Yeah, call up your CAD company and demand to see the data they use to make decisions by and see how far that gets you! So you do ask around in every manner you can to get answers but even then is your small base of users asked truly indicative or just a result that like users tend to congregate together and answer accordingly?

I participate in the Cyon CAD survey each year and as a result I get to read their rather pricey results. SO, I sit down to read it this morning and this year was a real eye opener and a reminder that each of us can see the world as it is for ourselves and extrapolate this to be the norm without really knowing this to be so. Solid Edge users led all other large population mainstream cad user groups for a preference for best in class solution over the concept of well-integrated solutions. http://cyonresearch.com/whitepapers Lots of other things in there too but get the report if you want to know more. One could assume this could partly be a result of not having choices for SE for so many years that there is no expectations to have choices here. But this idea might be dispelled by the same, although to a lesser degree, stated opinion of all other mainstream CAD program users to have best in class to.

It appears that I may well indeed owe an apology to Siemens/SE for thumping on this integrated bandwagon. It looks like the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of actual users, according to this survey, want best in class CAD first and foremost and then are moderately interested in the integrated ecosystem of apps. This survey does not cover CAM so I am making an assumption here that CAM would correlate into these statistical results  just like the CAD related apps did.

To say I was shocked at these survey results is a real understatement and sheds light upon what has been a series of baffling, to me anyway, decisions to seemingly concentrate solely on CAD and forgetting the rest.

Now I still hope for and really really want integrated CAM but at this point in time if it does not happen I can understand why.  Would it help to sell seats of SE? Yes I think it surely would but I begin to think it may well be regarded by the majority of potential and existing  SE customers as the icing on the cake and not the cake which is what they were shopping for.

Today also brought me back to why I bought SE in the first place and my decision was based solely on CAD capabilities. I needed sheet metal and I wanted the potential I saw in direct editing. I have to tell you that the first time I saw ST in action I could immediately see tons of ways that this was what I had been looking for. You see, without knowing these tools existed at the time I just kind of figured that history based was what I was stuck with until I first saw ST in action. I had looked at Ironcad before and I know it had a type of direct editing too but it just seemed like a bizarre interface and way of working to me and I never went further with it.

I find it interesting that my SE peers placed a strong emphasis on best in class CAD over everything else as that is precisely what I had done too without thinking of the choice having been made in those terms. I just wanted what worked and cam was not my principle problem at the time.

I also found it VERY interesting that over every other cad program in the survey the where the question of preferences was asked by program that SE buyers led in selecting best in class as their first choice as a percentage of users.

Now on to the rest of the of this post.

Between various business ventures and the headaches of getting things going I haven’t written much about SE for some time. There is a reason for this as it just does everything I want in cad and then some. In a spirit of community I suppose I should have produced more in the way of videos and how to’s but time just goes quickly in a one man shop and when your tool set works well you tend to not make the time to talk about things. Lets face it, a lot of times when the topic of software comes up it is either how do you do this or a complaint about bugs or features or lack thereof. Like today.

On the way to creating an invoice for a finished part some amusing detours are encountered here. I am reminded every time I use ZW3D for my cam plans of the solid benefits of integration with cad and cam. As it is now of course I take my part file over to this wretched ZW mess, where I am surely reminded of the true value of great direct editing every time, and proceed painfully to cut a part. Clunky and cumbersome as a way to do things and a constant reminder of why I am in the process of changing software to, well, I don’t really know because you see nothing is truly integrated with SE. So I have the best mid range MCAD program out there with no cam sad to say.

So today in my in box I get this from Desktop Engineering and I quote in part.

“Interesting things are happening in the world of CAM software. For example, right at the end of November, Geometric introduced CAMWorksXpress at the EuroMold show. Next week, this 2.5-axis CAM system makes its North American debut at SolidWorks World in San Diego. Here’s why I found this package interesting.

CAMWorksXpress is the smaller sibling to CAMWorks, the company’s full-featured CAM system. Smaller, however, does not mean weakling. It means right-sized for many many, many shops. Like its big brother, CAMWorksXpress works inside of SolidWorks and has things like a CNC tool database, simulation step-throughs, and functions for operations like roughing, contour and face milling, holes, and what have you. It has interactive feature recognition, and it automatically recognizes holes. Changes made to a SolidWorks design propagate to the toolpaths automatically.

What it’s missing — and I use “missing” advisedly — is the high-end stuff like 5-axis milling, automatic electrode creation, machine simulation, and floating licenses that are often unused, but paid for, functionality for many CAM users. This has two quick benefits. First, you can equip yourself or the kid in the shop with a CAM tool that matches the job you want done, reserving the high-end functionality for your gunslinger. Two, if you’re thinking of getting into some machining, CAMWorksXpress gives you a cost-effective path to try out your wings since, as of this writing, it’s priced at $595″

http://www.deskeng.com/articles/aabebh.htm

Another cam company that will have their integrated cam at SWW. Has anyone with Siemens asked yet how these cam companies work with SW to get integrated and what each side brings to the table to get it going? I know I have personally mentioned interest in this topic to Featurecam and TopSolid reps in the last month but what I am told in reply really boils down to this. I do not represent Siemens or SE and it is nice that I am telling them there is interest but only Siemens or SE can call them and MAKE them know there is interest. I sent these companies for instance a screen capture of this thread count  (this was posted in part on the Siemens BBS SE forum and this reference is to a screen capture I took of the thread count) to show interest and that is as powerful a statement as I, a user only, can make. What precisely has been done if anything in this area? Guys, cam for SE is not going to happen by osmosis and let me tell you something. If you are signing up new customers, and they have to buy cam elsewhere that you are not involved in, your’s is the opportunity missed.

I get really angry over all this when I think that the premise for SE is to create things for manufacture and here we are reading about good stuff at SWW.  I bet there will not be one cam company at Nashville with the exception of Cam Express which has been soundly rejected by us. Not really expecting an answer here as much as I am blowing off steam over a really egregious lack of planing for users and the user ecosystem that goes back for years. You better get something going quickly here before Dassault forces the SW users to leave with the advent of the big upcoming double whammy change of the kernal and to the cloud because time does not last forever for your convenience to do things in. You are going to lose, I think, a lot of sales potential because you have not spent the time to create an end to end manufacturing ecosystem and time is not on your side.

I can only say as a user that I HIGHLY recommend you attend if at all possible. Besides the abundance of information and how to’s you get to meet the people who plan and write the code and they are interested in YOUR opinion in formulating the direction SE will take. My particular interest at this time is of course the integration of CAM with SE and if there are adjuncts to SE you would like to see the leadership of SE will be there listening.

Is it not nice to use software where your input is desired and sought after! I think of situations with other companies right now and I know I look forward to the “Summit” with pleasure as compared to perhaps attending another event shortly to be held where you have to wonder what bone headed stuff are they going to pull this time.

More information soon to follow.

You’re Invited!

Now leading up to this are some things to consider. Basically ST5 is done and now begins the serious effort towards what and which are the final decisions as to what will be included in the release of ST6 and other future versions. I am not privy to what will be in there but I can say this. SE is paying close attention to what current and prospective users actively need and want in a product they will use or want to buy into. If you see an SE or Siemens official asking questions about features and problems I suggest you pay close attention and respond with what you honestly need and think. Decisions are being made and while the route of the SE highway has been pretty well laid out, where the interchanges are going to be located and where the exits may lead can be heavily influenced with active actual user feedback.  No one way tickets to cloud land either as far as I can tell by the way   It does not matter which program you are using and I think you can see with the active surfacing discussions going on over at Matt Lombards blog SE is interested in YOUR opinion. Isn’t it nice to have the attention of those who actualy listen to what you say? They want to know what tools USERS want for geometry creation.

Yeah that stuff that has to be created by the end of the day because if things aren’t created there is no reason for you to have a job.

So Dave, that all sounds like nice stuff but what exactly does this have to do with CAM? I am pleased to say that there is going to be something done in this area. It will not be in time for ST5 but there are plans being made for the future. Exactly what is yet to be determined but now is the time for current and prospective users to begin speaking up about their needs. Part of this will be a better collection of data, especially from current SE users, as to what needs to be done in this area. Other areas too like perhaps CAE but for sure CAM is going to be in there. My wish list would include an interface with my Faroarm SO when you attend the Productivity Summits (You are going to try and be there aren’t you?)  be sure to fill these surveys out. It is my hope that VARS are going to be involved in this to so that users who can’t get to the Summit will also be asked.  You guys who attend the Summit (You are going to try to be there aren’t you?) in Nashville who want a cam solution for SE better pay attention this time and make sure your voices are heard. Don’t walk by the CAM jar and not toss one in because you don’t think it will ever happen this time around. Don’t throw the survey form in the trash can. They will be asking not to patronise you as a user and fend off criticisms of nothing being done but in a serious attempt to get you to help determine what needs to be done.

Ahhh yes, cam. Because if there is no production of a real thing somewhere there is no need for that cad job either is there. Reality rendering so to speak instead of just making pretty pictures.

OK FELLOW USERS, LISTEN UP

Now is the time to speak up about what your needs are, what works what does not work. This IS the stage at which all of our feedbacks are needed if planing for eventual cam is to include your desires. Please be thinking about this now and in the months leading up to Nashville. In the upcoming productivity Summits and the real Summit this spring your feedback, or lack of it, will determine in part where we end up.

This is not the time to sit on the fence here and think about how it has been but to consider how you want it to be and help make it be so.

Yuppers, end of the post and the smile is still there!

I am completely satisfied with the CAD side of SE and truly believe it is the best midrange MCAD program out there for what I do. But then I also have to produce that which I draw and this has become a real pisser for me.

Rather than create a post from scratch I am going to just quote posts I have on the SE BBS forum today on this topic of integrated cam and a sumation of the replies. The very best solution I could wish for would be quality CAM integrated with SE but I suspect that I will have to buy another companies product well before the glacial progress towards CAM in the SE ecosystem produces anything. I mean SE has had no integrated cam for 24 versions now so why hurry?

I really dislike writing this because I am a huge fan of SE but I am tired of quietly waiting for the bun to be put on the top sirloin Black Angus burger.

“CAM for ST5(or will it be ST9 or never ???)

Yes I know this is not the cam section, but then what is around here. We have Cam Express which is not and probably won’t be truly integrated with SE and from what I hear is way complicated to learn. I know for sure it is expensive and has the cam industries highest yearly % fees BY FAR from what I see. Therefore I declare the SE Cam Express section to be irrelevant and post here instead.

So guys with me sitting here cash in hand are we going to have ST5 rollout and you make me buy cam elsewhere or are you going to get something going and to be announced at ST5? I am not the only one asking and this is a big problem for me. I don’t have to know what program I just need to know it will happen. I have put this off about as long as I can and if I buy somewhere else it won’t matter what you come up with. The money will be gone and I won’t spend it twice just to be here.

If you are going to whip on SW with a big stick start putting some knots on it, know what I mean?”

The reply from someone in a position to know is basically there are no plans for this in ST5 and Cam Express (CE) is the only answer. For those of you interested CE is very proud of themselves in up front costs and then to the tune of like 21 or 22% yearly cost of purchase for maintenance.

“Thanks XXXXXXX for the update. Sadly Cam Express seems to be a solution very few SE users pick for a variety of reasons. Check it out and see for your self when you talk to customers about what they use. Is it the intent of SE and Siemens to just ignore integrated cam for SE? I am not including Cam Express as integrated by the way because we still have to use parts of NX CAD to use it and have to step outside of the SE GUI. I am going to look at Featurecam tomorrow and if I get it it will be probably $16,000.00 or so and I just don’t understand why Siemens/SE don’t want a part of this market.

You guys want to take the throne from SW you are going to HAVE to offer peripheral programs like cam to do it. I think cad with SE is the very best in the market for what I do but then when I make what I design it becomes a problem and I end up looking elsewhere for the answer.

A friend of mine has a machine shop and he bought HSMWorks for cam. It works natively inside SW where most of his files originate from and he loves it. I don’t envy him working with SW but I sure do envy him the ease with which the integration with SW allows his days to be more profitable.”

Reply from another user. “It gets even better. HSMWorks now offers HSMXpress for SolidWorks…and it’s free.”

Yeah I have seen that to. It is still entirely possible that SE will give away their technological advantage over SW by doing stupid traditional SE/UGS type things and I just don’t get it. Six months have passed and hardly any efforts at building the user community, few announcements of any sort with good sustained publicity to build interest by prospective buyers and absolutely NOTHING being done any user can see to add peripheral programs like CAM to the basically non existant SE Ecosphere.

They had great momentum after Huntsville last year and now they will have to pretty much start completely over again with the ST5 Summit. It’s harder to rekindle enthusiasm a second time which they are going to find out the hard way.

All I know is this is becoming a huge problem and a big issue for me. I know in talking to other SE users in person and reading comments here that more than a few SE users share my disgust over this.

Maybe I am wrong about how many SE users actually do anything besides create data and that the vast majority might just never have to make anything with what they create. I know when Jeff asked us to put our candy in the jars at the end of a session in Huntsville last year I was both shocked and disappointed at how few there were in the cam jar.

Are there really that few of you who make things with the data you create? I don’t think so but unless you all start speaking up this problem will remain unsolved. I am begining to think most everyone who uses cam has been forced into buying elsewhere since day one so they have quit asking. CAM Express which is the automatic corporate reply is not a good answer but that is the stock defensive reply to why nothing is done under the SE/UGS and now Siemens umbrellas.

Maybe since users have been forced to buy elsewhere and with money allready spent they have no intention of ever buying into an SE integrated product, I don’t know but this is another stupid self inflicted wound SE did not have to suffer from.

HA HA HA, while I am typing this I get a call from Saratech asking me if I was still interested in Cam Express. I did have an opinion to render of course.”

Reply here was basically we are trying to do something, but nothing is being talked about for details on possible CAM. Users are asked to tell CAM companies of interest they want integratedCAM with SE. OK, I HEREBY NOTIFY ANY CAM COMPANY INTERESTED IN TRUE INTEGRATION WITH SE I AM INTERESTED IN YOU.

“No you are not the problem. I figure it takes at least a solid month of time to learn a CAM program enough to be able to get a good idea if it is suitable for your use. That is a month with few to no interuptions. You try four or five programs and there is almost a half a year gone. In your case where you are soliciting for partners after appraisal of the program you have to discuss/convince a cam company to work with you. Another few weeks per I would think. So there goes seven of your nine months. This integration is a big deal time wise and if you are the only one working at it they have given you an impossible task to do well. I don’t know this to be true but I do wonder how much help you are being given and the level of help is a measure as to how important third party applications are to corporate minds.

I will be meeting with Featurecam again this week and I will make a point of persisting in finding a “Mr Big” somewhere to talk about the idea of tighter integration or at least perhaps a deal for SE to offer it’s users.”

Another user reply,      “….and to think we are told the reason why surfacing takes a back seat is because SE is focused on the Machine and Equipment marketplace and not Industrial Design. So you’d think CAM would be more important then a good rendering. And when you realize how clumsy SE is at doing simple renderings, it can only make you wonder.”

“Yes it makes you wonder how they can be so on track for some things but then lose sight of the practical application of these things. When the day is done someone still has to make this stuff. It reminds me of that wretched Velocity stuff where it was forgotten that without the CAD program backbone the rest of the Velocity stuff was just useless junk. Factories and people who build things made it a long time without CAD but without factories and people who build things CAD would not ever have seen the light of day. It is a shame that software companies forget that so often. But then I only make things and Neanderthal Dave I am sure just does not grok the correct perspective a software user should have.

Render schmender, what use is a pretty picture if you are going to have a hard time making the thing depicted in it. I am going out to my reality rendering device now and make some chips with software Siemens and SE earned no part of.

I am in a poetic mood today and no integrated cam inspires me so—-

There once was a rendering farm

It cost you a leg and an arm

But then in the factr’y

Twas not satisfactr’y

Much to the buyers alarm”

Another user reply.     Dave I guess the problem is two-fold. Firstly, Siemens already has its own CAM solution in CE, so management will never push for a third party solution as it has the “potential” to compromise its own sales. I say “potential” as I think CE is priced as a high end solution and third party solutions tend to be aimed at low to mid market. In terms of better integration, again I just don’t think there is the motivation, as customers using a mix of mid range CAD and high end CAM is probably thin on the ground, so demand is not sufficient to warrant the investment.

Secondly, where is the incentive for the third party provider when your potential partner has their own solution? At least when competing against other third party providers it would feel like a level playing field. It is just not an attractive arrangement.

I reckon the best bet is a CAM Express LITE aimed at mid market, as that seems to fit their strategy. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Well, thinking of what you are saying XXXXXXX and some thoughts.

Catia/Dassault had machining before the aquisition of SW didn’t they? And well after that SW STILL has people like HSM Works introducing cam for SW in the last couple of years. The mindset that built the great software empire of SW has gone away in many areas but even the French guys still understand you are going to make a lot more money by offering things people WILL buy over stuff they won’t buy even if you only get a part of the action. And what the heck, let someone elses developers create something, let them offer it and if it proves popular buy them out and then get all the money with a prior proven product you did not have to develop.

Based on conversations I have with SE users I bet that less than 5% of SE cam users use CE. Now if your thought about Siemens being afraid of competing software costing them CE sales is what their mindset truly is, it is myopic stupidity. SE sales are competition for NX sales by that mindset so why don’t we just shut SE down so NX (and Inventor and Alibre and SW and Spaceclaim and ProE and the rest) can be more profitable?

I do not believe that just because things have been done a certain traditional corporate way means that it was correct. I think this lack of things like cam for SE is a serious problem and I am debating what I may do about it. It’s a rotten way of doing things and needs to live in the garbage heap along with it’s brother “Velocity”.

My primary purpose in commenting on replies here is not to debate with users. It is to respond to user comments. Comments which have their origin in years of neglect and I know it reflects the past and in some ways the present attitude of the company that gave it to them. Cad is coming along so well I almost have to bite my tongue sometimes and not comment on the ancillary problems. However, SE is the only major cad program without cam integration that I know of.

Looking today briefly I see that Alibre, Inventor, Catia, NX, Sw, ProE all have integrated solutions. They all seem to understand that your best customers for new things are your current customers who allready know and hopefully trust you. They understand I am sure that the more you can get customers into your ecosystem the greater the chance they will be there forever.

This will also, sadly I am concluding, be the chief reason SE will not aquire nearly as many SW customers as they should and the quality of the cad program which with the right ecosystem would eat SW’s lunch will instead be “also ran” in market share.

Just as a spot of humor here. Unless you have a blog you don’t know the stuff we get sometimes and don’t allow to be posted because some things are better left alone. I wanted to allow this response just once but did not want to run the risk that by approving it more could slip in under the radar later. So instead we have a screen capture collage. JB, put your hand on the screen, think thoughts of harmony and bliss.  AHHHhhh, there now, don’t you feel better?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gardner/overlapping-criminal-and-state-threats-pose-growing-cyber-security-threat-to-global-internet-commerce-says-open-group-speaker/4454?tag=content;selector-blogs

So we have SW world coming up soon and I am sitting here today thinking once again about how a major cad company deliberately intends to place the lifeblood of it’s customers IP on the web and then turn around and refuse to indemnify users from the inevitable results of this.  Add to the mix now the latest cloud ninja Autodesk. I asked forty plus questions on the cloud a year ago and very few have been answered by any cloud touting outfit to this day. It is proof as far as I am concerned of deliberate corporate deceit or at the very least outright disregard for their customers well being and bottom line.

http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2011/01/41questionsaboutthecloud.html

By the way all you software companies pushing this cloud junk are invited to prove my stance wrong here by showing, in writing, your legal protection and reinbursement and indemnification language meant to protect your customers from the danger you have deliberately placed them in. While your at it why don’t you show us the performance guarantees to hmmm? Do you guys honestly think by ignoring these thorny issues they will go away? Yeah just don’t answer the questions, it’s safer that way and hopefully we can BS enough people to buy into this so OUR bottom lines can look good.

The problem is that while these ninjas from DS, SW, Autodesk or indeed any other company that pushes this for whatever reason are jumping up and down and twirling round the stage with their IPOD ninja swords the bad guys are wearing ghille suits and laying on the ground patiently waiting 300 yards away with their sniper scopes and .50 caliber rifles. What is that old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight?  Lets get real here for a second. We users all see corners cut, deficiencies or problems/bugs remain in the software we buy because the company that writes this stuff has a projected budget to stay within. They are not going to spend the time and money to make it completely right before release cycle time and this is why every company  has updates. Do we agree on this? Now if we agree here on this is it unreasonable to project this same poor attitude to be existant with all this cloud junk they want us to buy into? Bugs in cad software can ruin your day but bugs in the cloud can ruin your whole business.

All you cloud loving cutting edge uber geek tech guys who just love this stuff go there. Neanderthal Dave who is stupid enough to think the time he has spent creating things should be accompanied with enough common sense to protect these same things is not.

My conclusions are based on the emails at the end of my commentary. The only post written for lathe to date, and it appears by Tony’s reply the only one they intend for now, is for the Turkish  GSK980 TA controller. Have you ever even heard of this thing? You may well not have and if you  go here http://www.gskcnc.com.tr/En/Links.aspx   you will see the partners listed for this controller family. Now at this site I found a GSK980 TE controller but not the “TA” model and I wonder if the “TA” model is even a current production type. Anyway, eleven of the twelve partner companies listed under links are Chinese machine tool builders. I suspect the twelfth is too but the link is broken.

Three months left to projected release date.

They do intend to have collision detection capabilities sometime in the future for your lathe tooling so if you buy this and trash your lathe please be patient, they are working on it. On second thought though it has been tested on only one controller they will admit to with a post being developed for one that has not been tested according to this same correspondence. You may not have to worry about crashing your lathe afterall if you can’t get code to it.

I have to admit that this email exchange does nothing but gell the idea even further in my mind that USA and Canadian users are of no value to the wannabe gonnabe “official” cad cam program to the Chinese government. If your machine tools are not Chinese you may well fall into the not so important category too.

Don’t make the mistake it appears I have made. Even though the claim to lathe is there it is my conclusion it will be released no where near ready and for Chinese equipment only for perhaps, well would maybe a year more sound reasonable to you? It does to me. I happen to know that lathe for VX/ZW3d has been long in coming and was started in 2008 so the pace of developement is not stellar.  Cad as of 2011 SP2 which I have loaded and played with for a couple of days now does not show much in the way of  geometry creation improvement  and the Icons have been replaced with new ones but the GUI is still basically the same as before with the same basic drop downs and categories. New paint job on the car body in essence. The poorest direct editing in the industry has not advanced as far as I can tell. Sheet metal has a couple of enhancements and would compete well with a typical 10 plus year old program from other vendors who take sheet metal seriously. Can you tell I am disappointed?

Sigh, the never ending saga of CAM crap found round the world continues.

FWIW, no reply yet to my last email yet but I think there is enough here to form an opinion. I will add replies as they arrive.  In reverse order shall we proceed onwards.

“Hi Tony,   So are you telling me that yes lathe will be in 2012 but I won’t be able to use it on the most common type of controller in the whole world? I don’t know anyone who uses this Turkish controller and I have to admit to being baffled as to why you chose this one to be first. The most important thing to me as an end user and customer is that when I am promised lathe it will work. The promise of lathe is the only reason I renewed and to not be able to use it does not make me happy. If I can’t load 2012 and cut chips on my lathe can you give me a good reason why I should have bought this? I am not at all happy with this answer.                                                                                                                             Dave Ault

From: ZW3D support(Tony) Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:24 AM To: Dave Ault Subject: RE: Question for Collin

Hi Dave,

We will continue to improve this area.

In my opinion, the most important thing is we can ensure the output data is correct, and the form will not hard to change.

So, we are focusing on one controller now, and we also offer users options to customized the post for specific machine.

AS you know, everything’s beginning is not perfect, so we need more suggestions and comments.

If you would like to test it in your machine, please send us enough information, and we would be pleased to try to customized the post processor for you.

Yes, our colleagues had  tested  the tool-path on real machine which with FANUC-0i-TB controller , and we will continue to test it.

Thank you

Best regards,

Tony Tan Overseas Technical support

——————————————————

4F, No. 886, Tianhe North Rd., Guangzhou 510635, P. R. China

Tel: 86-20-38289780 ext: 818 Fax: 86-20-38288676

Mobile: 86-13928880835 E-mail: tandaquan@zwsoft.com

Skype: tony_tan05      www.zwsoft.com

From: Dave Ault Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:43 PM To: ZW3D support(Tony) Subject: Re: Question for Collin

Hi Tony,

The controller I am worried about at this time would be the Fanuc style used in the Haas machines. The “Fanuc basic inch” post for milling works fine on my mill if that is any help. Something for that same controller set up for lathe would probably work although since that is not my area of expertise I don’t really know for sure.

It is important for customers to be able to post code to various lathes and if they can’t do so it serves no purpose to say you have lathe. Until you have posts for the most common equipment you aren’t ready for lathe and it would benefit ZW to do some of these before the release. For instance even in the beta it will be hard to get feedback if there is no post available to customers. It is not worth it to crash your equipment with a bad post to test something for someone.

Are you testing any of these tool paths with actual cutting to see how they are doing?                                                                                                                                          Thanks, Dave

From: ZW3D support(Tony)

Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 9:52 PM

To: Dave Ault

Subject: RE: Question for Collin

Dear Dave,

This is Tony from ZW3D technical support team.

How are you?

The first version of turning module will be integrated in ZW3D 2012.  Since the beginning,  It is a basic version.

About your question.

1, we are working on to support the GSK980 TA controller which is similar to the Fanuc controller now, and we will continue to work for the other controllers.

2, Yes, you can set the corner radiuses on the various types of inserts.

3,In this version, I am afraid to tell you that we have to do something for avoiding the collision for the insert holders. But we will improve this area in next version.

We would be appreciated if you can give some typical part for us to test the software.

And we will offer the beta version for our resellers and users for testing in the middle of January in 2012, we would be appreciated that you can give us some suggestions then,

and I think we will have enough time to enhance something before the official version releasing in March.

Any question is welcome.

Thank you

Best regards,

Tony Tan Overseas Technical support

——————————————————

4F, No. 886, Tianhe North Rd., Guangzhou 510635, P. R. China

Tel: 86-20-38289780 ext: 818 Fax: 86-20-38288676

Mobile: 86-13928880835 E-mail: tandaquan@zwsoft.com

Skype: tony_tan05      www.zwsoft.com

From: Dave Ault  Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:53 AM To: zw3d@zwcad.com Subject: Question for Collin

Collin,

I will follow your suggestion and try finding answers here as you asked on the forum. Can you tell me what types of lathes the new turning tool paths have been tested on and which controllers have posts written for them? Also what types of cutters and inserts are recognized.   Will there be parameters that can be set as to the corner radiuses on the various types of inserts? Finally are standard insert holders modeled in the tool library for the purpose of collision avoidance in verify or do we have to do this ourselves.                                                                                    Thanks, Dave Ault”

Then I get the news. The very best support for VX/ZW3D worldwide was here in the USA in the form of two individuals who were just fired by ZW. These two individuals spent the majority of their days helping VARS around the world and indeed even the ZW people in China who are no where near as good with ZW as these two guys were. Support is now officially screwed on many tough questions. There are also other very qualified individuals who have been let go in the past year here in the States and as far as I can tell only the core developers are left now.

Here in the USA this is what I see. Questions raised on the ZW3D forums can go for days and sometimes weeks before anyone from China responds. Since our support now is from VARS with no truly qualified resource to back them up it will be a problem. Well, I guess if you aren’t in a hurry it’s OK that corporate ZW support is now 12 hours out of synch with it’s USA users. Got a tough problem you need answered quickly? So sorry.  Not available for you seven days a week.

I followed the Linkedin links from one of the ex ZW3D guys last week. He had a number of ZW3D employees from Europe listed as contacts and I was pretty amazed at how many were women language majors with no listed cad or engineering backrounds in the about me’s. I suspect that he too was spending time helping these ladies out on programs they may not have been any good at. I imagine they were cheaper to employ though if that is any consolation to the European users.

I believe that the Chinese want to have their own domestic 3D modeler and their only affordable chance perhaps was to buy a pretty capable modeling kernal from a company in financial trouble. VX fit that bill and the rest is history. Now they have their own program, even though they did not and maybe could not create the kernal. If they could after all why didn’t they and save the money? At this time there are around 14 code guys in Florida that are the heart and sole of the VX/ZW3d kernal. The Chinese can’t get rid of these guys because right now because they just can’t do the same quality of work. But the day they think they can these developers are toast. If I were a developer for ZW3d in Florida I would be polishing up my resume and approaching a progressive stable US based cad company with inquiries as I think the hand writing is on the wall for anyone but VARS here. Siemens and Solid Edge come to mind as a good company to work for and they are hiring.

It remains to be seen just how this will unfold. Perhaps this is temporary due to cash flow problems and poor sales here in the USA. These choices however become self fulfilling and a guarantee of continued poor sales and cash flow as USA users are cut loose to fend for themselves.

Recently while talking to another SE user about Mastercam I was asked about hole tolerances. I did have a lot to say and this is one of my biggest pet peeves with SE as it was for this company. You see, what we do with geometry after creation is to then go and actualy produce parts. Oddly enough we think this is the primary reason for the existance of CAD.

This has been brought up before on the forums and basically at this time it is SE’s position that it is not important. This is the problem.

Lets take a one inch shaft with a 1 x 12TPI.

You see we have in this drawing taken directly from a part created today a 1″ dimension for the major thread size at the threaded end of the shaft.  Without taking the time to look the data up all I can say is trust me, the true diameter of the threaded portion of this shaft for manufacture is less than 1″. So now if I apply the correct diameter for a 1″ x 12 tpi thread to the end of the shaft I can no longer use the thread command to apply here and get the joy of those cheesy kinda thread looking things. If I want a threaded shaft in SE, I HAVE to send the actual producer bad information. I don’t have a choice here. Either they get a reduced step on the shaft with no threads or a full sized shaft that recognizes the thread minor but not major dimensions. Same thing is true with threaded holes.

So you get stuff sent to machine shops with notes that say things like “even though we can’t properly depict this pretend here with us for a bit”, or words to that effect anyway. Can you see the potential for scrap and confusion here? There is not one shop involved in manufacturing that has not trashed parts because of this. Same thing with holes. So now you stick a note next to it and hope.

What this does for machinists who work off of 3d geometry is not trivial. I can’t create parts that are true to the design intent and use this same part in a cam plan without problems. So now I have to create TWO sets of parts, one with real dims that does not “show” cheesy threads and one that does show cheesy threads but not correct dims.

The subsequent drawings are handled the same way with two parts included, both with aspects which when combined will give the correct data or one drawing with notes about how it really needs to be done.

This is a PITA for everyone who actualy makes parts. The only reason I inflict cad and cam software upon myself is to earn a living and I bet the same is true for you. So why is it so hard for cad authors to sit down with real producers and fix some of these things? I don’t know. In SE’s case I know in many areas they do spend lots of time with real users to find out what they want and need. Then there is this disconnect with true manufacturing dimensions for threaded parts where they know of user complaints and just flat out don’t think it is important. I am not kidding and this has been the response from SE on the BBS Forums when this topic comes up.

Last time I checked threads were still a method used to put things together with. Oddly enough my customers still expect me to produce parts with threads and I wonder how the software gurus figure I ought to expeditiously do this? On the whole, especially when compared to the problems users of other cad software face, I am satisfied with SE. But it still irritates the heck out of me when cad companies choose not to regard the needs of the people who build things. I know darned well that it can be fixed with not much time on their end. If I could add up all the time we cad and cam users waste each year in dealing with this stupidity every time every day, I am quite sure our expenses far exceed the expense SE would have to spend just once to make it right. Happy customers are the best sales tool you could ask for I should think.

Whether you agree with Wikileaks or not it has been a very revealing window into the world of govenmental abuses of power and trust. One of these areas last week involved hacking programs that can be used for things such as corporate espionage.  Remember here that companies make a living figuring out ways to get to your data whether you are a bad guy terrorist or a builder of JSF-135 aircraft. And they sell it to people who want to know all about what you don’t want them to know about.

This following link goes to a column that should quite frankly put paid to the idea that SAAS or Cloud-for-CAD can be made secure by anything other than NOT going on the web in any way shape or form.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/skype-monitoring-gmail-hacks-and-fake-itunes-updates-how-governments-can-track-you/1479?tag=content;feature-roto

If after reading Zack’s column you think any Dassault or Autodesk, or anyone else’s software for that matter, can be made secure for web transmittals if someone with deep pockets or the right knowledge really wants it, I have some stock in a famous bridge for sale you might be interested in.

You have to know there is a lot of capability out there that has not been revealed and in daily use by companies and governments to part you from the value of your intellectual property. If you rely on a collander to hold your water don’t be surprised to see the bad guys with a bucket standing below you. Is it any wonder why no CAD-on-the-CLOUD company has given written guarantees of data security? Please correct me if I am wrong with some documentation here anyone. Any takers on this?

Don’t tell me this is just for silly things like I-Phones or Blackberries and the like. I know you can extrapolate as well as I to see how many different ways the bad guys can get to you if you ever move to the cloud. So if you do elect to go to the cloud it seems to me you have two strategies possible. Prayers or finding dumb customers who won’t make you sign confidentiality agreements. A good backup strategy might be a sharp legal staff and or that hidden Bahamas bank account.