humm? I guess I should have left my SW workaround analogy out my long winded example but I thought it relevant in my recent experience. When I learn a new tool like Alias Rhino Maya or even solidworks I push the tool to model the exact form using the the same techniques in each software tool. This process for learning requires me to push the specific tools then reach for workarounds to continue with the same technique often I reach for a workaround. Apples to apples if you can.
take this shape for example where this clay example is modeled
the same form ... the same technique... the same shape... the same
light reflections.... same weight of heated clay before and after
baking so designers can calculate shape before and after fire in kiln.
this one modeled in Pro/E
ABBREVIATED BENCHMARK COMPLAINTS
Pro/E: users utilize the add on package ISDX to use COS to trip back the melted glass. 2 uses parametric combined with free form curves to parametrically control (not calculate) the bake and melt sag. parent child relations aid engineers calculate the bake process parametrically. WF 4.0 allows user to tug and pull on internal CV's of the surface yet while maintaining parent child relations to the original curves. COS can be accomplished with the Curve thru Points tool in stock Pro/E however upon redefine of the curve thru points on surface requires loosing the tweak mods before redefining. No Isoparm display on the surface. Warp tool in Pro/E is hard like the SW flex imput tool to localize.
Alais: - since Curve on Surface cant force tangency on end points experts reach for the common work around alternate technique of using a 3 degree curve not sketched on surface and project as a work around. Alias experts like to tug and pull on the internal control verticies of the surface to obtain the weighted hot glass look instead of managing thru curves. Hi end users often brake construction history so they get to rebuild the curves and surfaces instead of makeing slight mods to make before and after bake or melting games. When modifying and pulling on internal CV of surface user is forced to brake construction history. Full tangency and ispparm display.
Rhino: user has to constantly rebuild curves and surfaces ... designers are still struggling with the model in our office this week and I have not seen if they can force tangency on COS endpoints. They are mad at my five minute model in Pro/E from start to finish. Rhino parent child is immature and users remodel to obtain the various modes of melted glass. When modifying and pulling on internal CV of surface user is forced to brake construction history. Full tangency and ispparm display.
SW: model technique works similar as Pro/E without the add on expense of ISDX but lack realtime update feedback. SW cant project a 3d curve onto surface so the Alias technique is not possible in SW (2007) but the ISDX technique works fine with the 3d curve on surface tool in sw. Tangency forced on end points for the curve on surface tool works similar to ISDX in Pro/E. lack of intent manager (2007) makes for slightly slower sketcher creations... As user flexes for modifying the weight of the melted glass before it cures the parent child relations often fail for no apparent reason. user can not modify internal CV of surface unless they use the ... I don't have sw installed on any machines... new tool will let user manipulate internal cv but I cant recall what its called.. one sec................... 'Fill surface' tool. No tangency line nor ispparm display causes more complexity when creating cross or internal curves due to not being able to snap directly to the tangency edge. 'Flex imput' tool works here for a work around to managing the weight of the clay mods but the tool is difficult to localize and control the tool (2007)
try this for hostility.... I wish global warming more steam so I can ride my motorcycle year round in Chicago. Thats selfish I guess
SW has come so far in the last years just like Pro/E has come so far.
In all honesty I don't think too many SW users can make the above benchmark off their head. The topic is work arounds not benchmarks but I did make my point very clear.
Now maya has some bad ass tools. Lets compare to that instead!
Edited by: design-engine 
