Standard parts
are needed in all Autodesk products. Let's focus just to 2D users in
AutoCAD and AutoCAD Mechanical. Wouldn't it be great to have a
concept of CC that will be compatible with it and allowing sharing
parts between 2D and 3D? (iParts and iAssemblies are very Inventor
specific).
Um
no. It would not be great. I would rather not be kicked
in the kneecaps so some AutoCAD user who figures 3D is too hard can
be coddled. Lets get something working in Inventor
first.
Also what about entire Functional Design
stream? From Design Accelerator through Tubes and Pipes to Frame
Generator. Isn't the idea of one repository for all of these tools
very powerful? (iParts doesn't have Authoring and cannot provide
enough data to Functional Design tools.)
Maybe
some small improvements to iParts would satisfy this? How many
people are using Functional Design in its current
incarnation?
I'm trying to say that there are good
arguments to have Content Center going in current
direction...
Autodesk
is training its users to NOT use the content center. If and
when it is useable, everybody will have developed their own
libraries, and will have abandoned Functional Design and the Content
Center. Most users I know of up here still use it like AutoCAD
- they build parts independent of eachother and assemble like
Lego. If Content Center continues in its current direction,
with its current level of quality, I wish you the best of luck - but
it isn't going to fly...
--
We know about Content quality problem. There
is a team focused purely on fixing it and aligning the Content
libraries with latest revisions of standards. As you can imagine
there is large amount of data to check so it is in
process.
--
I'm taking the points about customization,
etc. for next releases. But for SP2 we will only improve performance
and fix critical defects.
Thanks,
Vasek
(Autodesk)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Pavel Pokorny (Adesk)
Date:
Jul/07/06 - 03:36 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
Hello,
the CC issues published here in discussion
groups are most of the time related to CC installation, CC
performance, CC stability, sometimes about problems with a
particular CC family / member, etc. etc. all in all it is about
fixes. I don't see many posts stating that CC is unusable because of
some function missing. Well this was the cause of unique filenames
which was fixed with an extra pack... so you have your point there.
For me, I would guess that we plan to address all the crucial CC
issues in whichever way, if it is really needed. So with your
implied question which is down under... if there are some things in
Inventor that are crucial as well but that would require adding new
functionality, this should not prevent you from letting us know
loud. Even when you hear perhaps that this or that cannot be
done.
Regards,
Pavel Pokorny, Autodesk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Cory McConnell
Date: Jul/07/06 -
08:23 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
>Well this was the cause of unique filenames which
was fixed >with an extra
>pack...
Keep in mind this
hasn't been released yet...
--
Cory McConnell,
AICE
www.mechanixdesigns.com
wrote in message
news:5229683@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hello,
the CC
issues published here in discussion groups are most of the time
related to CC installation, CC performance, CC stability,
sometimes about
problems with a particular CC family / member,
etc. etc. all in all it is
about fixes. I don't see many posts
stating that CC is unusable because of
some function missing.
Well this was the cause of unique filenames which was
fixed with
an extra pack... so you have your point there. For me, I would
guess that we plan to address all the crucial CC issues in
whichever way, if
it is really needed. So with your implied
question which is down under... if
there are some things in
Inventor that are crucial as well but that would
require adding
new functionality, this should not prevent you from letting
us
know loud. Even when you hear perhaps that this or that cannot be
done.
Regards,
Pavel Pokorny, Autodesk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply From: Teun Ham \(IV9 SP4 / IV10 SP3a\)
Date: Jul/06/06 - 09:29 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
Re: The future without a resolution to the Conntent Centre
issue
I must admit...
I *have* used the "Content
Center" several years back...to generate the
default bolts which
we use (M10x40, M12x60, M16x50, etc,etc)
I than moved the
bolts to another location, renamed them to something
meaningfull,
changed the material, removed the iMates, created some
logical
iMates. I have created several standard combinations
(like Washer, Nut, Nut)
(No iAssemblies existed when I did
this)
Done.
I have never touched the CC
again.
I have looked at the shortcomings of the CC each
release...and each year the
same shortcomings where present...I
have reported those shortcomings each
Beta...
--
T.
Ham
Mechanical Engineer
CDS Engineering BV
Dual Pentium
XEON 2.2 Ghz
2 GB SDRAM
NVIDIA QUADRO4 700 XGL (Driver =
77.18)
18 GB SEAGATE SCSI Hard Disc
3Com Gigabit
NIC
Windows 2000 Professional SP4
Autodesk Inventor Series
9 SP4
Autodesk Inventor Series 10 SP3a
-- |
|
|
