This topic needs a much better title

[dougr]

God, this is such an old rant. I partly read the changes coming in WF3 and wondered what is wrong with WF2? WF2 was better than previous versions to me. Is it because we have had so many whiney people complaining?


Yes, it's an old rant but it's still a good and relevant one...


If you'd bother to read this thread properly, Mr Nogil stated that group nodes have been resulting in regen issues and probs with patterning in WF1 & 2 - that is "what is wrong with WF2"!!!!


"whiney people" - guess I'm just a "whiney" person...

If the group node disappears, how do I know which feature they were created in besides choosing every feature I think they might be in? Someone in WF3 can tell me if this is better, from what I read it is not.


What difference does the group node make now??? Do you search group nodes for datums to re-use now???


taking Dougr's case, 500+ features, I might have to choose 300+ features to find what I am looking for.


300+ features or 300+ group nodes, what's the difference ????


Wouldn't group nodes be more difficult because you have to expand the group to see what's in it??


You can search group nodes or features for datums to re-use but I sure don't, don't consider this a good use of my time..


I think re-using datums is "pie in the sky" - especially with group nodes..

PS I don't believe you can handle 7 beers..
Edited by: dougr

 

[dr_gallup]

It is better to have access to all datums that are in your model. IMO, imbedded on-the-fly datums amount to buried features.


Aren't dimensions buried in features too??


They are there, bloating your model,


Groups don't bloat a model ???


but you cannot see them or use them.


No you cannot see them unless you're in "redefine" but you can see their result (planar sketch surface or planar "up-to" surface) and use that.


You never know whether you may need the datums you create on the fly. For example, when projecting views in a drawing, it is nice to use the actual datums that you used to define the feature.


You always have a planar face or datum-axis that can be used to project views so why do you need datum-planes ???

DOTF is a veryslick way of managing datum-planes, am sure members are aware of some of my models and can testify to their complexity. You can't see DOTF's but if you're smart enough you can figure it out. I abhor the clutter of datum-planes and my models contain the minimum.

I agree with dougr 100%. And as pointed out previously, DOTF is back and better than ever in WF3 so all our ranting was not in vain! Now if they would just get a usable build of WF3 released we could all get along.

 

[rmckinley]

If the group node disappears, how do I know which feature they were created in besides choosing every feature I think they might be in? Someone in WF3 can tell me if this is better, from what I read it is not.


What difference does the group node make now??? Do you search group nodes for datums to re-use now???


taking Dougr's case, 500+ features, I might have to choose 300+ features to find what I am looking for.


300+ features or 300+ group nodes, what's the difference ????


Wouldn't group nodes be more difficult because you have to expand the group to see what's in it??


Not to get myself pulled into a useless and endless rant session... I reuse on-the-fly datums all the time. My models would be impossible for anyoneto understand if I didn't. In order to manage usingthis method, I name everything -- features, datums, and groups. Finding one of the 800 or so datums in my models only takes a few seconds because of this. And of course, I can always isolate a layer that contains the datum scafolding for a particular feature. But it all appears to be a mute point becauseof the way wf3 apparently works. I am happy tohear that they have made what sounds like an improvement.

 

[dougr]

In order to manage usingthis method, I name everything -- features, datums, and groups. Finding one of the 800 or so datums in my models only takes a few seconds because of this.


You can search 800 datums in how many seconds son of Jorrell ???


You have 800 datums in a model with how many other features ??


You name them all ???


How do you think up enough names ???


Am sure your boss appreciates you doing this, just the act of thinking up names can be very time consumingand to do this for800+ features !!!


Not to get myself pulled into (?????) a useless and endless rant session...

What's useless about it ??


Am sure some previous rants have resulted in some very positive changes.



Edited by: dougr

 

[rmckinley]

You can search 800 datums in how many seconds son of Jorrell ???


Okay, dougr the antagonist:


If you have 800 datums in a model with how many other features ??


You name them all ???


Well, actually, about 600 of them are patterned and remain unnamed. I name all of the rest. The models end up being between 500 and 1200 total features.


How do you think up enough names ???


Our company pretty much has a systematic naming convention so that everything can be fully defined in all dimensions. If a feature is not orthogonally aligned, it can be defined with a combination of datums named "section," "norm," "tilt," "skew," "offset," "piv,"and "rotation."All of the datum names start with the name of the feature they are used to construct and then the above suffixes areappended to the name. Every feature hasto have a name anyway because of our manufacturing process. Naming takes only a few extra seconds when your convention is extremely systematic like this.


Am sure your boss appreciates you doing this, just the act of thinking up names can be very time consumingand to do this for800+ features !!!


I develop program models that are used by the special productdesign staff. They must be very stable and easy to understand. The models regenerate with prompts for sizes and angles that the designer wants to start with (and, of course, the prompts often include feature names

). I don't spend very much time thinking up names. Most of my time is spent building mathematicalrelations (which also often use names).


Not to get myself pulled into (?????) a useless and endless rant session...

What's useless about it ??


Am sure some previous rants have resulted in some very positive changes.


Sure, namely wildfire3. It sounds like the solution may already be here so perhaps ranting about DOTFmay be a bit useless at this point.