V4 resurrected

[nickeaston]

I am considering pulling my V4 out of storage; what level of RS6000 box should I be shopping for? At what level did usb appear, and what's it good for--printing screen dumps to a modern printer?

What level of graphics card would be suitable? Anyone heard of a dual monitor graphics card which will work with AIX?

 

[solid7]

USB did not exist on RS6000. The last version that I remember being avalable was the 44P, models 170 (single processor) and 270. (SMP)

The Power series is the current IBM line for Unix applications. You are talking about a lot of money, and you had better have a good V4 gig to consider bringing it out - especially on one of those. I'm still running a 44P-170 with V4R2.4 Refresh 03. It works fine.

The graphics cards that were available for RS6000 were the GXT series, and while I don't know who the manufacturer was, I only remember them being available OEM. Very pricey for no more than they were capable of, too...

I have a GXT3000, which only has one analog monitor. I never used a dual monitor system on an RS6000, so I really don't know what to tell you on that.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[catiajim]

The model 285 has USB ports. It has a 64-bit Power3 Processor, and should have as much ram as you can afford (as should any Wintel Workstations for that matter). The GXT series cards are still the standard on th RS platform. As with any Unix workstation, expect to spend a significant amount of money.

Also keep in mind the End of Support dates. V4R2M4 End of Support is 12/31/07 (this year). V4R2M5 End of Support is 12/31/09. These dates are all posted on the IBM Web Site (

http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=886&context=SW860&uid=swg21202560)

I'm not sure about Dual Monitor systems.

 

[nickeaston]

What is the capability of usb ports in AIX/CATIA?

I/O to a pc?
Printing to a latter-day usb inkjet printer?
USB mouse?



=====
Best source(s) for possible refurbished 285s?

 

[solid7]

The model 285 has USB ports. It has a 64-bit Power3 Processor, and should have as much ram as you can afford (as should any Wintel Workstations for that matter). The GXT series cards are still the standard on th RS platform. As with any Unix workstation, expect to spend a significant amount of money.

Jim - didn't IBM drop the RS6000 designation when they introduced the 275, in favor of the "Power" designation? While they are technically the same machine, I haven't seen the branding "RS6000" since the beginning of the millenium.

Sorry to be obtuse, but he DID ask about RS6000.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[catiajim]

Yes, it's now called an Intellistation POWER. It's still an RS. A Rose is still a Rose

 

[rikman]

One thing you will also need to check about is the operating system: DS are bringing out Catia 4.2.5 for compatability with AIX5. However, they admit that some functionality is lost wrt 4.2.4 (e.g. 4D Nav).
If you need to run Catia at 4.2.4, the 44P-170 is probably at the top end of the machines that support AIX 4

"Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
"Yes, Brain, but isn't that dangerous?"

 

[solid7]

nickeaston - I have 2 big questions for you:

1) Do you have an existing need for Catia V4, or are you trying to start a new business?

2) Are you aware what the V4 market is VERY slim right now?

I'm in the Catia design and engineering support services game; I'm not finding that V4 is a very profitable gig right now. Unless you are a proficient AIX admin, it could be even less so.

Just curious...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[drewboy23]

My new 185 AIX5 machine has USB connected mouse/keyboard/spacemouse and a single DVI video connection. We only need to connect to customers VPM system. It ran us just over $10K. Loaded it with 4GB ram and a GXT6500 video card - it's like night and day over the 10 year old 44P-170 it replaced.

 

[nickeaston]

solid7:
\
1. See my profile; my CATIA specialty for 3 years was architectural (Frank Gehry) before I retired. There is a slight possibility of some similar contract work part time for a more conventional arch/bldr who may need some 3D modeling which V4 (not V5) is elegantly capable of...

2. If we think the V4 market is slim now, imagine how slim architectural V4 is... By the way, if anyone cares, V5 has failed miserably in every way to be an architectural contender and follow-on to V4. I would be happy to elaborate on this but it's probably irrelevant to the typical V5 user. (Although I wonder how many millions of dollars and pain the V4/V5 saga has caused Airbus in the years of delays and software incompatibilities...)

 

[wes616]

Nickeaston,

I'm a V5 user... but I hear the guys around me talk about v4 lovingly (like a long since dead old friend). I'd love to hear what you have to say about v4 regarding archtecture.... mostly because my wife is an architect, and I've been trying to explane Catia to her (in bits an pieces)... USC grad as well (as frank

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[solid7]

1. I tried to get a gig with Frank Gehry. They told me, in these exact words: "But we already sell Catia!" Got any contacts you might like to share?

2. OK, I'm a V4/V5 dual user. I have many thousands of hours experience in both, and this Airbus thing has hit a nerve with me. I'm going to assume, for a second, that you don't know any more than what you've read. Here are the facts of the matter:

(Continued in next post - some sort of bug that won't let me go long winded)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[solid7]

(continued from above)


A) Catia V4 and V5 are 2 distinct CAD systems, built on 2 distinct kernels. They are, technologically, about 20 years apart. We should naturally expect some degree of incompatibility.
B) Airbus, behind the scenes, is notorious for not demanding capable vendors and processes. Most companies are a little guilty, but this is the extreme. Believe me, I've worked for them. I know.
C) No other company has made a $6 billion dollar mistake going from V4 to V5. However uncomfortable it may be in transition, it doesn't really have to be that bad. Or, if it does, there was ample time to pull the plug. (or did they take a blind leap of faith?)
D) Shouldn't any savvy company have noticed such a colossal problem before gambling the entire projected profits of a new product away on "faulty" software?
E) Who would most CEO's tell the shareholders were at fault?

You dropped the bait, and I bit it... My apologies to everyone else.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[catiajim]

The V4/V5 thing was not at the bottom of the Airbus problem. We use both V4 and V5, and the Citation Mustang was designed using both products. 95% of the Mustang is CATIA V5, while the rest is V4. V5 can read V4 data with no problem (at least in the 3-D area). Our database is set to automatically create a V4 copy of every V5 part that is written, so people working in V4 can access the V5 data, again with very little problem.

While I do not know what really happened, I (like many others) have heard rumors that it involved the Digital Mockup, or lack thereof. We use the DMU on a daily basis. All of our engineers can call up a significant area of the aircraft whenever they want.

While we all long for our old, glory days (I still miss Applicon Bravo 3 at times), I don't have a single V5 user that would willingly move back to V4 (not after the first 3 months, anyway). In fact, some of our existing aircraft programs are still in V4, and they have trouble getting help whenever they need it, because no one wants to go back.

The biggest problems that I see currently are the Data Migration of Drawings from V4 into V5. It's an ugly mess. Even the simplest drawing revision is now taking many hours simply because of the conversion.

 

[rikman]

I spoke to some of the engineers who were involved on the A380 - according to them, the real problem was that one of the major Airbus sites was allowed to stay on CADDS 5 - Catia V4/V5 issues had no real impact.
No one seems too sure where the story about the Catia V4/V5 problems originally came from, but it found its way into the official Airbus explanation and so tends to be regarded as the gospel truth.

"Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
"Yes, Brain, but isn't that dangerous?"

 

[solid7]

rikman - this is *exactly* what I meant when I said this:

B) Airbus, behind the scenes, is notorious for not demanding capable vendors and processes. Most companies are a little guilty, but this is the extreme. Believe me, I've worked for them. I know.

This whole Airbus fiasco should be the ultimate wake-up call for any company to DEMAND which software their employees/vendors should be using.

(continued in next post due to anti-long posting bug)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[solid7]

(continued from above)

We've all worked in a company when they made a software transition. Everyone is familiar with (and a few of us might even be well versed) the pissing and moaning that goes along with the concept of having to go to the new system. Well, this is a lesson to people who cry and whine about being "inconvenienced". Everyone should, at this point, jump up and agree that the people who write the checks are the ones who have the say in which tools drive processes. It doesn't matter if someone is a year away from retirement, or just doesn't feel like learning, because they'll lose their "advantage".

For the suppliers, it was all about the "cost" of buying the software. Really, it should have been a decision between being capable, or not capable. I would have sooner been emboldened to ask the company to share the expense of upgrading to Catia, than tarnishing my company's name and jeopardizing future work by using the wrong tools for the job.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[solid7]

I hope that everyone will remember Airbus next time you catch yourself, or someone you know, complaining about having to learn a new CAD system. (and that it will still pay the same, and probably make you more marketable later on - a good thing) Sometimes, when people get their way, they get just exactly what they have asked for...

P.S. - I sure do wish I knew why I can't make long posts anymore. Is this supposed to be some sort of subtle hint?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

 

[ferdo]

Hi,

The real problem of A380 is (copied from

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/airbus_at_the_crossroads.html):

"The problem was magnified because the Airbus marketing effort promised each airline customer as separate custom cabin layout. The wiring for each airline version is different, multiplying the magnitude of the redesign effort. Solve a problem for Singapore Airlines, and it helps not at all with Emirates or Lufthansa."

No real problem with the software (v4 - v5 compatibility, CADDS5, PTC or DS products), or designers, learning process or whatever other reasons you will hear, believe me...Just management...

Regards
Fernando

 

[solid7]

Ferdo - believe me also when I tell you - they DID NOT select capable vendors. As a vendor on the A380 design, I was shocked by what I saw coming in. Some of the "Catia" data for new design projects, was being sent back as a Catia translation from some other software. I saw projects that should have been turned over in 2 weeks, dragging out for 6+ months at a time. If that's not a management problem, what is?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog