Burnt again ?

[dsage]

My original post has been retracted.
It concerned the latest notice emailed out about GM Dynamics and the conditions under which you can aquire Dynamics and maintain it. The paragraph was IMHO a bit confusing. I was reading it to mean that a change was being made to included Dynamics with GM. Being a long time user I wasn't aware that it has been included for some time now.
So I guess nothing much has changed. Sort of makes me wonder why they mentioned it at all. I guess some minor aspect of having Dynamics has changed that doesn't affect me.
The part of the whole paragraph below that confused me was "Dynamics available with all new license purchases".

The notice email out:

Dynamics will be a fully supported part of Geomagic Design (Dynamics available with all new license purchases. For existing customers, availability depends on prior maintenance agreements. Purchases of Dynamics add-on for legacy customers will continue to be available.).......

Sage

 

[MikeHenry]

Looks like they won't be selling Simulate, MOI, or M-Files at all after 4/30 - I wonder if that means support for those from 3DS/GM will stop at that point as well.

As I read, the cost for long-time Alibre users to upgrade to Dynamics depends on the user's maintenance history. That leaves a lot to be imagined.

Considering the mediocre upgrades that happened recently I'm about ready to buy a dongle and pack it in.

A big +1 there. I'd really like to see some sort of road map for future "enhancements" before my next maintenance is due.

Mike

 

[DavidJ]

Since Dynamics first became available, it has been included in new purchases of Design. Existing Design users (like me) who had effectively paid for the previous Motion had (and still have) the option to pay a fee to get Dynamics added. Maintenance subs have been the same for pre and post changeover users, there hasn't been any extra maintenance charge if users updated to Dynamics.

I'm not saying this is good or fair - but I think there has been some confusion out there.

 

[dsage]

Thanks DavidJ

Confusing to say the least. Being a long time user I wasn't aware that it was included for new subscribers. I didn't pay attention to that when the original controversy arose. I guess I was more concerned that I had to pay the upgrade from Motion to Dynamics.

So what was that whole paragraph in the email about if nothing has changed? (or what has changed).
Was there some sort of rumor that Dynamics was not going to supported?

Sorry for my confusion

Sage

 

[DavidJ]

I'm not entirely sure - the e-mail I got leaves a number of questions unanswered.

My GUESS is that the intent was to point out that those long standing users who used to have Motion entitlement, won't automatically get Dynamics and current Elements users won't get Dynamics with their forthcoming free Design licence. Both will have the option of a paid update to get Dynamics.

 

[IKRAJ]

I have noticed that some of you have taken a look at the Dynamics module from DST.

I have been using it since its introduction and have had nothing but problems. I don't have a clue who made the decision at Alibre/3DS to (try) to integrate these products into GMD. However, it is obvious that they had no clue at the task that they undertook to integrate GMD to work smoothly with Simulate/Dynamics because as of today it does not work as it should.

Yes, some of you talk about the pretty videos of their dynamics simulation, however have you seen anything regarding their FEA…the answer is simply NO. Do you wonder why? I got news for you, their FEA also does not work properly and it delivers erroneous results. I have no clue as to what they have done with VISUAL NASTRAN as I have used it in the past in it was very accurate.

Has anyone seen an assembly created in GMD (and I am not taking about a pendulum or a set of a few links rotating, I mean a real assembly with pistons, gears, etc…), exported to Simulate (Dynamics) and have it work. The news is that it will NOT work.

Dynamics has a set of 10 Constraints out of which when you perform the conversion to Dynamics you end up with only 5 constraints that they support due to the lack of interoperability between the two products. A new set of constraints need to be added to GMD in order for it to pass them correctly for analysis.

This is only one of the many flaws and bugs that I have found. I will list a few so that you are aware of what you are getting into with this software.

• Dynamics does not recognize a multitude of constraints and it tends to insert constraints which are useless. You have to go through the entire assembly and assign the correct constraints.
• If you mirror any components in your design the constraints do not transfer. In some cases that is needed because you can over constrain the assembly, but in reality you do need to have the constraints transfer… GMD just does not understand how to transfer mirrored items.
• If you have an assembly that uses Configurations...don't even think about it. Dynamics does not recognize them and just puts garbage on your screen.
• Materials are not passed from GMD to Dynamics...what a mistake! You can spend hours just reassigning the material properties to a sophisticated assembly.
• The materials library that is included with DST is a joke. For software of this caliber it should in include a complete set of materials…but I guess that was too much work for them to perform :roll:
• Although there is a hypertext manual built into Dynamics it lacks a tremendous amount of documentation that is needed to get the full potential of the software. In addition, it is missing many of the hyperlinks, especially the ones regarding to formulas.
• For such sophisticated software the documentation is poor and it lacks documentation that is critical for those that want to perform sophisticated analysis. How difficult is it to provide the users an accurate manual.
• Technical support. What is that? It seems that 3DS has no clue at what a technical support team for specialized software has to implement. In the technical software area a support team needs to respond 24/7 and within a time limit of 30 minutes. Companies that do not do that go under. I have seen it time after time.

I have found many ways of using formulas that are not documented anywhere. :!:

:?: Has anyone seen an assembly generated by GMD and analyzed with Dynamics (Simulate) in any forum or YouTube? You will not find them because they cannot do it.

There are many more issues but I want to keep this short. :lol:

I would kindly ask any of you that are interested in using Dynamics/Simulate to contact 3DS on a continuous basis and let them know that their product just does not work.

They should fix it with a team with the right people, experience, and knowledge in testing. As it is right now, the Dynamics/Simulate package does not interface correctly with GMD and you will NOT be able to perform any viable and accurate analysis without spending pointless hours reworking the model.

My professional opinion is that this has become the biggest dupe that I have seen in the software industry in a long time (I have been in the industry since 1975.
I truly feel that I was taken for my money and the Alibre salesperson broke many laws at the time he sold the software to me.

CLARIFICATION: I must admit that I did not test the Simulate package before purchasing. I was out of town and it was the end of year. My salesperson knew that I was desperately looking for an FEA/Dynamics solution. He contacted me and asked me as a favor to him that if I was planning on purchasing the package to purchase it on that day because it was the end of year and he would get a bonus. I spent over an hour asking him questions about the functionality of the software. It is obvious that he had no clue about the DST/GMD interoperability and it’s functionality.
As a nice person I went ahead and purchased it...my mistake! What did I get into? Since its introduction I have not been able to perform a single analysis without wasting tremendous man hours. I learned my lesson. Don’t fall into the same abyss that I did.

 

[listastudio]

Dear Isaac, I read Your post without any surprise.

From one point I truly understand Your complaints, from the other I can assure You that the code You are talking about is a masterpiece when fully understood!
If You have not been instructed on it, and moreover if You have no technical documentation, You are not guilty.

I am the Italian distributor (http://www.lista.it) since 1995 of the original code from Knowledge Revolution that from 2D (Interactive Physics & Working Model) has been also developed to 3D (Working Model 3D) and even integrated with FEA (visualNastran 4D).
After acquisition from MSC.Software and then from Design Simulation Technologies, now the 3D/4D code is renamed SimWise while the 2D code is still named Working Model. Both the 2D and 3D/4D share the same formula language, therefore a model made in 2D can be moved to 3D.

So said, why I read Your post without surprise?

Because Dynamic for Geomagic is a reduced version of SimWise Motion by DST, which in Europe (see http://www.simwise4d.it) is sold for several thousands of Euros.
Instead, You got it for free (or almost free, even if a reduced version), but without real training and moreover without documentation: my standard training for motion is 8+8+8 hours, and for fea/4d is double.
I was not responsable for this bundle, so do not ask me why it was made this way, just please consider these points:

1) the best training process for this software is to start using it stand-alone (it has an integrated basic solid modeler inside). This way You understand what it is needed for a virtual prototype to reach its goals. Instead, if You start from a complex assembly already drawn in a professional CAD environment, then it is easy to get lost. Moreover, if You are not aware of the collision model which is used by the calculation engine, the results can be correct out of inadequate matematical model, and therefore "nonsense" for Your. The integration with any CAD is the final target, not the starting point!

2) I can assure You there are several industrial products developed with this software: I was recently involved with SimWise for a consulting service for an automotive lock in Your country. To give You some public examples, for 2D please check http://www.lista.it/atnet/casbcc.htm and for 3D please check http://www.lista.it/atnet/casgiubi.htm

3) You asked for movies, but movies can be artifacts, I think it's much better for you to play with some real files. So, please try some files from my training material, here are some simple examples for You and Others interested in:

3.a) http://www.simwise4d.it/BALL_FAN_VECT.WM3 (delete history with WORLD, ERASE MOTION HISTORY), then click RUN and interactively change the velocity of the turbine while the balls are dropping down - istantaneous velocity vectors are plotted.

3.b) http://www.simwise4d.it/COASTER.WM3

3.c) http://www.simwise4d.it/PSNAP_WITH_ROLLER.WM3 (this is fea with contact)

3.d) http://www.simwise4d.it/PRODUCTION_LINE_CONVEYORS.WM3

3.e) http://www.simwise4d.it/TELAIO.WM3 and navigate with the camera inside the tubes to understand the stress at the connections

These are only very simple examples, some working files taken out of the 40minutes movie in http://www.simwise4d.it

If You wonder for "bigger" examples, I have full motorcycles, cars and even a submarine to show You in specific analysis, but since they are confidential I can show them to third parties without leaving them a copy (or an image here on the web).

In other words, please accept my humble opinion, Dynamics for Geomagic, as a reduced version of SimWise Motion, is a MASTERPIECE of software but the way it is proposed (in almost free bundle without any training) is extremely dangerous and disappointing both for the final customer (You) and the reseller (me).

So...let's cry together!

Paolo Lista

http://www.lista.it

 

[DavidJ]

Paolo, thanks for the great examples of what can be achieved.

I've always believed Dynamics & Simulate are very powerful - but trying to use them has been a nightmare.

I fully understand your point about training, but in my opinion improved documentation would help enormously. The documentation provided (which seems to come from DST, not Geomagic) is amongst the worst I've ever seen for any software product. Combine that with the fact that the user interface is complex and not at all intuitive (and isn't really explained) - I'm not surprised very few people can use it.

It's a real shame, but (like much FEA software), this will only ever sell in modest numbers because ease of use has been entirely neglected.

The constraint mapping from GD to Dynamics/Simulate hardly works which also tends to put people off.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

Ignoring the many issues with exporting a model from GMD to Dynamics or Simulate, let us look at the "massive" 16 materials included in their distribution database! (Their baseline temperature is 25°C rather than the standard 20°C.) Only room temperature (i.e. 20°C) values are provided -- as if there are no variations at different temperatures in the mechanical and thermal properties of materials. (Wouldn't that have been a simplifying assumption to have been allowed to make in the Professional Licensing examination?)

Now, mind you, I used MSC Visual NASTRAN extensively for most of a decade (1998-2005). To say that I am unimpressed with DST's version would be a significant over-statement.

 

[bigseb]

Lew, going off on a tangent here but in your opinion how does Simulate compare to FEMDesigner?

 

[Lew_Merrick]

FEMdesigner is a static analysis tool. So long as you account for dynamic effects it is (at worst) a +/-10% tool -- though it can be tweaked to give +/-2% results (so long as you understand the "internals" of its operation). A friend of mine who retired from NASA as their senior dynamic analyst (and who hates all "canned" FEA tools -- he has written his own "tools" based on the job-at-hand his entire career) grudgingly says of FEMdesigner, It's not too bad a system. (FYI, FEMap gets a, Almost decent comment from him.)

Just about a year ago, I qualified the design of a 3 meter (hexagonal shape) X 2.5 meter tall vacuum chamber for NASA and USAF research work using FEMdesigner. The "delta" between the FEMdesigner analysis and full-up (NASA) NASTRAN analysis was 2.25%. About half of that "delta" can be attributed to the difference between (ATSM/ASM-based) "minimum book values" I had to use and the fact that the NASA/USAF analysts were able to use test-lab values derived from the "scrap" left over from manufacture.

Back in 2005-6 I used MSC Visual NASTRAN to analyze the components of a hypergolic fuel pump. The values I get when I tried that model in Simulate were tremendously out of sync with those used to qualify the pump in 2006. That is when I gave up on the DST system.

 

[IKRAJ]

Dear Paolo, I read your reply and I agree with many of your points. However the issue at hand is the manner and strategic integration that GMD took with DST.

I am not a beginner, I have written SPICE (for electronics), FEA, and motion analysis software ever since I was in college and thereafter (since 1978)
I must tell you that the first place I went to when I received the DST software was to your website. I have downloaded and looked at most of your models, that has been one of my best go to places to figure out things that are not documented anywhere in the miniscule manual and integrated hypertext help system. Even though I do not speak Italian I understand most of what you write because I speak perfect Spanish and there are many similarities in the words and language usage.

I have opened most of your models and taken a serious look at them to see how you solve them.
However, most of the work that you demonstrate is not documented, especially how to use the formulas.

The issue is not that I don't understand the software. Without bragging, I don't think that I have ever run into a software package of any type that I cannot figure out in less than 45 minutes. I have been doing this for 40 years. However my point here is that whoever made the decision at Alibre/3DS to get involved with DST had no clue at what he was doing. The integration of the two software packages is the worst I have ever seen.
As an old timer and also software developer (take a look at http://www.servoyant.com just one of our companies) I have worked with many third party software providers to integrate their product into ours. However, when you operate the software you have no clue that we use third party providers because we standardize everything to look, feel, and operate the same way as the core software, and yes, we do as much testing as we can to make sure it is as clean and bug free as possible. If we get a call reporting a bug it is usually fixed within 24 hrs. and all our clients receive the upgrade immediately. The tech support team at 3DS is worthless, they have no clue at software tech support or know how Simulate works. 3DS needs to train their own people before they release a product in order to provide timely and accurate support. Now I'm crying :!:

:idea: If they have a full blown version of Simulate and we received the reduced one, why can't they provide us with the documentation for the full blown version? The cost is minimal and they (3DS/DST) would probably save thousands of dollars on support calls and generate more sales. You are in the industry and I am sure you know that your best sales come from referrals from satisfied customers, not advertising. How can 3DS expect for anyone of us to recommend Simulate (even though it is a very good package) when you cannot work with the most simple assemblies (imported into Simulate). The idea here is to be able to import our assemblies and be able to perform sophisticated analysis.

You mention the collision model used by the calculation engine, it took me about 3 hours to figure it out by playing with a various assemblies and looking at some of your examples. I am sure that I do not know it as well as you, but I do understand how the engine uses it to interpret the solutions.

Paolo, I noticed that most of your solutions are using the older MSC.VisualNastran not the DST version. Try running the same assemblies in the DST version and you will find the DELTA discrepancies that Lew and I have confirmed.

The first mesher that was included with the first release of DST Simulate did not work. I had long conversations with Scott Ziemba. Afterwards he provided me with a new release using a new 3rd party mesher. 3DS did not have a clue and did not offer the upgrade. :x
You wrote:
"The integration with any CAD is the final target, not the starting point!"
Off course, but we need to move forward once you understand the software and it has been over two years and we still can't use the integration with GMD. :x Do you think that is correct, especially as a dealer for the product :?:

Off course, but we need to move forward once we understand the software. It has been over two years and we still can't use the integration with GMD. Do you think that is correct, especially as a dealer for the product?

Paolo I thank you for your comments and referrals to your site. I must admit that your site is one of the best ones that I have seen for our industry and I congratulate you. I am sure your success as a dealer is because you understand two of the most critical components for a successful consultant, know what you are doing and understand what your client needs are. I think 3DS does not get it when it comes to software. It is very different to support hardware than software. I have done both.

However, the issue at hand is still the integration between the two systems, GMD and Simulate!

S0 . . . I will cry with you !

Chao

Isaac Krajmalnik

 

[Jasper]

These are only very simple examples, some working files taken out of the 40minutes movie in http://www.simwise4d.it

Paolo, how do I view this 40min movie you refer to? The link did not work when I clicked on it. I'm just getting started with Dynamics and am very worried to read these posts about GD/Dynamics/Simulate problems.

 

[listastudio]

Dear PJasper, thank You for Your message.

Please go to http://www.simwise4d.it , scroll down to the list of links and click on "Esempi risolti, 40 minuti" then wait for the upload. It takes a while for the download, therefore if You have a movie player I suggest You to right click on the link http://www.lista.it/slideshow.mp4, save the file and play it later.

The movie is the video recording of most of the examples from my Basic Training CD-Rom I have set up for my customers in Italy.
The idea behind this slide show is to offer customers with a collection of real working files in a CD-Rom (while You are simply watching the movie out of it).
This is the third edition of a previous effort as in http://www.lista.it/atnet/nota24.htm (first edition) and in http://www.lista.it/atnet/nota28.htm (second edition).

There are two goals with this CD:

1) the working files can be read and executed by a working installation of SimWise/Dynamecs/Simulate in a couple of seconds- therefore they are VERY simple. What You see is the playing speed in a 2GHz Pentium computer of five years ago with a generic graphic card on a 32bit o.s., actually they are too fast to be executed on my latest laptop with Windows 8.1 at 64bit).

2) when a files seems interesting, the user can stop the slide show, open the real working file and check how that constraint or movement was solved. For example, You can recognize in the movie in http://www.lista.it/slideshow.mp4 some of the examples I have provided as real working files in my previous post here above, so that You can touch with Your hands what I mean.

Regarding Your worries about the code, let me explain You that I am very sad about the marketing strategies, and the conseguencies out of it, not about the power and usability of the code itself (in terms that the code can provide real and useful simulations).
My concern is that from one side is good to allow customers to take advantage of bundles and discounted offerts, such as, getting for almost free a kinetodynamical + fea code that is otherwise sold at several thousands Euros.
It is my experience with this code that a training should provide the tools and strategy to VALIDATE a simulation, that is, how to debug and qualify the simulation when the comparison with a real experiment is not possible, so that the user can understand the precision and confidence in the results without simply having to hope that ... it is correct!
Please consider the movie in http://www.simwise4d.it/3collision.mp4 and consider the three different approaches for the very same "stupid" problem of a ball bouncing on a blade: they are ALL mathematically correct, but only with one of the three blades, the on on the left, You can get the ball jumping out of the balde as in the reality - if this is what You are looking for; therefore You can argue that the other two blades (on the right) are "totally wrong". But depending on what You are looking for, even the blade on the left is "incorrect".
Therefore, I am absolutely confident that this code has an incredible high ratio of value/money, but since it offers an higly simplified approach it can also easily be misunderstood.
The final customer is not guilty, as previous post have very well explained, I mean if a customer loose confidence in it because of lack of documentation and support from their reseller.
And the reseller is not guilty if, when he is called to provide support for free, he prefers to give up.
I hope my words do not irritate anybody and that anyhow I have provided a contribution with real files and movies to this interesting discussion.
I wish You all the best, Paolo

 

[Jasper]

Paolo, firstly, thank you very much for your help and explanations.

When you say that GD Dynamics is simpler or a reduced version than that could be obtained if buying the s/w directly from Design Simulation Technologies, does that mean that the features are limited (as compared to DST's version), or just that training/support/documentation is lacking? I ask because before I bought Dynamics, I was told by GD people that it was the same product as Simwise 4d (and it did appear that way to me by looking at DST's website).

Thanks again,
PJ

 

[listastudio]

I mean both dear Jasper.
Regarding the software, GD is correct in reporting You that Dynamics for Geomatic has the same kinetodinamical engine of SimWise Motion (which is SimWise 4D less FEA), but neverthelss it lacks some parts, for example, CAD integrations and most of the optimization module SHERPA (http://www.redcedartech.com). I mean, SimWise Motion has integrated interfaces inside SolidEdge, SolidWorks and Inventor CADs, as well as integration with SpaceClaim and Catia, and brings inside the HEEDS part optimization code as outlined in http://www.design-simulation.com/news/rct.php (simple example in http://www.simwise4d.it/Esempittimizzazione.pdf), so that You can automatically optimize part geometry and constraints according to Your goals and the result if Your simulation.
Regarding the documentation and training material I believe I made my point above.
Regarding Simulate for Geomagic please contact Your GD reseller for an update on product consolidation and stay tuned for a very important press announcement by DST within a month or so.
Ciao!
Paolo
http://www.lista.it

 

[Jasper]

Paolo, what is your opinion as to the best way for me to learn to use the GD Dynamics package? (I should mention that I speak only English, so your site is a bit difficult for me.)

Thank you,
PJ