Hello Jerry,
12-Nov-96 14:53:34, Jerry Myer did write to Ian Underwood
      Subject: SDRC
 >> I see from the rest of your message that my wants are
 >> quite different - The main aim is to speed up the design cycle
 JM>  For the design aspect, by all means "parametric/associative"
 JM> geometry is the way to go.
 JM> That same capability in a manufacturing approach makes for
 JM> family of parts processing also.
 The "hard sell" of that aspect was not appreciated :-)
 In fact most of the "top name" demos put in more effort
 on the frills and hard sell than the drawing package !?
 A large company is not going to switch it's drawing structure
 on the basis of a few "seats" - (a few very blunt comments
 were needed:-)
 JM> And the programs you mentioned can draw up a sophisticated
 JM> shape in a heartbeat.
 Very true - and give rapid 3-d pictures and 2-d drawings
 (as well as all the other features we have discussed)
 JM> AutoCAD may well be in its infancy in this regard, and who
 JM> is to say it will ever get there. But I suppose they will.
 I forget the package name but their (Acad) modeller package has
 a long way to go.
 JM> When AutoCAD first came out and I saw the space shuttle
 JM> drawn in isometric mode,
 I started out with Ver 9 :-) and then progressed to the
 386 coded version (and skipped the no-hope 11)
 JM> my thought was that they could *never* so misrepresent
 JM> 3D graphics and attain to any serious following. So I was
 JM> wrong. But the first version I bought into was R12. Now I'm
 JM> thinking that a large part of manufacturing is performed in
 JM> small shops not using the latest techniques, and not
 JM> requiring solid modelers just to move a machine spindle back
 JM> and forth a few times.
 ACAD became the industry standard for engineering (ouside
 of automobile and Aircraft engineering)
 But there's moves to break away from a product well equipped
 to give a bill of sale for a roof with the number of nails
 required (as I said dedicated programs do that better)
 Acad has clearly lost it's direction - it's a conglomerate
 of features than one hardly uses - with Achitectural bits
 alongside engineering and R13 just goes and enhances
 rendering - sad and slow
 >> That's saying that you pick up where I leave off 
 JM>  Exactly why I'm concerned with the output.
 >> Forgive me - that sounds like a real slog, I admire what
 >> it says tho' all the bells and whistles with absolute minimal
 >> outlay - but it's not a direction industry can really follow
 >> ;-)
 JM>  I think I said more than just looking for minimal
 JM> outlay.
   I think I credited you with more than that also ;-)
 JM> I'm also suggesting paying for only what you need and
 JM> specifying products that interact with other products instead
 JM> of proprietary solutions.
 That again is not practical, a large company will not commit
 itself to a product/small company that could fold overnight
 I cannot think of a big name S/W product that offers only
 paying for what you need (at a fair price)
 Whether it be Acad or Word6, the excess baggage is no longer
 funny, nor the platforms that you need to run them.
 JM> Not everyone needs to be able to
 JM> *design* a part just to manufacture it. If you need a
 JM> higher-end CAD system (on a cost justified basis) well, you
 JM> need it. Intergraph, SDRC, ProE, probably CATIA, and many
 JM> others - well, none stand out in my mind to be so different
 JM> from the others. You might want to let us know which you
 JM> decide to use, and why...
 I have to be a little careful in what I do say for obvious
 commercial reasons but /if/ and /when/ I will say a few words.
 (Perhaps we can postpone the venture for a little longer too!)
 -=> Ian >=-
Take care Jerry!
Internet : ian.underwood@esoftc.seuk.com
.!. Those who can, do.  Those who can't, supervise!
--- Terminate 4.00/Pro*at
---------------