Dezignstuff SolidWorks Blog

I know this may be controversial…

I want a Macintosh OS X version.

eliminate Service Packs
fix all application errors before adding new features
new version every 18 months, not every 12 months
McMaster-Carr fasteners in Toolbox

display an assembly tree that graphically shows all external relationships
when deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling
parametric CG point for parts and assemblies

Devon Sowell
http://www.pdmsolution.com
http://www.3-ddesignsolutions.com

eliminate Service Packs
runs natively on MAC
Subscription Maintenance without Tech. Support
new version every18 months, not every 12 months
McMaster-Carr fasteners in Toolbox

place a Freeze marker in the tree to freeze rebuilds at a certain point
display an assembly tree that graphically shows all external relationships
when deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling
parametric CG point for parts and assemblies

Devon Sowell
http://www.3-ddesignsolutions.com
http://www.pdmsolution.com

Uh, a trick with layers is your #9 that everyone needs? It sounds like a job for a macro. Throw Luke some money.

1-More speed. Much more. (I have 6 bored threads on my Core i7. I’m not convinced there’s a real reason for that, but I could be wrong.)
2-Stability (Why so dependent on vendor-custom OpenGL drivers when Windows is the only platform?)
3-File compatability
4-True history FMT
5-Graphical map of references
6-Text annotation formatting that works everywhere.
7-Finish making things configurable. A lot of things (eg. offset dimension for extrude-from) are not configurable.
8-Contrasting background for dimension and annotation text, flyout FMT in models.
9-Properly overhaul equations. The current implementation is crude.
10-Truly useful documentation.

Different users, different needs. Here’s my list

1. Runs natively on Mac.
2. Subscription maintenance without tech support
3. SolidWorks complete version self-compatibility
4. More Assembly Features (cut with surface/cut with body)
5. Offer a basic version with just solid part modeling and assemblies.
6. place a Freeze marker in the tree to freeze rebuilds at a certain point
7. when deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling
8. parametric conic sketch entity that works better than the current Parabola
9. remove features people don’t use (reduce the SWX footprint)

Ok, it seems like people are asking for precisely the things that are addressed with 3rd-party add-ons, or can already be done, just not the way they’d like it to. S

Graphical map of references, etc…. SolidMap
Flatten pipe elbows… LogoPress
Freeze rebuilds… You can already rollback and save to “freeze”
Better Toolbox librarys… you can buy 3rd party libraries or import the ones you want (McMaster)
Removing features… already options for not installing all parts of the SW package
Run on a Mac… you already can, just purchase bootcamp or VMWare

eems the last post was advocating more for the buy-what-you-need approach. Well, there are already things you can buy/do to get what you want, yet here everyone is asking for SW to do these things natively. I’m all for the big swiss-army-knife approach, it’s an advantage that I think SW has… VALUE in what you get. Yes, they’re not always the best tools that work well, but it’s something. You can go buy all the specialized tools you need…. it will just cost you an arm and a leg.

I’m always up for more stability and better performance.

I like the parametric CG in parts/assemblies – the data is there, just fricken’ do it! Where I used to work, this was one of my biggest pet peeves.

Equations need to be totally redone – the interface is too clunky and ugly. I hate using equations in SolidWorks. I want to be able to just enter an equation into the dimension dialogue and have it stick ala Inventor. Inventor’s equations rock the socks off of SolidWorks!

I don’t know what the deal is with the dual-monitor support is either…having the FeatureManager or PropertyManager or anything else tore off on another monitor bugs the hell out of me. It’s too much mouse movement. My use for dual monitors with SolidWorks is to have specs or other data up on one with SolidWorks on the other, or have 2 instances of SolidWorks running to reference other files without having to Ctrl-Tab back and forth.

@Bruce Buck

Bruce, in my opinion your comments suggest that workarounds exist for the issues raised. I have heard that people run solidworks on a mac using bootcamp or VMware.

However, you left out part of Devon’s and my request.

SolidWorks runs “natively” on a mac

1. Better Drawings, just take a look at the nearest competitor
2. Imediately Abort any running command by pressing ESC
3. when deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling
4. Speed!-when working with MultiBodies-after 400 or 500 features work becomes awfully slow and need to export the body even if i dont want to
5. Graphical map of references in sketch
6. toolbox that doesnt crashes, when open the old SW assembly file, everything is messed up
7. Improved PhotoView 360
8. New version every 18 months, not every 12 months, use SPacks
9. Rename the product, does SolidWorks really sounds like a winner to you?
10. place a Freeze marker in the tree to freeze rebuilds at a certain point, like:
whats done is done but on every 10th or 15th part i still want to change something

1. clear memory when file is closed
2. make configurations of dimensions available in the property manager of the feature
3. make a text feature configurable (i.e. config A text boss “AAA”, config B text boss “BBB”
4. add symbol icons (i.e. depth, diameter,counterbore, etc) to note dialog box just like dimension dialog box for drawings
5. graphical map of references

@Mark Landsaat

If you re-read my comments, you’ll understand that I am FOR what you ask. I was debating more the fact that some comments ask for SW to be more modular/specialized, yet some requests asking SW to be more integrated.

1. Internal process explorer similar to Google Chrome browser with ability to cancel a process without crashing entire software (incorporates clearing memory when file’s are closed), and ability to push process to background to continue using remaining software…possibly push to other threads/cores
2. Subscription without support (not really a SW enhancement…just a thorn in our sides)
3. Graphical map of references
4. Redesigned equation concept and make usable, easily enter-able/edit-able, searchable, annotate-able, link to references, supporting data etc.
5. Simplify UI of FM for assembly mating, make display of FM/PM user configurable for location size/split etc.
6. Toolbox updates: Multi-user DB system, efficient toolbox with giant part safeguards for assembly sharing/working off site, more downloadable std component toolboxes available (SW work with vendors to generate, ie McMaster-Carr)
7. Less reliability on graphics card vendors for software stability
8. File/custom properties mapped/displayed in Windows/File Explorer columns
9. Use of tables in drawing sheet formats usable for creating title blocks
10. More cryptic/blank error/crash messages…they are fun to decipher and give us breaks from actual productive work!

Are we limited to 10???

This is tough for me. Maybe it’s my INTP personality disorder, maybe interference from the right side of my brain, but I have difficulty counting and creating ordered lists. Regardless, here goes:

A. Why are conics too much to ask for as a sketch entity? Anyone using splines to approximate a conical section understands that editing the underlying path or curve geometry requires a full editing of the spline–every time. Conics would be quick/simple to define and hold through any edits. If you’re making swoopy stuff, you making heavy edits to refine the form.

3. Animator is far too painful to use. Why not unify the motion rules that are used by regular SolidWorks, instead of requiring the user to figure out the secret motion rules of Animator? Why require a complete do-over of the animation with the smallest of mis-programming in an animation? Edits simply don’t work without a total eclipse of red diamonds throughout the animation–and often these cannot possibly be remedied. I saw the demo of “Motion” yesterday, where animation is “event-based” in programming. Maybe move toward this a bit more?

y. Please don’t remove the functionality of PhotoWorks when substituting the more limited PhotoView 360. Yes, the interface of PhotoWorks is/was painful to use. But the Mental Ray engine is simply superior in power. Polish the interface, offer better materials. I need to have the functionality of creating new, custom materials, creating new decals, and rendering all this in motion with animations. Animations are often used to illustrate–and not merely to simulate. Let’s keep this perspective in mind, please. Industrial designers often work on the illustration side without the need for a complete FEA study.

7. Unification between display states and configurations. This was broken in v2007, and has not yet been repaired. Rumor has it I can use display states (alone) to show differences in assemblies (some parts hidden, some parts shown), but I’ve not yet gotten this to work quite right. From what I understand, I’m not the only one seeing some of these issues, and it seems there are bugs that don’t allow everything that was once possible in v2007. I’d like an export to eDrawings format to clearly show each configuration I have in SolidWorks (you know, by clicking on the Configurations tabs at the bottom of the eDrawings window), but this doesn’t show what I see in my SolidWorks window when switching between configurations. This mismatch means this function is broken! We had it three years ago–what happened?

F. Remodel the “subscription” fees plan with VARs. I need no support, except with bugs. We’ve got forums and SolidJott and stuff like this now, which can offer “answers” to issues at 3:31 AM. The Help files could use some work to actually list and deal with each feature, so that a user can once again teach themselves the software (like I taught myself back in 1997). With these items, I only need new versions of software, but I get the feeling I’m paying for support I neither use nor desire. Nothing against my VAR–they’re great people–but why isn’t an a la carte feature for tech support available by now? Some customers call tech support several times a week (or even per day!). I call once every several years, except to report a bug (which is often non-solvable by my VAR, being a software glitch/issue).

@. Don’t delete anything downstream because I deleted something upstream. I’ll do that myself. I really don’t care if a point on a sketch segment as part of a lofted surface is has a coincident mate to a construction line in something upstream. I don’t need a total crash and deletion of the sketch, loft, surface trim, knit, body export, and exported part as a result of something so trivial.

That’s probably not ten things, and perhaps not even in order of preferred priority. Whatever. I’d like all of them, not some of them.

Bruce Buck,

I could use Boot Camp or one of the other programs to run Windows and SolidWorks on my Mac but that misses the point.

It’s not just to be able to run SW on Apple Macintosh hardware, it’s that I don’t want to run Windows.

I want a native Mac OS X version of SolidWorks to take advantage of the Mac OS X technologies such as 64 bit support (standard), Open CL, GCD, multi-touch interfaces, etc…

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/

-Jim

1) Stability, currently have an assembly file that craters, when opening, unless I open the subs first. Haven’t a clue why and no hope of finding reason.

2) Speed especially with drawings of large assemblies, 64-bit helps a lot but want more.

3) Only make changes to the user interface once every 6 releases and then only if I approve the changes.

4) Equations.

5) Clear memory when closing files.

Of the previous lists the only things that don’t interest me is OS X and I like the current SW Pro feature set.

Maybe I’m not making myself clear. I am ALL FOR developing a NATIVE SW application for Mac. Would provide more choice to the designer. Make it just like 64/32 bit. Same price, you can install it on either or, your choice.

1. Increase program stability
2. increase feature reliability, lofts, sweeps, boundary surface, mirror, combine, fillet, all find dumb ways to fail when a small change is made.
3. Backward data compatibility
4. import 3DS MAX files
5. OSX native. Bootcamp is inadequite for complex models.
6. Mass properties for all parts and assemblies. Everything has mass?
7. Smaller files for surfaced parts, need compress and save function.
8. Save the children
9. lofts should not twist or wrinkle
10. uniform simple user interface
11. F the VARS

Rick’s list “goes to eleven”!

(My HTML-based purple is brokenated.)

why would you want a mac version? it would just make the sw more expensive, less features, since more programmers would have to port it to mac.
if you don’t want viruses on your winse, just don’t browse all the porn sites. i don’t hav an AV, i just use a webscan every two months and have no probs.

btw, proe discontinued linux support due to lack of demand…

Wow! this is an impressive list that people have contributed.
It shows there is still a lot of basic work to do and we are a long way from the ‘product’ that just needs yearly refreshes to keep it selling.

ok some of my own not in any special order or emphasis-
1. Eliminate all cases of having to delete and redo whole features if you want make changes to your selection in them. I guess you can tag the ability to have dangling children that other folks mentioned in here too. This stuff is clumsy programming and really annoying to use.
2. The documentation needs to become more technical and complete. This is a program for pro engineers and designers and the present approach is not appropriate no matter how they play around with it. Just bite the bullet and do it properly.
3.Its well time conics were implemented. As I understand it Parasolid have had the capability for some time. And true enough the present parabola creation is odd..
4. No more UI makeovers and options. Only add stuff because its a notable improvement rather than yet another way to do the same thing. Also keep the various parts of the program looking like they belong together – so dont make PV360 look like its made by Adobe or Apple just to be cool.
5. Overhaul the boundary feature interface – it doesnt flow properly and the undo is total rather than last step. I’ll throw in the usual compaint about relations to and defining the position of loft connectors and curves and points and delimiters here as well.
6. Curve driven pattern just doesnt work and needs a rethink. The ER is in already but I dont want to wait 5 years for enough people to vote on it…I hate the priority system. If it doesnt work fix it before you add new stuff. Lets get away from having a whole lot of things half finished or half functional.
7. I agree Animator needs rework and when you dont actually need to do a full Simulation study with it but just want to illustrate the motion of parts why is it so bloody slow to compute? You can drag your assembly around as opengl’ed meshes in the window yourself many many times faster and it all hangs together fine…weird heavy approach.
8. Even the std version of SW should have a basic collection of std nuts and bolts etc included or available..if they can provide all those weldment profiles they can surely provide some generic nuts and bolts…its an engineering program, right?
9. All sp’s to be free to those who brought the release , including any hot fixes. If sp’s really must be GB in size make them optionally available on DVD or at the very least issue a last one for sp0->5.
10. well I’m at no.10 already and I’m not even trying…I guess my most important wish if I stop my list here is that SW should be run by technically minded for technically minded people rather be marketed as a feel good no brainer ‘product’.

thanks for the forum Matt

@Jamie Hogan

>3. make a text feature configurable (i.e. config
>A text boss “AAA”, config B text boss “BBB”

SolidWorks 2010 has this functionality.

As a Tool Maker/Mechanical Designer turned high school Technological Design teacher, here is a top 10 list that would do wonders for educators and school boards:

1. Full backwards compatability. If not possible, at least make the last 3 versions backwards
compatable.

2. SDK download avilable for previous versions.

3. The ability to run reasonably well on substandard computers typically found in schools.

4. Stability Stability Stability

5. Ability to run in a network environment with severly limited student accounts.

6. Documentation that actually helpful. Current documentation is only useful for punishing
students.

7. Error messages that actually explain the error. Will work wonders in helping students learn,
and engineers/designers be more productive.

8. All service packs delivered for free.

9. Revamp current VAR and training model.

10. Become proactive in working with education. Currently SW sees education as an expense,
not a marketing tool to hook future designers and engineers. Apple is doing the right things
with education.

My list :

1. When deleting a parent feature, first warn the user, then give the option to “delete all” or “leave dangling” or “dynamically re-reference” to other parts.

2. Display a freeze marker and also give the option create completely different variations of part details (eg you may be experimenting with a few different features to try to make a specific detail on you part.

Often I experiment with up to 5 different techniques to achieve the same result, then pick the best one, then find out later on that, that feature won’t work for my next feature; but one of the other features in my experiments will; but that is in a different revision file!!!! and i either have to remake everything since then or try to modify the existing design and deal with all features exploding on me.) It would be just awesome to have all revisions in the same part and all experiments truly suppressible and interchangeable, then re-reference-able.

When you suppress now, every reference is suppressed. Maybe “dynamic referencing” or “auto dangle” would solve this issue.

3. Treehouse plugin is a great idea. Integrate it into solidworks and expand on it……I’m not sure of the correct solution for this, but often with large assembly projects (in concept stage) i often find myself just sitting there wondering where to begin. I usually resort to using Rhino firstly as i can just begin creating rough shapes and positioning and scaling etc. It feels much more free in concept stage.

4. Integrate photoview 360 into solidworks interface (and combine a few features from photoworks re: decaling) so that you can precisely control what is coloured and select from the tree.

5. Have a big spring clean of all features and the entire interface. There is usually 5 different ways to do one thing; which is good, but the cleaner the interface, the more focused you are on your actual work.

6. With all the customising of the interface you’re able to do these days, it makes me wonder why you can’t save your entire interface setup to re-apply when reinstalling solidworks on a new machine or new version. (i spent a whole day customising, and i’m gonna be screwed next install. no wonder everyone still uses the standard interface)

7. Add way more materials to the default set, with all specs, so nobody has to go hunting for that info when trying to figure out the weight or do basic stress testing. Also would be good for when using the sustainability addin. More plastics and more organic materials and composites.

8. Graphical relationship viewer.

9. Turn feature sets (eg. sheetmetal, surfaces etc.) into “addins” (like toolbox and simulation etc) that u you can turn on and off. (i don’t think the 10 gb install is as big issue these days, it’s what’s loaded into memory). Also add a customisable mini tool bar for quick switching between feature sets.

10. Rework animation tools. Pretty basic but lots of potential. Also, when combining photoview 360 would negate the need for 3dmax+vray all together.

Overall rework interface and all feature sets/modules and refine so that everything looks like it fits together and plays together nicely.

But i disagree with others. I don’t care how they market it; but everything should be simple, clean and enjoyable to use. I still want it to be powerful, but i don’t want the interface to be made by engineers with 4 million icons on the screen!

You don’t have to treat people like babies (eg. Apple..) but clean and simple allows you to focus on your design; not the interface and doesn’t overwhelm noobs; not slow down the pros.

I’ve always felt I had a good grip on a particular piece of CAD software when I am able to remove all icons from the screen and use short cuts to access everything.

This could be a long list but as my main issue is modelling I’m running with:

1. Redo the splines interface – handling splines is clunky and slow compared to apps like Rhino.

2. Conics which are editable with a Rho value or drag handle

3. Redo the whole 3D sketch interface – again needs to work better – see Ashlar products for a 3D cursor that works well.

4. Allow direct editing and updating of surfaces by dragging/moving curve points – like SolidThinking/Ashlar-vellum etc.

5. Improve direct shape modelling tools like freeform and deform so that we can easily tweak completed models, maintaining reference zones like draft angles and shell thicknesses but also keep tweaks to very localised zones – look at Think3 GSM and Zone modelling as examples.

6. Give the Indent tool a live freeform preview that allows the user to update the tool body in realtime and see the effect in realtime- this is a great tool BTW.

7. Be able to save a SW drawing as an editable 2D drawing – currently the only way of doing this is to export to dwg. I want to be able to save the flat drawing and edit the drawing only – not the linked parts. replace DWG editor with SW drawing editor – same thing, but it just edits the native SW drawing “flattened” format.

8. Be able to freeze the history and encapsulate the part at that stage in the tree – so all rebuild take place only to that point.

9. Allow SW to be able to save previous versions of E drawings. With every release I have to tell customers to update their E drawings viewers. yes I can save a zipped up file that includes the player but most customer email systems strip all that out. This is not backwards compatibility – it just encourages some to move up to the new versions sooner.

10. Change the subscription service so that you have an element for core updates for your package, but you also get a time limited “value” of higher end or partner products to use for specific needs. Think about it. I have a Premium license, say, and I have one project where I need to do some large deflection analysis on plastic parts. My package can’t handle that and to be able to do this I need to upgrade to Simulation Premium. If I had a subs package that could incorporate a rental element of a higher end package this is a better solution for the end user than paying a fortune for something I might use once. This is not doable I hear you cry. Well it is. All activations are internet based. If you want to try a higher end package right now you can unlock it via your reseller for two weeks. Why can’t we simply pay the core subs and add options as needed? If I needed a couple of months use of Simulation premium what value is this I wonder?

@Mattj
Hi Matt, your #6 on the list is already available. When you upgrade SolidWorks you should use the “copy settings wizard” It exports all of your customized system settings like toolbars keyboard shortcuts etc. the “copy settings wizard can be found in the SolidWorks folder of the start menu under “SolidWorks Tools”.

It sounds to me like you would be a good candidate to purchase one of Matt’s SolidWorks Administration bibles. The book covers SolidWorks setup in great detail. As you would expect, the copy settings wizard is one of the many things covered in this book.

@Mark Landsaat
Thanks Mark, I bought the surfacing bible and it’s awesome; but upon hearing the name “administration” i began to doze off. No offense hehe. I’ll go and check it out right now!

Oh and I tried to “copy settings wizard”, but how does that work if you reinstall windows? I just opened the copy settings file i just created (in notepad) and it mostly has references to the registry and is a pretty small document.

I just changed my entire interface. Got rid of the main menu bar and put all relevant icons onto the shortcut bar, which i linked to a “NE” mouse gesture.

There was nothing pertaining to that in the copied settings file. Maybe somewhere in the registry, but when you reinstall windows…. I guess I really do need to get the Admin Bible!

1. Conics. My favorite subject with regard to SW. My understanding is that the priority is “low” on a conic sketch creation tool but I can hope. Until then I am using the ellipse, parabola, and formula driven sketch tools none of which create a verifiably accurate surface.

2. Accurate bspline surfaces. One factor in the need for conics comes from the compromises made for speed when using bline surfaces like an equation driven sketch. If SW can’t accurately perform calculations for a bspline surface (making them useless for Add-ins that use those surfaces) then having a conic sketch tool should allow the software to make the calculations based on a known formula for the curve.

3. If calculating the surface of a bspline accurately is a major slowdown then I’d like a “slider” for setting the accuracy required for each surface. Not unlike the graphics settings but selectable for each curve.

4. If no conics, then additional options for variables in the formula driven sketch tool. For conics or SAG equations the rho and the radius are required. The way it is now I have to edit the formula to change those variables. Won’t do much good with the surface accuracy though. At least the sketch updates without having to exit the formula interface unlike formula driven sketches.

5. Dynamic / realtime / continuos updates of the calculated dimensions for an equation driven sketch. Unless I’m missing something the sketch needs to be “updated” to refresh the calculations and “update” results in exiting the sketch. I’d like to be able to drag a point and have driven dimensions used in the formulas update as I drag the sketch.

6. Improve the graphics quality. The graphics were degraded in exchange for speed in ’08. I’d like to have the resolution I had (or better) or make the exchange for speed my choice. I don’t want to buy PV360 just to get the screen shots I used to be able to get.

7. Make use of multiple processors already. The Add-in I use does and so do the SW FEA / Flow / Thermal simulation packages. If I spec a PC for the add-in it runs slower for more money for the standard SW operations.

8. For the resources it would take to get SW on a native OS-X platform I’d rather have long term support of XP. I would imagine that there are a larger number of users with XP that are not in a hurry to jump into Win7. If they are going to spend the time on Mac then make it so it will scream on my Mac Mini.

9. A thread calculator like the METhreadPal software in the hole wizard or cosmetic thread tool. I’d like to be able to generate triple non-standard threads (for example) and not have to retype the data from one software output screen to another input screen. Typo’s happen.

10. Minimize the modular approach. Getting Add-ins to play nice with the software is messy enough without breaking out options to become Add-ins. Besides I like more for my money. I would like Premium for the price I pay for basic (this is a wish list after all).

OK this is my “quick” list as i’m sure there are other things i’ve found over the years but just CBF writing them down as i’d have enough of the niggling shortcomings i gave up.

1 Enhance the FMT to display more linearly more like a spread sheet with full featured headings list tied to custom properties and all hardcoded file properties (like mass, color, fixed (f), free(-) etc etc). Also make it fully dock/undockable. Current display exportable to Excel/HTML/Txt Deleminated even.

2 When deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling

3 Equastions need a massive REDO. They are so 1990. See Seimens NX.

4 More support for sheet metal features in the sheet metal features!!! See http://www.platensheet.com.au

5 Weldments… This is also very 1990. Massive update needed so make it not only have a feature set that is more useable when you have large weldments and want them detailed at a part level not as one massive assembly but also have it support properties/part numbers for each body as though the master part file were an assembly. how about offsetting profiles from reference lines and having all such mods remembered if the profile sketch is changed. How about having a single file for the Weldment Profile and use those configs instead of having to have a single file for every damn bit of roundbar, angle, etc etc!!! CRAZINESS!

6 Drawings… Omg this is a big one. Get rid of the so many limitations we have with drawings and drawing views. This program is 3D… Let us “unroll” every view with any view type… AND… *shock horror sound effect* Let us do it to an assembly view or a part view. Want to break an Alternate Position view? Fat chance! Hell… let me break a view at an angle other then vertical or horizontal would be a decent start! Want to make a projected view of a detail view? Not likely! How about letting me… somehow.. be able to parametrically add “number of instance” notes to an actual inserted model dimention so i can set-and-forget “4 HOLES @ 50 CTRS = 200″. How about letting us control Visible Tangent Edges *and* Hidden Tangent Edges seperately huh SolidWorks Corp? There is so many of these limitations in drawings that i just can’t remember them all. END THE MADNESS!

7 Part Custom Properties (also Part/Assy core properties). This needs an overhaul. The half Microsft interface half baked SolidWorks attempt at using it is very clunky and painful. We need a smoother, cleaner, more powerful and complete feature. Properties should be available for from anywhere .. To anywhere and EVERY property!! Not just some! This could be all done with the update of equations as they can be all delt with in a nicely layed out manner ala NX.

8 Logical acting and Stable flexible subassemblies(such a powerful feature half baked). Also support for flexible bodies in parts
9 Enhanced Belt functionality and make it include chain (and any other) support. I can have a belt drive turn 90 degrees and it will still work! And OMG.. Yes engineers/designers/and hell.. Even backyarders use chains of all kinds still!

10 Full control over part/assy/drawing preview images. Let us determin the quality, size, view angle ontop of accepting the default. Yes sometimes its nice to have control! And how about Solidworks icons that don’t take forever to actually display in file explorers?!? I’m really sick of this annoying CRAP!! SolidWorks Corp… do you know how many bloody times a day i have an “open file” dialog box up on screen and have to wait for icons to trudge up… then scroll to have them still clunking along.. they are all the same damn icon FFS!!! they are all parts!!! And hell.. even if they weren’t all parts there would only be Assemblies and Drawing icons to chose from!!

oops. Sorry thats http://www.plate-n-sheet.com.au

amendment… #3 also for equastions/parameters see Inventor

Hoffy, re no.9 belts.
I dont need to do chains in my usual work but I had to for the first time a while ago in a ‘do us a favour and draw this up’ project…for some strange reason I thought a tool called Belt/Chain would produce something useful but when you get into it with engineering intent its revealed as being as pathetic….belts yes chains no.
Either they should remove the ‘chain’ claim or they should do it properly (and why wasnt it from the beginning?).
Chains are used everywhere in engineering and yet in SW, a program for engineers, they remain make-believe.
I did put in some ER about it and also about curve driven patterns cos I discovered in the same endeavour they dont work usefully either and certainly dont optionally step off equal chord distances for links.
I would like to think that someone of importance at SW will actually be ashamed of the chain functionality as it is and do something to change it asap. Quite possibly though they are deeply involved in next releases ‘mouse gestures’ enhancements…

1) Close SPR

2)Support for Direct X (Why so dependent on vendor-custom OpenGL drivers when Windows is the only platform?) equal to Dale Dunn opinion

3)Improve plastic environment (parting surfaces) and insert the existing
stopped project

3)No limitation in weldment profile (auto-cut) and more

4)Can weld in 3D without lose performance and export to weld robot

5)Design table without excel needing

6)Better direct editing (not talking about ST)

7)Support for JT and Catià

8)When deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling

9)Back compatibility like Pro-E has (add feature or direct edit on new version), I’m not interesting edit feature of future release

10)Place a Freeze marker in the tree to freeze rebuilds at a certain point

@Neil
Yep Neil thats the same kind of scenario i found out with as well! I’ve only wanted to use it a few times (perhaps coz i knew it’d fall short of the mark) and found the idea excellent but the implementation featureless. Once instance was wanting to have a belt drive that was not planer but axis of rotation at 90 degrees to each other. Completely possible in real life but try clicking an unaligned axis in SolidWorks! ggrrr

Not exactly a feature, but more of a philosophical argument here. Why do I lose textures after applying a service pack? Why must the system bring in new ones and delete old ones? Don’t they know when I open my presentation my model will no longer look as I designed it, for no good reason? I’m not paying for service packs so you guys can delete my work!

This is going to be a combo pack. Wish list, “Should, Coulda, Woulda”, and “Are You Kidding ME” (AYKM).

Not to play too much of devil’s advocate here, but the one thing that I would ask about “backwards” compatibility is this… “What is it supposed to be in the previous version?” and I truly ask this from the stand point of functionality. Not marketing hype or any of that fluff. There was no Flex tool in SW 2005. The boundary tool was a distant thought rolling around someone’s head in SW 2006. I am not saying that it can’t be done, but if you have built a very “intelligent” model in “insert future version” and “Kewl New Feature” is what was used, then should that just become a “dumb feature” in “Insert older version”? What happens to any/all of the features that were related to or are the children of it existing as it was originally?

…but alas… I add this… For sketching, Hold down the “Shift” key for incremental movements. “Huh” you say…for spline control 2D and 3D, this would be HUGE. The slightest “nudge” can affect the surface in a way that I am not looking for. So if while in a sketch, I can hold the “Shift” key and can then move the mouse around as crazy as I want but would only move “slightly” would be incredible. This of course would be something that could be set, in terms of increments, in the Doc Properties. The ability to “continue” a spline.

I know that people will take something that they luv from another program and want to bring it over to the current CAD package, but this is a nice one. Being able to edit a sketch and then choose to “Continue” the current spline. Not just add points or move the start or end points, but to actually work with the existing spline as if it were what was created originally. Off times I may have to turn the current one into a construction line because of existing relationships, and then trace over it and try to get the new spline like the old splint plus some….ARE YOU KIDDING (AYK)!!!!

Bring Scan to 3D down to everyone. I don’t need TolAnalysis or Routing, I need to be able to import scanned data, and turn it into something useful in SW. I can buy SW Core, and Rhino for less than SW Premium.

For PV 360, allow the option to work both in SW and outside. Or at least give the option to render outside of SW environment (I know 2011 is still a ways away, but here’s to holding my breath). Yes PV 360 takes less rendering time than PW, but its insane waiting for a rendering to finish and I can’t still design in SW. I use to open two SW at the same time to work around this. As you can imagine, THAT was a “great” idea.

Whatever is happening with 3D sketch needs to STOP…. things either get “over defined” WAY too quickly, jumpy, or just plain wacky for no reason. 3D Spline…. AYK!!!! The triad “should” appear as soon as you select a CV or CP. (Or at least allow that as an option.)

WHY, WHY, WHY can’t I translate AND rotate a body in a Part file at the same time? AYK!!!! That triad is “my best friend” and he is just not helping. Let “him” do both. In fact make that triad universal. That is what should appear over everything that a user has control over. Making it a universal interface for move, copy, translate, rotate when it comes to 3D just makes sense.

Extruding in two directions. In direction 1 a surface can be double-clicked to be the end condition. For Direction 2, what was that you said….it has to be picked form the PM. That seems simple enough to fix.

Double clicking exits a 2D sketch….ummmm what, 3D sketches are just bastard red headed step child left in the corner to be fed with a slingshot? Come on, it’s be bugging me for years. Let double clicking also exit the 3D sketch as well.

Instant 3D….at least give the option to hold down “insert hot key” that when a sketch is pulled it is a solid or surface. This could at least work for extrusion and revolves. Having the “M” key is well hidden for mid-plane instant 3D.

Ok….I don’t think that Matt would allow me to go any further less I write a novel entitled “SW, the great program that made me lose my hair”.

that’s great news!

I give….. I only use the flex tool when someone has a “Pro/E” aimed at my head and threatened to make me use Sketch Up..(I jest)

Did you say Grid….”why for you art thou dislike me? I can only imagine that I might have wronged thee in a past life.”

Zmago1 :
1. Better Drawings, just take a look at the nearest competitor
2. Imediately Abort any running command by pressing ESC
3. when deleting a parent feature, enable all children to remain dangling
4. Speed!-when working with MultiBodies-after 400 or 500 features work becomes awfully slow and need to export the body even if i dont want to
5. Graphical map of references in sketch
6. toolbox that doesnt crashes, when open the old SW assembly file, everything is messed up
7. Improved PhotoView 360
8. New version every 18 months, not every 12 months, use SPacks
9. Rename the product, does SolidWorks really sounds like a winner to you?
10. place a Freeze marker in the tree to freeze rebuilds at a certain point, like:
whats done is done but on every 10th or 15th part i still want to change something

Referring to your quote#9, yes! the name Solidworks rocks. I don’t see any problem with that. I think it’s mean that solid modelling really works in Solidworks than other competitors. I don’t see any need of the name change.

@Jim Anders
I want a Linux version. Pretty much the same thing. Do it for Ubuntu. Even Joe Dunne can load that. There is a lot of engineering grade software on Linux now including free FEA and CFD that will read VDA files.

asdf :why would you want a mac version? it would just make the sw more expensive, less features, since more programmers would have to port it to mac.if you don’t want viruses on your winse, just don’t browse all the porn sites. i don’t hav an AV, i just use a webscan every two months and have no probs.
btw, proe discontinued linux support due to lack of demand…

asdf,

Why do I want a Mac OS X version?

First off, I’ll challenge your premise that SW would be more expensive if also developed for the Mac OS. I believe that the added revenue obtained from a Mac version would more than cover the cost of development. But let me continue on why I want a Mac OS X version.

First off, I like the Mac OS X environment. I like it more than Windows. It’s more than just the lack of viruses. It’s the UNIX foundation, the consistent user interface, no stupid registry nonsense, and so much more. I don’t want to turn this into a Mac vs Windows thing so I’ll stop here.

I also really like Apple’s hardware. And before anyone mentions cost or a so-called “Apple tax”, Apple’s top-of-the-line iMac and Mac Pro Intel machines are priced very competitively when compared feature for feature against equivalent Dell, HP offerings.

Secondly, Mac OS X is 64 bit standard out of the box – one version, no nonsense with multiple versions of OS.

I also suspect that a Mac OS X version of SolidWorks could significantly outperform a Windows counterpart if developed under Apple’s Open CL and Grand Central Dispatch technologies (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/). Apple has their act together when it comes to new capabilities and future growth. While MS has redeemed themselves somewhat with Win 7, frankly, I have lost a lot of confidence that MS is able to innovate and push the envelope.

Look, if SW ever does a Mac version it will be a good thing for Windows users too. There’s nothing like a little old fashioned competition to keep companies on their toes. Microsoft has become waaaay too complacent and could really benefit from some stiff competition with Apple.

Sorry… That link should be…

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/

@matt
“First of all, how many production parts do you have that use the Flex feature?”

FYI, there are companies that do have production parts using Flex Feature. http://www.saddletree.com/ is one of them.

You argued awhile back that you can have complex shaped parts without the need for drawings because of the advent of CAM/CNC technology. Therefore the Flex Feature allows you to manipulate CAD geometry, and produce actual, “production” parts using the same technology.

Matt,

Feel free to ridicule me but at least use my own words and facts to do so. I do not consider myself a “kool-aid drinker” or a Mac bigot. I’ll do my best to respond factually to your comments without name calling.

I never said Macs were immune to viruses. However, in practice Mac OS X users are typically not affected by viruses, trojan horses, etc. Prior to Mac OS X, however Mac viruses were much more common and had to be dealt with (so much for the security through obscurity myth). I’d be happy to elucidate the various technical reasons for this.

I didn’t say Macs were “affordable” and I didn’t wish to imply that Macs in general are competitively priced with all of the bargain basement PCs out there.

I will repeat exactly what I said… The high-end Nehalem-based Macs used on the new iMac and the Mac Pro are very cost competitive with similarly configured high-end machines. This is not opinion but fact and anyone can check Apple’s, Dell’s and HP’s sites to verify. I know a number of SolidWorks users who choose to run the program on a well equipped high end Mac.

Apple’s move to Intel was made for a variety of reasons and I believe the change has been for the better. I guess I don’t understand your criticism here. It gives me the ability to run the Mac OS AND Windows (and Linux) and gives me, the customer, more choice.

So, when you write that my options are a “tiny fraction” of what they are with a Windows PC, you’re just plain wrong. With a Macintosh, I can run the Mac OS and I can run Windows too. My options are much greater not less.

By the way, you’re also incorrect when you state that Apple used open source Linux as a basis for Mac OS X. It uses Mach with some BSD extensions. There were some unfounded rumors that Apple might adopt a Linux kernel but it was bogus. You can read more about this here…

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html

Regards,
Jim

Matt

I agree Apple doesn’t offer the full range of hardware. That’s a legitimate concern.

I don’t agree that Apple makes it difficult to install other OSes. It’s no more difficult to install Windows on a Mac than it is on any other machine.

True, Apple doesn’t license their OS to other hdwe manufacturers, but I’d hardly call it extortion.

I’m surprised at the vitriol against Apple. No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple. There’s just a lot of people who prefer the Mac OS X operating system. Autodesk is making the investment, Unigraphics NX is now available on the Mac and others will follow.

As I said Apple has developed powerful services that are aimed at high-end graphics/CAD programs. 64 bit, GCD and Open CL would be ideally suited for SolidWorks, or SolidEdge or Pro/E.

Regards
Jim

Remove the file name length limitation when renaming virtual parts created in context of an assembly… uuugh!

Our corporate file name convention can get leave you a bit winded. But it is what it is. Due to this limitation I must create every part (in some basic form) externally and insert them into an assembly (just like the old days, eh?)

Hi Jim,

I personally feel; as a Designer; that it would be great to have such highly devoted customers to something I designed (as apple does); but i would personally feel pretty awkward if someone elevated any one of my products to “god like status”. The fact that Apple doesn’t retort and say “hang on guys; we know we’re great, but there’s no need to join a cult about it”

I’m a BIG fan of Asus notebooks and Canon camera’s.. 99 times out of 100 i would choose them over other brands as I know what to expect and I really enjoy using them… But I also know their faults and weaknesses.

My point is; in regard to apple.. many times I have looked at what they offer and how they offer it; and there isn’t the variety they PC’s have. Unless you go to the fully hardcore end of the market (and if ur spending that much money, of course you’ll be getting the absolute best) then with everything else apple provides POUND FOR POUND IS NOT price competitive!

And if you are sufficiently peeved with this comment then round up accurate specs (eg. if the ram on the mac is DDR2 and on equivalent PC is DDR3, then it’s not a correct comparison) and prices for low, mid and high end (not super high end as that’s kinda pointless) and show the world just how competitive apple is. My guess is they will be about $150-$300 more expensive POUND FOR POUND! and in most cases they won’t offer a decent solution for a decent price.

And here’s an example of a balanced argument. Asus usually comes with pretty high spec’d goodies, but they always run way hotter and their drivers and support is pretty crap. Oh and the design is sometimes clunky and not as pretty as other companies. But pound for pound hardware wise, they beat the turd out of Apple.

And I’ll finish with this comment. Microsoft was recently more worried about people pirating their OS than Mac OS as the pirates take up a much larger % of the market share.. than apples 10%. hehehehe (even if microsoft made that figure up, it’s still funny)

More Mac Vs. PC.

I run a PC because of SolidWorks.
-I have to make sure my anti-virus is up to date
-I have to make sure I don’t screw up the registry.
-I have to defrag my hard-drive.
-I have to buy a new PC pretty much every other year in order to have something that runs well consistently.

In other words I waste a lot of time doing system maintenance and I buy a lot of computers.

My wife on the other hand switched to a powerbook five years ago. Yes it was an expensive computer but she’s had it for five years and it’s going strong. The other part, in the last five years she has not spent a single second on system maintenance and it just works.

I forgot to mention this, her powerbook has not crashed once in five years, I can’t exactly say the same about my PC’s

The way I see it. If I have to spend more money upfront for something that works reliably, doesn’t require as much maintenance, doesn’t crash and will last me for a long time, than that sounds like a pretty good option to me.

I can tell you right now that the only thing preventing me to switch to a Mac is the fact that I can’t run SolidWorks natively.