Thanks!

I believe I did that once, haven't I?

Thanks dada

Then come to the world of SOLIDWORKS+3DExperience

I wish I could help you wihth that really, but I have so many videos in the pipeline that I cannot upload that anytime soon

​@@with-Aryan as long as you can make it some day 🙂 would love to follow along

That's just an import! you cannot make that in solidworks that's the whole point!

You are very confident claiming two things: 1. No-one is proficient in all three 2. Impossible to model that character in solidworks You must have some reason to be so confident with these claims..

@ Idt8904 I don't know about 1 but for 2, I also think it is next to impossible. Even if it is possible, why should you? It is always unwise to use a wrong tool for a job. It is like playing games with a Mac. You can but you shouldnt

@@omnissiah9984 it's not that as hard as you claim. Most cad (I use inventor) has pretty decent surface modelling environment built in. Inventor calls it freeform modelling. Not specifically optimised for this type of modelling, but definitely possible. So even next-to-impossible is too strong a word. I usually use blender when messing around with organic shapes, but can achieve the exact same result in inventor, which I only use for parametric modelling (work) Impossible is the wrong word to use. Maybe it's a language barrier issue, but my point still stands. 1. It is not impossible to become proficient in all three types. 2.poly and sub-D modelling are available in most CAD modelling software. Even solidworks has xShape. It may be more time-consuming, and you may need to get creative with workarounds, but 'impossible' or 'next-to-impossible', it is not. If free blender was not an option, I would consider learning better workflows in inventor freeform modelling to satisfy any organic shapes I wanted to create. Thanks for responding 👍

@@ldt8904 Right! I get your point. It is just that I often model bottles of different designs in Solidworks, mostly for mold making. Not exactly organic shapes but it still takes me a lot of time if the model is complex. I can't use Blender or Zbrush because I am not sure to what degree they are reliable when it comes to dimensions. I wish I could. My point is if you are tasked to model a Viking, shouldn't you use the right tools for the job instead of sticking to the wrong ones just because you can.

Yes I did, that's STL

architecture? very limited. possible, but not recommended. Surfaces , yes, but not the easiest

@@with-Aryan Lol these options o would use autocad ou sketchup or something else

For surfaces Catia V5 and Rhinoceros are more cappable for architecture you can use Autocad and Revit.

Haha Good one. its like the jack of all traits for sure, but again lacks features in Motion studies/sheetmetal. The good news is its expensive plugin library.

can't say it like that. Too many factors are involved.

Depends of your country, the skills, the software and the experience.

More power to you, at times its not a bad idea to know a little of each, a jack of all trades is highly sought after in today's Job market as well.

because there is no need to be! Unless you really want to

@@with-Aryan you explained it like its from avatar the last airbender😶

There once was someone who had mastered all three, but we lost them many years ago. Ever since all three groups have argued on which software was the best, the CAD wars are imminent.

at my company where i do my internship i need to do 3d builds in solidworks, commercial visualisations with surface moddelling etc solidworks and shapr3d and using finally autocad for the 2d plan for the cutting machines :) i have headaches but i love it (at uni we use solidworks +fusion360)

​@@mib1296In México we refer to that person as "Todologo" in english will be "Allologist".

In the long video I explain that I am not (and no one is) an expert in all 3.

@@with-Aryan oh I am sorry then.