Full Version: Michael's Plasticity rants

Show messages:  1-19  20-39  40-59  60-79  80-99

@Will - yeah clearly my dislike of social media other than this forum has left a big marketing opening for copycats.

I guess I've finally figured out that I can at the very least make use of my own forum for some social media marketing.

The main function of the forum is for providing technical assistance to users. That aspect works best without arguments and flame wars, etc... so that's why it is a shock for some to see a combative attitude from me here. Usually I put a lot of effort into dampening that.

I will try to keep such things isolated into their own threads, I think that should work fine.

Thanks, - Michael

---

Hi Michael, greetings :)

I read the reply from the user @Will to my question, which was addressed to you :) regarding the reason for the existence of the thread “Michael’s Plasticity rants.”

I would like to thank @Will for the explanation. However, since I hadn’t followed the history of that thread from the beginning, I was curious about why it existed—especially knowing that this style of communication is absolutely not in line with your very professional approach, which you have always maintained on this forum dedicated to Moi users.

I believe I now understand the reason for that thread, and I 100% agree with what @Will wrote in his reply when he said (I believe quoting one of your messages):
"I guess I should explain that the original thing that pissed me off enough to start this thread was someone posting links to Plasticity advertising affiliate coupon codes after having been warned not to do that.""

I also believe it is extremely frustrating and disrespectful when some people use the space of this forum to promote other products, especially when those products may even be direct competitors to Moi.

I’m not familiar with the software “Plasticity,” but from what I’ve read, it seems to be simply a very poor, poorly made copy of Moi :)

I don’t know if that is entirely accurate, but in any case, I can understand your irritation toward that software.

Best regards, and all the best :)

---

Someone posted a while ago a modern UI for Moi...and to me it looked nice...
for existing user it does not make a difference...all I want is speed...for new user..I think its a plus.
Now..
Moi with...
Xnurbs
Polymodeling like Rhino
Materials

Someone mentioned the managing of the scripts...I think this is a good idea...sometimes I forget what I have installed and need to go thru the list...and cannot find it lol.
For instance...
Plasticity you can add your most used items to favorites
3dcoat spacebar I think it was you press it and you can set your most used commands
Nvil3d you can set your special commands on the side...
to me Nvil does it better

The way I have Moi3d setup it runs like a dream..I use it for everything lol....but do I need Rhino...not really but I do want it ..yes ...for the plug ins or certain features.
What makes Moi special is the scripts the were created for a specific user case.

Image Attachments:
nvil.jpg 

---

I have and like both Moi3d and Plasticity - and rarely use both of them. I almost always need to change things later on and that isn‘t easy for both programs - most of the time it is easier to restart from scratch than trying to change an existing design.
A 3d constraint system might be most fitting for history free direct modellers - something along the lines of what Solid Edge does in Synchronous Mode. Imho the first application that gets a proper implementation of 3d constraints done wins the competition :)

---

Message 11865.84 was deleted

---

> I almost always need to change things later on and that isn‘t easy for both programs - most of the time it is easier to restart from scratch than trying to change an existing design.

> A 3d constraint system might be most fitting for history free direct modellers

I think these two comments introduce a very worthwhile topic, probably worthy of a separate thread.

I use MoI exclusively for my mechanical designs and drawings but have long thought that some type of strategy and discipline is necessary in order to build a model that is amenable to modification. It is one thing to be able to get it to look good, but another level of challenge to be able to adjust relationships and dimensions as a project evolves lest the model quickly devolve into a muddle. MoI is so danged handy that I find myself using it for everything from simple sketches of parts to architecture & all of those endeavors benefit from being able to evolve the model to try out "what ifs" or adjust to new information. Perhaps a constraint system is part of a solution, I don't have any experience to offer. I do suspect that Michael may have some thoughts about how MoI could evolve to address this mutability aspect of 3D CAD.

> something along the lines of what Solid Edge does in Synchronous Mode. Imho the first application that gets a proper implementation of 3d constraints done wins the competition :)

A good natured challenge!

--Larry

---

I hate all the Internet hype of Plasticity with the affiliated links everywhere. That's a warning sign my experience tells me.

Anyway since Nick Kallen has copied almost everything from Moi why not do the opposite and take whatever few good inventions he made and make them better and integrated in Moi if it makes sense :-).

---

Seems to me like the two softs have different audiences really - one being for 'conceptual' hard surface, with a kind of endless output of non-practical non-machine ready modeling, the other being a focused design tool with the logic inherent in that. I'd ask how many are using it for typical cad applications but I know the answer already really. Some developers like to imagine they are building CAD products, like illustrators like to imagine they are sitting in front of a CNC machine, but they're not, so...Roll on Michael. Your diligence is appreciated out there for this razor sharp logical little bit of kit.

HAVING SAID THAT Plasticity just got instancing hahaha so I WILL poke you on that lolol (forgive me Lord)

// Rich

---

Indeed, design for CNC and 3D printing is also my primary use case :)
Plasticity being based on Parasolid, the 3D kernel of NX, which is a top tier CAD/CAM for manufacturing solution with a very solid 3D constraints implementation in "synchronous direct modeling" mode could probably be extended into that direction (not sure which part of synchronous mode constraints is actually part of the 3D kernel and which part is exclusive to NX and SolidEdge). But perhaps there are some non-competition clauses in place with which Siemens ensures that 3rd party developers cannot use Parasolid to develop a 200€/seat NX competitor any time soon?
In that case 3d constraints could be an interesting direction for MoI on a path on which Plasticity might not be able to follow for contractual reasons. (This is all hypothetical and mainly based on my puzzlement why they haven't implemented this so-important feature from the beginning already when it is potentially all there in the kernel? But no clue, perhaps all that is not in the kernel and would be a major effort. Or 3d constraints are simply something they decisively decided against for whatever reason).
I just think it could be tremendously helpful and enable more people to use the programs in scenarios that are relevant to them.

---

“””””constraints”””””

Hard pass…..

Nothing worse than “slop a component onto a sheet, then go back and jump through hoops to enter a bunch of engineering data…”

MoI has the ACIS modeling Kernel. Superior fillets…

NX is more of a PLM product. Lets hope Michael doesnt try to implement PLM.

""""""""""But perhaps there are some non-competition clauses in place with which Siemens ensures that 3rd party developers cannot use Parasolid to develop a 200 seat NX competitor any time soon?"""""""""""""""""""""

Sure. That's called "millions of dollars of investment and countless man hours of time developing their product". Hence, NX can create a circle and fillet a box without crashing.

---

You don't need to change constraints. Unless you want certain dimensions of the part to change. In which case you will be very glad that those constraints exist.
NX is CAD+CAM, TeamCenter is PLM.

---

"""""""""""""Unless you want certain dimensions of the part to change. In which case you will be very glad that those constraints exist.""""""""""""""

My design abilities and artistry just shriveled up into a black, dead ball of tar on the end of my pencil....

Hard Pass.

I'll pass my models to the engineer who is well schooled in NX.

---

""""""""""NX is CAD+CAM, TeamCenter is PLM""""""""""""""

Formerly known as Unigraphics, it is often referred to as "Siemens PLM NX" due to its origin and connection with Siemens Digital Industries Software.

The fact they forked it down is just sales and marketing. All the complaints about "$30,000 for a bunch of stuff i dont need!"

Now you can buy smaller chunks of stuff for less money......

You can even buy "Nicks Version" for 200 bucks!!!

---

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the utility/necessity of 3D constraints then.

3D constraints as I mean them are different from classical 2D sketch constraints. Not only in the obvious aspect of being defined on 3d geometry, not sketch level but those are more meant as an expression of design intent, telling the direct editing software which aspects are important (so what not to "accidentally" change when pulling somewhere) and what to change from how it is to how it is supposed to be (by adding a new constraint and changing it's value). This requires a lot more implicit "understanding" from the system as it is more about finding the solution for an underspecified system (full explicit specification would require a fully constrained body), filling in the gaps with most likely intention of the designer: "Make it like now, "just" that section 10 cm instead of 7 cm". A human would usually immediately know how the result should look like and if 999 out of 1000 would come to the same conclusion then this is most likely a well defined transformation. One based on implicit knowledge. Certainly not easy. But there are direct modelers that can do this pretty convincingly (NX, SE, Ansys etc.) so it seems to be doable.

Sorry for starting to derail "Michael's Plasticity rants" :)

---

“”””NX-Ansys-SolidEdge, etx”””””””

Already do all that…. Nothing new. Very accomplished at it. To aspire to jump into THAT pool is, not very visionary.

Hardly MoI and all the groundbreaking innovation from Michael…..

---

Hello,

Blender is a UX dumpster fire so it tracks that users in that demographic would be forgiving when it comes to usability.

Plasticity's persistent limitation will be its UX, that's a huge drag that MoI doesn't have.

The argument could be made that Fitts applies less since you could execute many commands via keyboard without moving the cursor, but then Hicks and Miller would like to have a chat with you. The cognitive load required to operate Plasticity is really up there.

At the end of the day you have to remove the reasons for someone to use the other product. If it's a useful feature that doesn't exist in your product, work to implement it better than the competition ever could. Identify the weaknesses in the competitors product and put a spotlight on it by improving and refining your better feature, nothing speaks like putting operations under a stopwatch.

Interestingly, where the chamfer command doesn't work in P3D the bridge surface command usually does. I did experience a hard crash when defeaturing a part in P3D, but when I closed and rebooted the app it brought the file back to the moment before the crash. That said I've experienced more crashes in P3D in 2 months than I have since MoI 1.0, can't beat the reliability of MoI.

---

Hi OSTexo, re: Plasticity crashes -

So with an app that hasn't been around that long you might be thinking that it just needs more time for crash bugs to come to light.

But the crashes I documented above are not crashes in Plasticity's own code, those are a crash in the Parasolid kernel.

Parasolid was launched in 1986, 40 years ago!!

It's strange that I can poke it for 30 minutes and run into a crash on simple geometry.

- Michael

---

"Apple has pushed far in that direction recently as well"

Amen!!!!

---

And Michael's next statement is equally good:

> I find it distasteful when I see poorly designed UX being praised.

I appreciate MoI's UX elegance and contentedly use it with only the most minor modifications, specifically: CombineSidePanePalettes since I'm on small laptop and Extras to help keep track of the various scripts.

https://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=10368.1
https://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=10353.1

--Larry

---

Hello,

Do the geometric modeling kernel developers really have any significant motivation at this point to measurably improve the quality of their product? It doesn't seem like it, very few options to choose from.

---

Show messages:  1-19  20-39  40-59  60-79  80-99