Cadalyst - December 2007 - (Page 37)

mcadmodeling Standardizing 3D Modeling Nomenclature How can you get disparate modeling packages to work together more efficiently? By Mike Hudspeth, IDSA H ow many times have you had the opportunity to peruse and use multiple 3D modeling software packages? I do it all the time because I write reviews. Not everyone gets that chance. (I love what I do.) I have read various surveys that say that many users — the majority, in fact — use more than one package to do their jobs. I do that too in my day job. I use four different software packages. What specifically those programs are is immaterial. What is relevant is that they are different in many ways. When I consult with people about what software they should buy, they will invariably ask me the same question: “If all 3D modeling packages do basically the same thing, how do you decide what to buy?” I say they should buy into a company, because very few software companies actually sell software — they license it. It’s very much like a one-time rental fee, like some tools at an auto parts store. You buy the software, but it’s never fully yours — it always belongs to the software company. Read the agreement if you don’t believe me. But when users license software they are forever after going to be linked to that company for things such as support, upgrades, translators, and legacy. So when you acquire software it’s actually a longterm investment. The question about choosing between those similar but different programs is very relevant. My usual answer lies in capabilities and interface. Figure 1. Question: What is this? Answer: Whatever sounds best to you. The Challenge All users are different and have different needs and preferences. Likewise, they are going to do things somewhat differently. Each 3D modeling package is different because it’s written by multiple programmers. It’s fairly easy to find software that’ll do the things you want to do, but it’s a little more challenging to find one that does it the way you want. Software capabilities are the easiest thing to enumerate on a box or Web site. But the interface is just as important — sometimes more so. Until you actually get your hands on the software and start using it, you won’t develop a really good feel for how it does what it does. Free downloads and trial periods are a godsend to users, and they should make as many of them as they can. To better understand the intricacies of interfaces, you can look at two very popular 3D modelers: SolidWorks and NX. They both use the same modeling kernel — Parasolid. Each is really good at creating high-quality models. But there are vast differences in how they accomplish that task. SolidWorks has its own way of presenting choices to its users that will have them up and running fast. NX has enormous power to model just about anything, but it’s not just user interfaces and capabilities that challenge users. If you’ve ever had to transfer data from one software package to another, you know how interesting things can get. Interoperability — or sharing data — is vital in today’s manufacturing industry. You just can’t get along without it. When it comes to translators, everyone is oh-so concerned with errors. You can understand why. How would you feel to have worked on a design for a long time and have it totally botched by seemingly random translation errors? One of the underlying reasons for those errors is a basic dilemma that’s not easy to fix. That guy in the movie Cool Hand Luke said it best: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Take, for instance, the venerable and indispensable Blend command. www.cadalyst.com | cadalyst | December 2007 37 http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - December 2007

Cadalyst - December 2007 Contents Editor's Window Cad Central Autodesk Gets Digital Top Honors - Saluting Outstanding CAD Products NX 5, Part 2 — CAD/CAM/CAE Software Autodesk 3ds Max 2008 —3D Modeling, Animation, and Rendering Software Document Management: Is It Still Valid? Standardizing 3D Modeling Nomenclature Share and Share Alike Cad Cartoon Issue Indexes Cad Fidential

Cadalyst - December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.