Cadalyst - December 2007 - (Page 38)

mcadmodeling Figure 3. SolidWorks was the first program I saw using these icons. Figure 4. NX has the same icons. Coincidence? I think not! Figure 2. Whether you call it a hollow or a shell, the function is the same. things, they need to include the same information. Huh? How many ways can you think of to define a given shape? The Answers? One software package wants to call the smooth and tangent transition from one face to another on a solid a blend (figure 1, p. 37). Another modeler wants to call the same thing a round. When I was in drafting school and everything was done by manual CAD — that is, the drafting board — it was called a fillet (this term is still used but now generally refers only to a 2D object). All are measured by radii, so some software packages call them that. Which term is right? The simple answer is . . . they all are. In this age of near-total freedom, you pretty much can call stuff anything you want. No software police are out there, standing in heroic poses, ready to slap the cuffs on you for something like that. You can call them thingamabobs if you want, but whatever you call them, I’d make sure your users know what to expect. You want another example? Okay, coming right up! When you want to empty out a solid body and maintain given wall thicknesses, what command do you look for (figure 2)? In one program, you’d be looking for a hollow, in another, a shell. There probably are others, but I’ve made my point. Because there is no industrywide consensus as to what to call these things, the software companies can do as they please, and the users have to deal with it. So why is it important what the software calls its functions? Because when it comes time to import data, your program wants to see what it’s looking for. Whoever writes the translating code will have to create a finite list of what a particular function can be called. If the originating software calls that function something that isn’t on the list that the importing software is checking, there will be a problem. And even if they call their functions the same 38 December 2007 | cadalyst | www.cadalyst.com Someone once told me that anyone could look smart if he or she could identify a problem, but it was the true genius that could come up with the answers. I would have to admit that I’m certainly not at the top end of that list. I can see the problems, but solutions are a bit more daunting. How do you fix what essentially isn’t broken, just inconvenient? Industry standards? Maybe, but who decides what will be done — some kind of standards committee? Again, maybe. How would you enforce it? It’s human nature that nobody likes to be told what to do. How many times have you heard someone (usually some kid) yell, “You’re not the boss of me!” How do you tell a software company to adhere to standards? I know this sounds like a rant. Maybe it is, but I know many users who are deeply concerned about this subject. There are as many ways of doing things as there are people to do them. Who’s right? Is there even a wrong side? I see a lot of programs incorporating the look and feel of their near competitors today. NX has icons that I first saw in SolidWorks (though Siemens would deny that’s where it got them; see figures 3 and 4 for a comparison). NX even changed the name of the Hollow command to Shell in the latest version. I think it’s practically inevitable that a certain amount of homogenization will creep into the market. But until something happens to make it attractive to cooperate in the naming of functions, I think we users will have to wade through the mess and find what we want. c Mike Hudspeth, IDSA, is an industrial designer, artist, and author based in St. Louis, Missouri. 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.