Mobius Strip in SW

[Arthur NY]

@Arthur NY
my point is they should focus on making SW works.
Adding new functionalities keeping the rest broken is not good.
At the current state only a fraction of SW tools are reliable to be used in a medium sized company like us, the rest is going to bite you back and,make you rework a lot of data or slowing down the product development.

Have already posted in several other threads a long list of outstanding issues that need fixing and updating......

Though as a long time user one of the things that I'd always take a look at is how often does your company have internal design/engineering reviews on best modeling practices? Even the most seasoned of users can always use for some skill sharpening and exposure to possible other areas that may seem like fluff and not needed but can be quite useful and getting to a desired result. Because there are multiple ways to make a model going through this process and having a discussion about the "why" and "when" of things is so vital.

I also can't ever stress this enough having Verification On Rebuild (VOB) turned on, while takes longer to rebuild, does 100% help to keep things honest along the road. With this VOB turned on and pressing "Ctrl+Q" will do a forced rebuild of anything outstanding. Also those pesky little red and yellow errors in the tree, if they exist, are users going back in and fixing or are they just ignoring?

Am not sure why there's such a HUGE disconnect between marketing, programmers, and project managers vs everyday users when it comes to implementing/changing/upgrading an aspect of the program so that it works the right way.

[zxys001]

.. a simple way to get there almostly.

[Arthur NY]

.. a simple way to get there almostly.

Always taking a walk on the wild side there Paul!!!

[Glenn Schroeder]

.. a simple way to get there almostly.

I learned a new word today.

[Krzysztof Szpakowski]

I've been 3D modeling since the early '90's. Using Solidworks since '97. Using anything from CAD Key, Alias Wavefront, SDRC and Pro/E..... I am quite familiar with everything the software is capable of. I can also say that even with 2000 version there were some crude surfacing capabilities if you knew what you were doing. Point and case these models from Mike J Wilson were made in Solidworks 2001.... Scooby Doo, Speed Racer Mach 5 Car...etc.

https://www.mikejwilson.com/otw.html

Also Paul Salvador's website is filled with TONS of surfacing examples from very early on. I know because it was one of the first Solidworks model websites that I learned a lot from.

http://www.zxys.com/swparts/

Was Soliworks making Class A surfacing that I could get in Alias, no, definitely not. And even to this day is still quite lack luster in so many ways when it comes specifically to surface modeling. None of this negates the overall aspect that it's a sad day on the CAD software side of things in general.

If PDM isn't something very important, you don't know what you're talking about. Can you imagine working on assemblies if a part embedded in the assembly lost its connection with the part file and did not update automatically. This is what an office with several designers without PDM looks like.
I wrote to you that the greatest progress in SW occurred in the initial period. Early versions. Version 95 and 2002. For example, there has been significant progress that has made it possible to use SW to work with surfaces. Then, in the years you write about, many tools were added, 2002-2012, mainly those that were not necessary for modeling, such as Sustainability Xpress or others that sped up the work but did not introduce new modeling tools. And in the following years, i.e. after 2012, as I wrote, conic rounding, offset on surface, advanced rounding with the use of several boundary lines, and the change of rounding to chamfering were introduced. And I emphasize that I have never been a fan of DS. I always wrote what MP3.250 highlighted. Instead of adding some bells and whistles like Sustainability, remove eternal errors from the program. The instability of new versions is one of the reasons why I stayed with 2012. Despite the patina, it works quite well and allows you to achieve what others sometimes cannot achieve with the latest versions. I don't need new tools to model real geometry. I need stability.
Back to the topic: This is not a limitation of SW, Every program has the same problems with this issue, If it uses surfaces and not triangulation. I know people who believe that SketchUp is the best and versatile 3D program, and yes, SU allows you to model a Mobius strip without a visible connection. But if you tried to color it or make it thicker, you would see that normal ones exist here too. The fact that the Parasolid kernel works in such a way that you can forget about them (the kernel itself determines what is solid and what is "space" when you combine several surfaces) is a great advantage for me. And finally, can you give an example of "real geometry" modeling tools?

[Arthur NY]

@Krzysztof Szpakowski

Dude..... PDM and modeling are two different conversations. I never said PDM wasn't important. It is absolutely an integral aspect for any company to have. That is not in dispute here.

When it comes to surfacing Boundary and Fill surface came after 2002. My point is that you could NOT go back from 2012 to 2002 and get your work done. But you could go back from 2022 back to 2012 and get the work done. I don't understand how you don't see that we're saying the same thing. There have been no new features added really after around 2014 or later.

I don't know who you are referring to about Sketch Up, no one has ever said that it is a good modeling system here in the forums. Rhino3D on the other hand, strictly from a modeling POV is just as capable of making the same models just no parametrics like how Solidworks looks but it does exist.

What's interesting is how people are stuck on the fact that it can't be knit a a surface but it can be made solid and in the end that's what's needed for any type of output. There is nothing stopping the unknit surface from being used for any type of downstream use.