Infinite Frustration

[dgs]

I don't do much design work in SW, but if I did I would not leave my sketches unconstrained. To much unknown that, as you pointed out, would make further design changes unpredictable.


I am aware of the blue/black in SW indicating what part of the sketch is unconstrained. That is helpful, but not as helpful as the weak dims in Pro|E. In Pro|E, the weak dims tell what exactly Pro|E is assuming, the blue entities only tell you that SW is making assumptions. You really don't know what they are.


As far as ID using SW for 3D, I should clarify. All of our ID folks have 21" Wacom touch screen monitors. Initial concepts are usually 2D sketches in Illustrator, Photoshop or Alias sketch. Only when design directions are chosen do the jump into 3D, and then it's SW or Pro|E. We've had good success with this approach as it yields good,feature driven,parametricsolid geometry for prototyping or later engineering CAD development.

 

[michael3130]

Doug,


I know what you mean with the changes in colour of the lines but after using it a lot it becomes just as easy to identify what constraints are missing as in ProE.


Sorry, I misunderstood about the concepts, thought you meant you started off concepting using SW. I worked in a design consultancy for 2 years and we had a couple of very talente guys when it came to concept handsketching and rendering. The bosses though then started to insist we did initial concepts on SW. Needless to say the companywne through a very bad periodshortly after, mainly down to 2 reasons:


1 - it took so much longer to generate the concepts in CAD then on paper


2 - the clients looked at the CAD models and thought the project was nearly finished and then couldn't understand thet was so many thousands of pounds required to finish the job. What they couldn't see was the models were just skins and there was no engineering detail.


Michael

 

[Mindripper]

I am also a SolidWorks user who is returning to Pro/E after six years of using SolidWorks (and I love SolidWorks). I ran Pro/E for four years before finding the light, and converting to SW. A few observations I can offer for those who are sharing our fate:


Pro/E is (and always has been) user-hostile software written by anal retentives. Learn to live with it. You cannot convince it (or configure it) to be otherwise.


Pretty much everything in Pro/E takes significantly more mouse clicks (read that timie) to accomplish in Pro/E than SW, and there is rarely more than one path to accomplishing anything (unlike SW). Be prepared for pop-up menus or input fields appearing almost anywhere too: no consistency here.


The 'Hole Wizard' in Pro/E sucks, esp. compared to the very handy (but still imperfect) utility in SW. You will just have to get used to this.


Pro/E's sketcher makes even more assumptions than SW's sketcher: most of them are incorrect, esp. the 'weak' dimensions. Do not trust the constraints that the Nazi boots of the Pro/E sketcher place on your entities. You cannot eliminate many of them, but you can eventually conquer them by adding more constraints that (hopefully) will convince the embedded dogma in the program to allow you the opportunityto remove the unwanted constraints that it chose to create. This is time-consuming. SW allows the user to establish most of the constraints without making unwarranted assumptions: I rarely need to eliminate an assumed constraint in SW.


Debugging is much more difficult in Pro/E. Some users are so terrified by a feature regeneration failure in Pro/E, they simply purge the file and start over. Learn to use the complex regeneration failure tools, which are arcane and cryptic: there are no handy graphical clues about the cause of the failure that are souseful in SW.


The graphics in Pro/E are lousy compared to SW. Use the 'pre-Wildfire' selection in View>Display Settings>System Colors>Scheme (top menu tab) and View>Display Settings>Model Display>Shade (top menu tab)>With Edges. This will at least give you something that's viewable most of the time. And these are examples of the insane number of picks needed to accomplish simple tasks in Pro/E: you will have to get used to this, and your reduced level of productivity in Pro/E.


Finally, realize you are not running a Windows application. This a Unix application, running in a very curiousUnix emulation mode within Windows. The 'Delete' key may work, but perhaps it won't. Clicking the red 'X' in the top right corner of the pop-up window may close it, but then it may not. Upper and lower case for text entry may work, but maybe it won't. Spaces or underscore, who is to know? Sometimes the ctrl key works in a very Windows-like way, but it usually doesn't. This isn't user-friendly software;in spiteof it's functionality and large user base, it's still a cantankerousold dog from the Unix world, and is unlikely to ever be a true Windows application.

 

[Mindripper]

Addendum: SW will let you get away with murder. Blue (unconstrained)lines are completely tolerated, but will result in nothing but tears if not eventually constrained - and sooner is better than later. But at least SW will let the user complete a sketch without testing his sanity or forcing him to make unwise choices.


I got a model from a rookie SW user once that had all blue lines - in every sketch. It scared me so much I refused to touch it.

 

[jraquet]

I actually found the mouse click thing to be the opposite.Most of the Pro clicks can be complete in the work area (sketch/model screen rather than the sidebar).


SW has a long (off the screen) sidebar thatwaits foryour information as you complete a feature, but you can't see what's there until you look for it or ask for it.

 

[james.lynch]

and there is rarely more than one path to accomplishing anything (unlike SW).

COMPLETLY untrue!! the number of options that I have when modeling a complex part or even quilt is almost limitless!


Many or your other points may be valid!


James

 

[james.lynch]

As far as ID using SW for 3D, I should clarify. All of our ID folks have 21" Wacom touch screen monitors. Initial concepts are usually 2D sketches in Illustrator, Photoshop or Alias sketch. Only when design directions are chosen do the jump into 3D, and then it's SW or Pro|E. We've had good success with this approach as it yields good,feature driven,parametricsolid geometry for prototyping or later engineering CAD development.

clears up a few things.. our ID guys work in a similar way but after some early sketches we generally proove out form in hand carved foam which we then scan with a Gom Atos to use as an underlay..


anyway sorry for the off topic post and thanks for clearing that up!


James

 

[michaelpaul]

I find the everyday things frustrating in Pro-E. Things besides the bazillion clicks it takes to complete or cancel (I really miss the ESC key from SW to exit out of something)

In SW, the default axes are displayed in the lower left of the screen - always. You always know what orientation you are in. When you measure, it always displayes the X, Y, and Z coordinate dimesnions relative to the default coordinate system as well as the straight line distance. No futzing around with distance, plane to plane, point to point, whatever. Then, if you need to know what direction the X is, you just look at your screen.

In Pro, you first have to measure, then you have to define what you want to measure, then you have to define the Csys to measure relative to, then you have to zoom out to find the freaking Csys in the model, then you have to squint to see the axis letter because they're in freaking superscript font! Then, you do it all over again the next time you measure!

Also, why can I measure distance but I must go to Analysis, Geometry, Radius to MEASURE a radius? Makes no sense.

I have no option in Pro-E to extrude/cut offset from a surface. It was a standard option in SW just like blind, to next, etc. You pick a surface, you enter a distance, you adjust the direction, and you're done. Now, I have to define a surface first which is now a separate feature in my model, forever! There's sort of that functionality in Pro-e using offset, sketch region but it's about as intuitive and as easy to understand as my wife is!

And finally, the master model merge technique. What a cluster this is. In SW, you created your master model and then you created a new part and picked INSERT - PART. done. no futzing around with dummy assemblies or even merging. And, instead of showing the rather description MERGE command in your feature tree, it actually showed the part name in the SW tree so you knew what the master really was! what a concept.

Lastly (for now anyway) why can I right click to exit insert mode in the model tree but I have to create a mapkey to enter insert mode at the feature I select? In SW, right click to enter, right click to move the pointer, right click was your friend. Maybe in WF 6.0 it'll be user friendly.

Michael

 

[Mindripper]

I have always used drawings as a useful tool for measuring things in both SW and Pro/E. In SW, it's a convenience: in Pro/E, it's essentialfor achieving any significant level of productivity. Why the tukeybasters at PTChave neverfigured out the simple every-minute task of measuring things is beyond me.


I started using Pro/E in 1997, and I'm just stunned by the pathetically slow rate of evolution of their core product. When I started working with it again about six months ago, I was terribly disappointed that it had fallen so very far behind SolidWorks in it's basic functionality. There is simply no excuse for this. There are a huge number of steadfast Pro/E lovers at my current place of employment who refuse to accept the failure of PTC to develop their core product on the most elementary levels - even though they have had some exposure to SW. Theyregularly point out the level of sophistication in the more advanced features (especially surfaces and swept blends). But these samepeople rarely (if ever) use these functions. At the rate PTC is going, it will still be a Unix application running in Windows emulation mode inWF6.

 

[dougr]

I have always used drawings as a useful tool for measuring things in both SW and Pro/E. In SW, it's a convenience: in Pro/E, it's essentialfor achieving any significant level of productivity. Why the tukeybasters at PTChave neverfigured out the simple every-minute task of measuring things is beyond me.


I started using Pro/E in 1997, and I'm just stunned by the pathetically slow rate of evolution of their core product. When I started working with it again about six months ago, I was terribly disappointed that it had fallen so very far behind SolidWorks in it's basic functionality. There is simply no excuse for this. There are a huge number of steadfast Pro/E lovers at my current place of employment who refuse to accept the failure of PTC to develop their core product on the most elementary levels - even though they have had some exposure to SW. Theyregularly point out the level of sophistication in the more advanced features (especially surfaces and swept blends). But these samepeople rarely (if ever) use these functions. At the rate PTC is going, it will still be a Unix application running in Windows emulation mode inWF6.

I agree, if PTC were smart they should be planning a complete re-write of their code. They keep adding, patching, breaking, fixing, subtracting.At some pointit'll be broken so badly they won't be able to fix it.


Rumor has it CV refused Sam Geisberg when he pitched the genesis of Pro/E because they didn't want a re-write and look what happened...
Edited by: dougr

 

[FireWild]

Well gentlman there's only one way to say this and; Solid Works truly is a Band-Aid CAD software. I use both softwares every day and I don't need to brag about my credentials either.


I suspect any of the circle square designers out there really would never know or understand the difference. Here are a few I see.... All you SW lover's out there please feel free to prove me worng on these issue.
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Solid Works Sucks<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />[/B]
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" =disc>
<LI =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">SW No way to save graphical representations. Like showing one part wire-frame one part hidden and another shaded in assembly mode. This is possible in Pro-e with Simplify Representations and Style feature. In Solid Works you can spend a lot of time changing the display of parts only to have to go back to and re-do the display setting you just changed</LI>
<LI =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Surfaces in SW, there is no way to knit two surfaces together unless the surface edges are trimmed together perfectly first. In Pro-e you can merge surfaces together regardless if the edges are trimmed and then you can choose the different combination option you want or even choose to just join the surfaces. This single feature makes a huge difference in number of features created in the model tree.</LI>
<LI =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">Macros vs. Mapkeys. There

 

[dgs]

Oh boy, here we go. Pop some popcorn folks, this is going to get fun.

I'ma big Pro|E fan over SW, but there are some inaccurate statements in there. For one, the surface merge. Not only can SW merge overlapping surfaces, it can merge more than 2 at once. Make a cube out of 6 individual oversize flats surfaces and merge them all 6 into a singel cube with one feature.

 

[michaelpaul]

the zoom/rotate functionality also works just fine in SW

as far as macros vs. mapkeys goes, I never even wrote a macro in SW. I didn't need to. I have a ton of mapkeys set up to do stuff that I need to do every day that I just can't do anymore. In SW, the stuff I needed to do was on a toolbar. In Pro E, it's buried 9 selections deep in a menu.

Michael

 

[Mindripper]

I never wrote a macro in SW either: no need. I have a half-dozen mapkeys in SW: all I have ever needed (yes, they do take precedence over any pre-assigned keys). Panning and zooming is easy in SW - and having HLR black edges on the parts makes visualization much easier, so I spend a lot less time rotating and zooming. Filleting in SW is a breeze compared to Pro/E: this is where the ParaSolids kernel really shows it's superiority. And of course, the feature count is much lower on molded parts thanks to the ability to add draft within a feature, even when there are fillets in the sketch.


But the Big Deal is that SW is easy to use: context-sensitive menus when you right-click, Help is genuinely useful, debugging is simple, and the software behaves in a consistent manner for just about every function. Pro/E clearly has some superior capabilities in certain areas, but it is more difficult to learn and use due to it's weaknesses in these fundamental areas (and others). And all of these issues could be addressed (and resolved) if PTC made a commitment to fixing them. But PTC seems much more focused on making the sketch fully constrained at all times, and enhancing it's more sophisticated functions. Meanwhile, SW has been developing their product by leaps and bounds, to the point where Pro/E has few superior features to SW. Within the next two years, SW surfacing will probably match Pro/E's abilities, and that's about the only area where it still has significant technical superiority.

 

[magneplanar]

the best part about all of this back and forth arguing is the knowledge that those who do not like pro-e are forced to use it.

and that those that want pro-e to be a clone of sw may never see that happen (they better not!).

If you hate pro-e so much then find a new job. If you think you can do better then make your own cad (sw did). if you really want to work in sw only then why not find employment that allows you to use it excusively? In the end it is not good for your health to have so much anger on a daily basis(from either point of view). For those of us that want improvements, I suggest we get someone hired at PTC so we can get a fast track to implementation. I vote for prohammy because he loves pro e so much he added the pro to his nickname hehehe

for everyone else, crack open a cold one because its the weekend!

cheers,

M

 

[Mindripper]

Yeah, I love the weekend. I went home and ran SW there: it was fun. But now it's Monday and I'm back to my day job, running Pro/E - which isn't bad, it just isn't fun like running SW. I don't get angry at software: it's just a tool. And for what they are paying me here to use Pro/E, I can certainly deal with it.


While it is true that PTC has made some efforts to make Pro/E more SW-like, these have been half-hearted efforts: the Hole Wizard imitation is perhaps the best example of this.I doubt there's much chance of getting any real changes made to Pro/E's functionality: all the good programmers left to form SW over a decade ago.

 

[dgs]

Although good programmers are important, the real issue is with the product planners. They are the ones setting expectations for the interface, making specifications and (I assume) checking to see that the software does what it's supposed to do. They need to be pushing usability and consistent functionality and, from what I can see, they aren't. Sure, there are usability improvements here and there, but overall it's getting worse, not better.


For all their focus on making individual functions look and work like SW, they've missed the big picture that SW has gotten. The software should be easy and intuitive. The PTC folks don't seem to think that's a worthy goal, or worse, they think they have it as a goal and are accomplishing it.

 

[dougr]

Actually the real issue is the user interface.


The first thing that struck me about SW straight off was it's intuitiveness - a fillet is called a fillet and not a blend, round or some other far removed term for example.


The impression I got was that the SW guys know how the software is used and understood real Engineering/Manufacturing terminology and practices.


A good analogy is the consideration of ergonomics - plane and car makers use real pilots and drivers to develop their user interfaces.


Why can't PTC use real (and experienced) modelers to develop theirs ??
Edited by: dougr

 

[jraquet]

I agree with the "modelers" input.


A fillet is an internal corner rounded edge so a "round" makes sense, (a round is a fairly common term). An external rounded edge is not a fillet.


I've found SW to require two different tools to create internal/external, positive/negative features. I didn't realize it had the same weakness in their sketching interface.


Thanks for the entertainment folks.

 

[design-engine]

"I love solidworks. I prefer power point" - CAD manager one day someplace.

I love it when I cry laughing. When I heard that quote I laughed with tears and fell tot he floor. It took me 2 minutes to get myself back to the professional I hide behind.


Edited by: design-engine