My users will love this. They are getting bored with overly-complex parametric CAD models, driven by somebody's undocumented Excel macro, reaching into the Access-database-from-hell, that pulls the wrong tables from SQL Server and our "who-changed-this-field?" ERP system, fed from a LabView rats-nest-of-code system.
Should be fun when they call me, because "computers are YOUR job, not ours".
Hey, glad I could keep you in business.
This article is not worth reading. Someone who doesn't use MS Word is whining about everyone standardizing on
His history is totally wrong - claiming Word came from work with Apple/Jobs/Macintosh, but it was actually on Xenix (called MultiTool, IIRC), then DOS before the Mac shipped. It was written by Charles Simonyi, who developed the first GUI word processor at Xerox PARC. So the development order was PARC, Xenix, DOS, then the Mac. Word 2.0 for DOS was an amazing tool, and I dumped Word Perfect for it.
He makes so many claims that are just flat-out wrong that I felt compelled to save others from this time sink.
Yes, they are different groups - much like the poser Apple fan boi (== HD rider), the scooter riders (== Win 8) and the sportbike guys (==GNU/Linux). Although I have a GSX-R 600 sportbike and a motocross bike, I have a blast riding my Honda 80cc scooter. You don't ride a scooter if you want to looks cool. Well, at least my scooter.
Yes, the Harley guys make fun of me. I get to laugh as I pass their broken-down bike by the side of the road.
But a modern Aluminum V6 with direct injection, making 320 hp/300 ft-lbs torque and weighing 150 lbs? That would be cool in a bike.
Uh... No it would NOT.
Clearly you are not an experienced motorcyclist. First off, any 1000cc sport bike will blow it off the road. Second, you can't get 320 hp/300 lb-ft torque to the ground - bike tires have curved cross-sections (necessary for turning) that limit the size of the contact patch, and thus the amount of power you can lay down. Third, 150 lbs is too damn heavy. So you end up with a extremely heavy bike, that handles like crap, gets beat by almost every sportbike on the road, and is way dangerous.
BTW, the Boss Hog motorcycle is the one using a cast iron V8. In my opinion, it's a slow, heavy, poor handling pig that should never have been built. People who want attention buy them, not people who like to ride.
As the the automaker CEO listened to his kids cry about their phone being almost unusable after a software upgrade, he realized the true genius of Steve Jobs.
The best camera is the one you have with you.
Ah, you are quoting Chase Jarvis - who wrote a book with this as the title.
This is fine advice, if the goal is to persuade photographers to go ahead and use their smartphone, rather than whine about not having their good camera with them - thus missing the shot. But it offers zero assistance for camera selection.
The camera I have with me is the camera I select before I leave the house. That might be a tiny Nikon V1, or a large Nikon D800 DSLR. Or I might pack up the Sinar 4x5 view camera, as it is still unbeaten by any digital camera at any price. I only use my Nexus' camera for note taking, or to read a bar code. Perhaps the occasional snapshot. Frankly, I'd rather my phone have a 4MP camera with larger sensels, which should allow for better low-light sensitivity. But the fact is, no cellphone can hold a candle to any modern dSLR, and I believe a lot of people see the same number of pixels on both cameras and assume the quality must be pretty close. Sadly, this is not the case, and the phone vendor's pursuit of higher "megapixel rating" only makes it worse.
Today, I do not see any apps in general use that need or require access to memory beyond a contiguous block of data beyond 4GB (frankly far far less).
Lacking inside information, I could be wrong, but I believe you'll find Photoshop, Premier Pro, After Effects, Solidworks, PTC Creo, various FEA packages, and CAM applications all use blocks of RAM beyond 4GB. And that just a sample of MY machine.
More knowledgeable folks (i.e. coder's for the above apps) can correct me if I've got it wrong. But there is clearly a need for >32bit memory address space.
What I mean is that people use the mouse to scroll around, and not for the rest of it.
Uh... no. We use the mouse to draw the sketch before we apply the the data-driven parametric dimensions.
And, I don't care how many buttons your mouse has, it does not have more than a keyboard. What's more, only an idiot uses a mouse as a mouse just does not have the level of precision necessary for CAD.
Yes, a keyboard does have more keys, but the 80/20 rule applies. And saying people are stupid for using a mouse tells me you lack the understanding of how a CAD system works.
There probably are novices out there that never bothered to learn the short cuts, but anybody that cares about efficiency or precision is going to be using the keyboard almost exclusively.
I've been doing CAD since 1980. I wrote a CAD application. I've been and AutoCAD and SolidWorks instructor, and run user groups. If you think a mouse if not used, or unsuitable for CAD, the you are either a troll are greatly in need of proper instruction.
I used that Autodesk VR rig around 1992. It used a pair of Silicon Graphics workstations - each powered one side of the VR stereoscopic viewfinders. The DataGlove interface was interesting, but not very useful. There was lots of work in stereoscopic displays in the 90's using LCD-shuttered glasses. In fact, it looks a lot like the OP's video.
I should point out that the term "Space Controller" is a trademark for this product:
http://www.spacecontrol.us/spacecontrol-3d-mouse-spacecontroller.html
But I usually see the Logitech 3DConnexion Space Mouse, which is often (incorrectly) called a space controller:
http://www.3dconnexion.com/
It's not and people don't typically use a mouse for CAD. Sure a mouse is used, but most of the actual work is done via keyboard shortcuts because it's both more accurate and faster.
So by "people don't typically use a mouse for CAD" you mean people do use a mouse. Uh.... OK.
Sorry, but the mouse is heavily used for CAD. The hot setup is a Space Pilot Pro and a multi-button mouse. Greatly reduces the use of a keyboard.
In a nutshell, he shows a gesture-operated wireframe or shaded model viewer. All that was shown was zoom, rotation and moving the clipping plane. It must be impressive for the non-CAD crowd, but I didn't see anything new that was practical, and there are far better viewers already available.
Elon Musk tweeted "Will post video next week of designing a rocket part with hand gestures & then immediately printing it in titanium". But the video says he designed the parts in Unigraphics, so it was NOT designed using hand gestures - unless you count using a mouse as "hand gestures".
Anyone that has used a solids modeling CAD application with a Space Controller in the last 17 years has been able to do pretty much all of this and more (not counting the use of Ti in the printer). But Space Controller + mouse users keep their arms on the desk, rather than waving their arms in the air (fatiguing). So thanks for thinking of us, be we designers do NOT want to hold our hands in the air. We had enough of that crap with light pens.
In all fairness, the one nice thing the video suggests is the gesture-operated viewer might make sense for a standing presenter. The Space Controller requires a flat surface to rest upon, so gesture-operation might make sense for this application.
The patent has been weaponized.
Nope. It was always a weapon. Always.
You don't have to be a successful automotive engineer or car designer to take one look at the Reliant Robin and see that someone somewhere, in more ways than one, fucked-up monumentally.
Fixed that for ye.
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
