To follow up my previous posts. My ASD confirms that we can trade in the
connection tool for DM and pay the difference in prices. To be fair, my ASD
has always been working very hard to accommodating similar requests from us.
But I would like to direct my comment to the ANSYS folks in Pittsburgh.

ANSYS should have a more flexible pricing structure. In MSC, they have the
"tokens" fee structure and here’s how it works:

You want a product from them, and the product requires, says 5 tokens.
You pay or lease for the 5 tokens and able to use the product
Now, the customer not only able to the product he wants at the first place,
but also able to use any products which requires 5 tokens or less provided
that the 5 tokens is not being used at the same time.

The advantage of this fee structure is two-folded. The customers have the
flexible to use any of their products. And it also serves as promotion of
the full product line which will eventually increase their product demands
and sales. Make sense ?

Regards,
Herbert Liu P.Eng.
CAE Team Leader - Dev. Engineering
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ceko, John (Bolton)" <jceko_at_husky.ca>
To: "’ANSYS User Discussion List’" <xansys_at_xansys.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: [Xansys] [OTHER] ANSYS Design Modeller and IGES import

> This is a bit of a sore spot with me. The choice of going with the XOX
> engine was made for presumably good reasons, but geometry importing
> has
long
> been an issue. While I can say that it has improved significantly,
> it’s by no means perfect, and while I don’t expect perfection, I do
> expect better than it’s current incarnation keeping in mind that we
> have to pay for a Connection tool to get the current level of
> performance. One could argue that without any of the add-on tools,
> the geometry importing is woefully inadequate. As Adam points out,
> none of these choices were made by us, and we shouldn’t be forced to
> pay yet again for something that should have worked in the first
> place.
>
> I think it would be fair if we could trade in the Connection tool for
> DM, since it can export anf files. I’ve already complained to my ASD
> about
this,
> so this is just me venting.
>
> I’m better now :)
>
> John Ceko P. Eng.
> HUSKY Injection Molding Systems
> Index Advanced Engineering
> 560 Queen St. S.
> Bolton, Ontario, Canada, L7E 5S5
> Tel. (905) 951-5000 ext. 3347
> Fax (905) 951-5365
> Email: jceko_at_husky.ca
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shinbrot, Adam [mailto:adam.shinbrot_at_zimmer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:20 AM
> To: ’ANSYS User Discussion List’
> Subject: RE: [Xansys] [OTHER] ANSYS Design Modeller and IGES import
>
>
> >I still don’t see this as a TECS issue. Improvements
> >have been and are being made to solid modeling in ANSYS
> >and reported bugs get fixed. Significant additional >functionality
>
> Eric,
>
> I would respectfully disagree. I would argue that ANSYS has offered
geometry
> import capability. The fact is, though, that it *does not work*, much
> of
the
> time. You could call an improvement in this capability "significant
> additional functionality", or you could call it "fixing what was
> broken". The fact that ANSYS has found it necessary to invent a whole
> new paradigm
> (DM) to make the import of CAD gemetry successful *is not my fault*! The
> fact is, we have been paying extra already for this functionality, via the
> parasolid interface. The day ANSYS offers us a refund for this flawed
> interface is the day I will be happy asking management to shell out
> additional money for DM.
>
>
>
> ********************************
> Adam Shinbrot
> Zimmer Spine
> Tel.: 952.830.6324 Fax: 952.837.6924
> adam.shinbrot_at_zimmer.com
> ********************************
> "I’ve been Zimmered!"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Miller [mailto:eric.miller_at_padtinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:41 AM
> To: ’ANSYS User Discussion List’
> Subject: RE: [Xansys] [OTHER] ANSYS Design Modeller and IGES import
>
>
> Herbert,
>
> I still don’t see this as a TECS issue. Improvements
> have been and are being made to solid modeling in ANSYS
> and reported bugs get fixed. Significant additional functionality
> just doesn’t fall into maintenance, especially when a royalty is
> involved.
>
> There is no reason to count of faith to make sure ANSYS doesn’t just
> repackage stuff. There are 80,000 users world wide watching their
> every move. The stink raised over DM, which is not repackaging or an
> attempt to pull a sales trick, is an example of how strongly the user
> community watches these things. In addition, those of us who are on
> the advisory committee are pretty blunt.
>
> Anyhow, my $0.02 (what is that in euros these days?
>
> Eric
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Eric Miller
> Director: Support,
> Training & Development
> Phoenix Analysis &
> Design Technologies
> (480) 813-4884, x103
> www.padtinc.com
>