Jeff's Tool Shed

Every so often the “is getting my CSWP worth it?” question crops up in one forum or another. Granted, should a potential employer gloss over the fact that a candidate has earned their CSWP, or not understand what the CSWP certification means, the whole question becomes moot, but let’s make a couple of assumptions so that I can continue with this post, ok? Good. The assumptions are that the employer knows, or finds out, what the CSWP is and the employer puts some stock into the CSWP. Yes, I realize that my conclusions will end up being lopsided, but if a potential employer doesn’t know anything about the certification or, worse yet, doesn’t put any stock in it, then there’s no point in going any further with this post. Right? (Then again, the CSWP only costs you time for the most part. At least that’s the case now. Back when I took it, it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 and 8 hours of your time. That’s when the whole “is it worth it” question really had merit. At the most, you may end up having to pay $99 if you flunk it the first time around. Chump change, but I digress. )

The more I think about it, the more I question whether there’s actually an answer. I know that for me, having the CSWP has opened doors, especially where I don’t have a degree. I realize that all it says is “this guy is a CAD jockey”, but when it’s coupled with my other experience it helps me to rise up.

Rodney Hall, the celeb du jour of last year’s SolidWorks World, had this to say about the CSWP:

“I now work for a very large company as their CAD Administrator and manage over 100 seats of SolidWorks and would almost certainly not have been offered the position without CSWP Certification. My management now only prefers to consider CSWP as first choice when booking interviews with job candidates. I also teach SolidWorks at a local community college and being a CSWP again iced the cake when they considered me for the position.

I would recommend certification to anyone who is serious about keeping or advancing any career that involves using SolidWorks to bring home the groceries.”

Ok, so Rodney is only one person. Add me to the mix, and you get two people who wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing without the certification. I’m willing to bet that there’s more of us, too.

That all being said, I don’t think it’s possible to make a definitive statement one way or the other. It’s strictly related to people’s perception of it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you ask me or Rodney, we’d say it’s very worth it.

What say you?

I feel a rant coming on, but I’m going to try to control it as best I can…

I read a forum post earlier where a person was upset that their hardware wasn’t supported by the newest version of SolidWorks. Said hardware is about 10 years old and no longer made. They felt that SolidWorks had kicked “a whole bunch of users and their computers to the curb”. First, I’m compelled to question the validity of that statement. A whole bunch of users? Really? It was my understanding that the average engineering computer was upgraded about every 3 years (+/- 1 year).  Is this wrong? Even if I’m off by two years, doesn’t it stand to reason that the vast majority of engineering computers have hardware that is less than 8 years old?

None of that is the point I was trying to make, though. My point is this, does it not seem asinine to expected software to not progress at a rate that almost equals that of hardware? Why would any software manufacturer decide it’s better to hinder their software’s potential performance so they can continue to support out-of-date hardware? This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I can’t think of a single software company that doesn’t want to be cutting edge. To do this, they need to take advantage of all that a computer’s hardware offers, old hardware be damned.

How about we go a little further? If your company is still using 10 year old systems for their engineering needs, what does that say about the company, and their want to stay current and competitive? Prior to coming back to work here, I had a couple of interviews. At both of them, one of the questions I asked was about their PCs. My mentality was that if their systems were up to snuff, then they, the company, wanted to be competitive and were willing to make the necessary investments to do so. If I’d have been told that they were PIII with 1Gb RAM, I’d have just said thanks but no thanks.

Outside of easy file sharing, no one forces you to move up to the newest version of SolidWorks, it’s your choice. In making that choice, it’s your responsibility to make sure that your system is still within spec. Don’t go blaming SolidWorks, or any other software manufacturer, if you’re behind the times. That, too, was your choice.

</rant>

Perhaps having “it’s your fault” in the title of the series wasn’t the way to go. I’ve, apparently, rubbed some people the wrong way. The point I was trying to make was that every crash or slowdown isn’t SolidWorks’ fault. There are numerous system or environmental variables that can also cause problems. Throughout the years, I’ve heard people piss and moan about their install not working properly only to find out it was a wrong driver, or a hardware conflict, or they were using a Commodore 64. People are quick to blame, less quick to take ownership of said blame.

I am not trying to say that SolidWorks is perfect; it’s not. And they (SolidWorks Corp) know it. By pure chance and luck, I have friends on the “inside” and talk to them about various issues whether they be mine or ones I come across in the various fora out there. These friends know that I prefer straight talk to bs and, I believe, tell it to me like it is. They are working on stability issues, but they can’t just focus on them. Like it or not, they need to stay ahead of, or at least even with, their competition when it comes to functionality. What I believe SolidWorks is trying to do is balance stability of existing functionality while adding additional functionality. Yes, they’ve dropped the ball in some areas, letting known bugs persist version after version. I know, I know, stability is key for many out there. I get it. I’ve had my share of stability issues. Look through my older posts and you’ll see I was having all sorts of problems with PDMWorks killing SolidWorks last year. Believe me, after 11 years as a user, I’ve seen my share of problems.

Look, all I’m trying to say is this: If you’re having problems with your install, don’t immediately assume that SolidWorks has a bug or glitch. A Windows automatic update, or some software that IT pushed out, could be the culprit. If you end up calling your VAR, don’t jump all over the AE. S/he just, in most cases, wants to help you out. To do so effectively, they’ll need as much info as possible. If you took your car to get repaired, telling your mechanic it goes “clunka-clunka-clunka” isn’t going to cut it; he’s going to need more info. The same holds true for the AE.

Once again I find myself ready to take off on a full-speed rant, but I’m going to rein it in. I’ll leave you with this last thought: People are imperfect and so is what they create.

Sal Lama, of SolidWorks, put up a post on the SolidWorks forums regarding backwards compatibility. Naturally, this is going to get people buzzing. I took the survey, though I think it’s like beating a dead horse. Customers have been asking for this functionality for years.

Why am I writing this post? Because the survey aggravated me. The first question asks why do I want the functionality? Frankly, this question is dumb. Many customers of SolidWorks have been asking for this for years. The ‘why’ isn’t important, the ‘want’ is. We want it. If it’s doable, then do it. Just having the survey implies that it is a possibility. Rather than spending time creating surveys to get info you should already know, how about determining once and for all if it is something that can be done? If so, then do it. Another question that was asked in the survey had to do with editing; something along the lines of “do you want to be able to edit the new version?” Duh. Everyone already knows you can export/import neutral file formats, Sal. Then jump through the hoop(s) that is FeatureWorks. There were other questions asking for input on why and how. Seriously? One would think you guys have heard it all by now.

If you can make it so I can save my 201x part as -08, -09, etc. please do it. If you can’t, then tell us and explain, succinctly, why. Just do us all a favor, ok? Quit teasing us.

Can you guys please get together and fix the issue I’m having with my SpacePilots? The need to have the tool I want to map to my buttons on an active toolbar is ridiculous. One of my favorite things in SolidWorks is the fact that I don’t need to clog my graphics area with toolbars. I like having my space! When I got this SpacePilot PRO, I was beside myself with joy. I LOVE new technology and dove right in. Then I got bit. My button mappings wouldn’t work; not even the default mappings. I uninstalled/reinstalled the 3Dconnexion software to no avail. I called 3Dconnexion’s tech support and was told about the whole toolbar thing. I’d forgotten about that tidbit of information when I was having problems with my SpacePilot last fall. The “solution” I was given was to populate a macro toolbar with the commands I wanted to map to my buttons. Seriously? What is it about the coding in SolidWorks that’s preventing me from being able to use the buttons as designed? Where is the disclaimer telling SolidWorks users about this shortcoming? Are any other CAD packages effected this way? Another thing is the whole ‘S’ key thing. That I can get to map to a button, but it won’t stay mapped. Why is that?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the SpacePilot PRO is great. It’d be even better if it worked like it should. With all the software gurus at SolidWorks and 3Dconnexion, you think they’d be able to solve this issue. While I’m at it, can we talk about the default drivers? Is it absolutely necessary to load drivers for every CAD software under the sun by default? I don’t use AutoCAD, Maya or any of the other offerings. It seems to me that, when installing the drivers, you should be given the choice of what to load versus having to go through the custom setup. It just doesn’t make sense, in my humble opinion.

Signed,

A frustrate, yet hopeful user.

</rant>

A warning: This post will have absolutely nothing to do with SolidWorks, or CAD for that matter.

Why do people feel that part numbers need to represent anything? Too often I’ve seen "smart" part numbers end up being so convoluted that you need a PhD in cryptography to understand anything. What’s bringing this on? I’m ashamed to admit it, but there is such a part numbering system here. It’s not as ugly as some I’ve seen, but it’s frustrating nonetheless. Naturally, I tried to get the powers-that-be to see the error of their ways but, in the end, I had to concede. (Today is only my third day, I don’t want it to be my last.)

What so many people fail to realize is that a part number is just a placeholder in the MRP system (or whatever inventory control system you’re using). The part description is the important part. Yes, I know there are those who are screaming "blasphemer" at me, I don’t care. The minute you implement a "smart" part numbering system, you’re setting up for future failure. At some point you’re going to have a new part that is really similar to an existing part so you’ll add some sort of suffix or prefix to its number so you can differentiate between the two. Next thing you know, you’ve got a third one that’s similar to the other two. Another suffix, perhaps? Oops, look, here’s a fourth one. Ok, we’ll just create another classification, slide the first three over and now we’re good. Right? Crap, what to do with the old numbers? Hey look, this part is sort of like the first four, but it’s also sort of like these ones over here…
It’s enough for me to want to pull my hair out.

Everyone, for the most part, has heard of the KISS principle, right? Keep it simple stupid. A part number should be just that, a stupid number. Whether it’s 4-, 5- or 6-digits really depends on your company’s needs. How many parts are you dealing with? Let the description take care of telling you what it is: Screw, HHC, 1/4-20 x 1, GR5; Cable, Red, 4 GA; Number, Part, Stupid.

Think about it, no more having to train newbies on how your part numbering system is deciphered. No more having to come up with new codes. Need a new part number, just take the next available one. The world is already confusing enough. Let’s not make it worse with "smart" part numbers, ok?

</end rant>