3DContentCentral macros video

March 10th, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

New video from SolidWorks talks about macros that are available on 3DContentCentral.

Name in lights (or ginormous LCD)

March 9th, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

As mentioned within a previous article, Jeff Ray quoted one of my comments about SolidWorks 2010.  He has been using this quote and others by other bloggers for a few months.  It was an honor to have my particular quote appear at SolidWorks World 2010 on the big screen.

Jeff Ray quoting

I was kinda bummed though.  I didn’t have the camera on my phone ready to take a photo, nor did I think about taking a photo until it was too late.  Well, even if I had been able to take the photo, it wouldn’t have been that good.  Several of us bloggers where sitting in the front row, too close to get Ray and the quote in the same frame.

Yesterday, I put out a call on Twitter to see if anyone had taken a photo of the quote.  Gabi Jack almost immediately tweeted that she might have one.  Within 15 minutes, she send over a picture of my name in lights next to Ray.  Thank you, Jack.

Matt Lorono name in lights

Ray stated the quote during the Monday General Session.  This can actually be seen on the video of the Monday General Session (@ minute 47:35) available at their website here.

SolidWorks World 2010 Presentations are now available online

March 8th, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

SolidWorks World 2010 presentations are now available online via the SolidWorks World website.  Details about every presentation can be found there.  Videos are available for many of the sessions.  Where videos do not exist, the PowerPoint presentations are usually available for download.  Anyone can view the basic presentation descriptions.  Viewing of the videos or downloading of the PowerPoint presentations requires the visitor to sign in through the customer portal.  Browsing the presentations may be done with four tabs: Presenter, Title, Category, and Weekday.  If you are interested in just videos, there’s an option to filter for those.  There is no search function, though that isn’t needed as far as I can tell so far.  I’ve been able to find sessions fairly quickly.  Also, fortunately, the SolidWorks World 2009 presentations are still available.

At this website, there’s also a SolidWorks blog portal, photos from SolidWorks World 2010, Partner Pavilion information, a convention highlight video.  Have fun exploring:

SolidWorks World 2010 presentations

FIRST robotics competition

March 2nd, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

I’ll let the video and photos speak for themselves about these kids building robots for FIRST.  Enjoy!  (Yes, this and many of the robots were designed in SolidWorks student edition.  Go here to see one of the original drawings.)

DWGEditor being renamed: The Twitter Response

February 26th, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

I recently wrote a quick article about the fact that SolidWorks will be renaming DWGEditor due to a settlement with Autodesk.  This article prompted a few entertaining responses from twitter, which I hope no one minds me republishing:

DevonSowell @fcsuper DWGEditor and AutoCAD, proud to say I haven’t used either in almost 2 years, they feel like the 80’s

 

marcnelson @fcsuper There are some great new names for the DWGEditor. AutoCADSuxWorks has to be my favorite tho

 

hallga @fcsuper I always looked at the name, “DWGEditor” as free marketing for AutoDesk. Guess they didn’t see it that way. :-\

 

Lars_Denmark RT @fcsuper #DWGEditor is going to be renamed http://goo.gl/fb/JERf #solidworks #news #autodesk #dwg ~NaughtyWorks funny funny

 

gkastner Opine RT @fcsuper: #DWGEditor is going to be renamed http://bit.ly/bBaNAd #solidworks #news #autodesk #dwg

 

hallga @fcsuper Well…at least now Autodesk can claim that they beat SW at something. :-)

“If you are thinking of designing a nuclear plant [in SW]- don’t”

February 25th, 2010 submitted by fcsuper

An eye-catching subject line popped up on the SolidWorks Forum on Monday (2/22/2010), “If you are thinking of designing a nuclear plant – don’t”.  It seems there was a recent and humorous addition to the SolidWorks software EULA.

Neither the Software nor any of its components are intended for use in the design or operation of nuclear facilities, life support systems, aircraft or other activities in which the failure of the Software or such components, or both, could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.

Seriously, what lawyer thought this statement would be a good thing?  First, portions of EULAs (or any nonnegotiable contracts) that are not supported by law are not legally binding.  Second, if a company demonstrates the use of the product in a way that is counter to their disclaimers, it may be interpreted as there being no disclaimer at all.  Third, words that try to limit liability (such as waivers) aren’t usually legally supported either (even in a physically signed contract).  Really, why put these words in a EULA?

Matt West noticed the thread and proactively responded:

So I mentioned this thread to a coworker, who then asked legal about the EULA. Evidently, what the EULA say is that SolidWorks isn’t intended to be used for these purposes, but there’s nothing in there specifically stating it can’t or shouldn’t be used for those purposes.
.
Others immediately pointed out the obvious flaw in the logic behind Legal’s response.  Check out Harold Brunt’s response where he states (in part), “there’s not much distiction (sic) between can’t and shouldn’t when somebody tells me a tool is not intended for the purpose for which I am about to use…”
aerospace_header

Even more humorous is the fact that a SolidWorks customer, who manufacturers aircraft, was  profiled at SolidWorks World 2009 in Florida, and mentioned again this year in Anaheim, CA.  But of course there’s more.  Officially, the SolidWorks website has a page that advertises SolidWorks as Aerospace and Defense software!   Not only is this advertising SolidWorks specifically for airplanes, it is also being advertised for Defense, which often designs equipment to specifically cause death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.”

What would be more helpful than a “not intended for” statement?  Customers need actual information as to why SoldWorks Corp is concerned about this topic.  The customer would be better served if they are made aware of software limitations.  Just adding a EULA statement just makes for a funny joke, while providing no service to the customer.

With that said, I’m not making any statements here that haven’t been made somewhere else.  I’m posting this article in a light-hearted tease, to point out how a company can get so caught up in being a corporation, they miss basic stuff at the ground level.