Pro-E / PTC sucks

[phoxeoy]

Software companies have done this sense the beginning and it has never made sense to me. They would write error checking in the software and display error codes which mean nothing to anybody reading it other than the programmer. Then if someone wants to knowwhat theheck is wrong they have to try to find some documentation that references the error code and would give a description.


Heres a thought, just display the description.


Everybody has horror stories about models blowing up when they open them or for other reasons, I know I have had plenty. Sometimes I spend more time trying to find whats wrong with the model then I would have if I just remodel the damn thing and sometimes theres nothing wrong with the model, its a bug in th software itself. Which by the way won't get fixed if you are considerd a pee-on in PTC's eyes.


Your right Jbuckl, we didn't have some of the stuff then as we have today to help us but so what. How many major releases have there been and we still get the gray screen of death? Nope, sorry you can't solve today's issues with yesterday's problems.

 

[jbuckl]

Remember PTCare a company,not really a 'software' company any more!!!!!

Right thats it, no more bug fixes ever!

Do you mean blue screen, or are you refering to the resolve menu backround?

One is worse than the other......


ATB

 

[tazbaby]

Brought me etch-a-sketch in today !! My boss nearly fell off his chair when he saw it !! But it doesnt freeze, crash or laugh at me when trying to make simple changes..


I also believe that their customer services is quite good too !!


And... no .err files cluttering up my system !!


sussed the print problem... Ill just put it on the photocopier... problem solved..

 

[magnusod]

Mr Addict, maybe it's because it's friday that I don't see clear but it seems perfectly logical to me that if you delete a cut you can no longer fillet the surfaces that were created by this cut.


Or am I missing something ?


Alex

take this example though.....you have a recatngular tube wtih each of the four ednges having a fillet on them. you decide you want a triangular cross setion. You redefine teh sketch in Pro and your fillet instantly fails and you enter failure/resolve he!!. it's easy to fix but you still have to go into the feature, edit the references and manually delete the edge that no longer exists from the reference set.

In SW, you regenerate your triangular section and you get a message that says the round feature is missing an edge, but What? The software actually is smart enough to figure out that the edge is gone and it's only telling you that an edge disappeared while still recreating the round properly? What a concept.

Michael

Definitely not true. Seems that you don't know ProE that well.

You choose Intent Edges when you create the fillets and no problem at all, not even a message.
Same goes for drafts on the sides of the shape.

 

[conrat]

Intent chains work well, but I have had trouble getting them to work on copy geoms. Anyone else have that problem.



Also, why the Hell does one need to pass input params down to each part
needing them in an assembly. It would be nice if there were a way
to automatically propogate params down. Maybe with a checkbox on
the param screen, sort of like the "designate" check box. Hitting
Regen over and over to regen a model is a pain in the a$$, and adding
execute statements is too.



Jim

 

[michaelpaul]

Definitely not true. Seems that you don't know ProE that well.

You choose Intent Edges when you create the fillets and no problem at all, not even a message.
Same goes for drafts on the sides of the shape.
[/QUOTE]

And where is the option to select Intent Edges located? I cannot find it anywhere in the round dashboard nor does the PRO-E help locate it when I search for that term.........if the functionality exists as you state, then it is clearly underdocumented and hidden like so many of Pro's features that you have to know where it is to know what it is to know you can do it.....enlighten me please..................

going back to my previous comment about SW, one doesn't need to know where a hidden feature or selection is to make this work, it just does............

Michael

 

[conrat]

I believe to use Intent Chains, you must hold down SHIFT while
selecting an edge, crv, etc. You select once, then hold SHIFT and
select another part of the crv and the whole thing lights up. I
may be wrong on the SHIFT key, but I believe this is the key to hold
down



Jim

 

[magnusod]

Definitely not true. Seems that you don't know ProE that well.

You choose Intent Edges when you create the fillets and no problem at all, not even a message.
Same goes for drafts on the sides of the shape.

And where is the option to select Intent Edges located? I cannot find it anywhere in the round dashboard nor does the PRO-E help locate it when I search for that term.........if the functionality exists as you state, then it is clearly underdocumented and hidden like so many of Pro's features that you have to know where it is to know what it is to know you can do it.....enlighten me please..................

going back to my previous comment about SW, one doesn't need to know where a hidden feature or selection is to make this work, it just does............

Michael
[/QUOTE]


In the Round Tool command hold your cursor over the edge then hold down right mouse button and choose "Pick from list".


Another option is to choose the edge before you enter the Round Tool. Choose the edge that you want to apply the round to, then slightly move your cursor away from the edge and all edges highlights, click again LMB. Enter Round Tool ( also accessible from the holding the RMB ).


View attachment 2671

 

[mattraby]

MichaelPaul,


Thanks for illustrating what I tried to say at the opening post of this forum. Intent edges? What the hell? Edges are edges, right? I've found no good explanation of what intent edges are in the help files. As a matter of fact, why does Pro even gives us help files? They are convoluted heaps of informationthatare difficult to extract any helpful info. Everything I've learned about Pro has been from other usersin this forum. Why should learning this software be a struggle?


You also wrote:


"Two of the last three companies I have worked for swtiched from Pro to SW. Pay stayed the same but the learning curve and ability to get people in who knew SW was easier. quality of the modeling and time to market did not change."


I grew up on AutoCad. Who didn't? I started using it at the age of 13. (My father owned a machine shop.) Later I made the move to Mechanical Destop, then Inventor. I then went to Solidworks after 15 years of cad use. It was anatural step. I did the "built-in" tutorials in 1 day and was productive the next. In 6 months time, I've finally become productive in Pro.





Tazbaby,


You're awesome. Wish that I worked with you. Would you send me a copy of your etch-a-sketch.

 

[MetalMan]

Well, I see you're one of those........


I design custom machinery for factory automation. Somewhat complex, but not necessarily rocket science. I need simple interfaces that allow me to get the job done. I couldn't give twoflips about a "powerful mathematical solvers".


Answer: Etch-A-Sketch or Solidworks both have an equally impressive GUI interface and neither are "powerful mathematical solvers."

 

[conrat]

I tried to use Solidworks, but it wasn't quite as intuitive as some on
this forum would imply. Especially if you already know another 3D
modeler. I don't particularly like the floating boxes and I had
trouble identifying what and where the feature options were. This
is not to say the software is no good, but it is not something that one
can use right out of the box. There is training required for
this, as well as Inventor, from what I have seen.



Jim

 

[phoxeoy]

Training is good, but you know what would be better than training? Really good self teaching material. I wish PTC would throw those damn law novals away and put something that made sense. Why is it when you purchase CAD software, you have to go to a third party to get any good manual type material?


I know the answer, they make lots of money on training. But I think this is wrong.


PTC would not have people breathing down their necks for easier UI if they just had better documentation. Doesn't really matter how complex a piece of software is as long as you had something to show you the ropes.


Just a thought.

 

[conrat]

I second that. You pay all of this money to sit and have someone
walk you through a tutorial. Why not just give the material on a
big CD or DVD and have the training materials there as well.



I can understand having training, as it does make them money and it is
nice to speak to someone when you run into a problem, but there should
at least be standard tutorials with the software, free of charge.



Jim

 

[design-engine]

We get at least 10 calls per week with Pro/E questions and we are not even a part of any PTC tech suport. I guess we should start charging. I bet there is a business in Tech support for Pro/E problems. hell we speak more than one laungage here too.

 

[GLEN20]

YEP, YEP...... typically it's OE (Operator Error), Not Pro-E


I believe you guys have covered all the points. Just remember that Pro-Engineer has been around longer than Solidworks or Inventor. In fact I still model parts in Solid Works and transfer them to IGES and use them in Pro (our company standard is Pro-E). The guts of PTC are based on all of those Software folks, and how many Software folks do the machine design? If you look deep into Solidworks and Inventor --- they are stacked with Mechanical Engineers, therefore the steps make sense, and you can do 90 mph modeling (tweaking and cobbing in which we ME's are accustomed to), but in Pro it has to be perfect. You can use Pro in "Rocket science", but you'll need to upgrade to other Dessault products if you want "Rocket science". Please note Inventor was born after their Mechanical Desktop Flopped....


It depends on the Operator, so it's O.E.

 

[gamack]

Hello everyone, I have not looked at this thread for a long time. It has got very interesting.


Ihave beenan Autodesk customer for 16 years and Pro/E for 7 years,and believe me, they will only start helping you when start jumping up & down.


I once had a Software Lock (Flexlm) sh*t itself because because I changed my Bios Date. I had no Autocad for 5 weeks. Only when threatened with legal action would Autodesk do anything. This is very typical of software support in Australia.


For every Pro/E problem I have, the answer is nearly always on the internet somewhere. Once you start getting into complex shapes and molds, you are basically on your own.


Remember, the best way to construct an assembly in any 3d package is you mustconsistantly ask yourself "HOW WOULD AWELDER/FABRICATOR MAKE THIS?". This method of design generally will solve most fabricationproblems.


Finally TRAINING, you buy a new car and there is no training for it, you buy a new software package.....no training. (Shock horror) You get the new release of Pro/E Wildfire 3 and no trainging....shock horror. I have just got the new release of Wildfire 3 and where is the niceinstructions touse the new commands? You have togo and find them or pay for training.


Thats what wehave todo, no matter what package you use, it's the same.True professionelusers go and learn it for themselves. Thats how its been, and thats how it will always be. Thats why this forum is so popular, we help each other.


There is no point whinging and whining about the software that you have use/buy on this forum, tell whoever makes your software that. Eventually they do get the hint.


Everyone should just stick to helping each other at this forum, that waywe all can learn. Thats what makes it great!

 

[Jim Stevens]

 

[orac]

I've would like to add three things to this endless discussion (or so it seems).

First.

How do you define user friendly in terms of a CAD/CAM package ?
There are two ways I think you can define it.
You can define it as the system is as helpful as possible in guiding me to get the thing accomplished I have in mind.
You can define it as the system is build up logically so that if you want a specific function it can be found there were you logically expect it to be.
If you expect it the first option, keep in mind that the more a system is capable of the more difficult it will be to anticipate what a user wants to accomplish. So if a system is very user friendly this way it will very often mean that it has not that many functions.

Second.

If you want to know what new features are available within a new release you can always read the pdf file
whatsnews.pdf
You can download it from the website of PTC if you can not find it in the installation directory of Pro/E.
Go to the support section and choose 'Download Reference Documents'. You need a PTC account to log in.
Here you can find "What's new - Pro/Engineer Wildfire x".

Third

There are some bad remarks made about the programmers. May I remind you that SolidWorks and Inventor are only available on the Windows platform and that Pro/E is available on UNIX platforms also.
This limits the freedom of how a programmer can implement something with respect to the user interface.

Best regards,

John Bijnens

 

[AHA-D]

John,


I do not agree on your points 1 and 3.


1.


It is not because a system is complex that operating it should be complex too. Drivers in early automobiles had to be mechanics and manually look (and take care of) at oil pressure, lubrification, RPM's of the engine, sync of the gear, temperatures and so on. . In present days you turn a key and you can start driving. Yet a car is far more complex now than it used to be. The same goes for airplanes, even to a much larger extent like for instance an Airbus that doesn't allow the pilot to go wrong.


In programming it has always been a rule that a program that looks difficult to the operator and where you have to know lots of things actually is written far more simple than a user friendly program. The latter needs a manifold factor of programming to intercept possible errors, to build in "intelligence" to capture user intent, and so on.


ProE is clearly a system by programmers and not by engineers. Programmers write functions that need 20 variables to be defined and then ask the user for these 20 variables. Engineers create functional features that do the obvious, while allowing for "specials".


Of course, if you only have one option to create a hole then the feature will look and function very simple. But the reverse is not true : a very smooth working hole feature can hide a full spectrum of possibilities that pop up on request.


3.


The logic behind interfacing with a software program and the actual functions that drive this logic are 2 distinct items. What ProE has been doing (and is gradually growing out of) is to "walk the way of least resistance". All the systems it operates on have a "window" system, with buttons and fields with values. The closer you cling to this common denominator the easier you can transfer the program. What needs to be done is create something like the "harware abstaction layer" (HAL) in Windows : have a common functionality and translate it behind the scenes to something the computer system understands.


Same remark as above : this takes extra energy. I know because I did dBase programming back in DOS-days. Classic dBase programming was hitting key "3" to get to option 3 of the program. Since basic windows was already around I managed to write functions that allowed the user to use the arrows on the keyboard, highlighting the choice in a window-like box, even allowing the use of highlighted shortcut keys. It asked for a lot of programming that did nothing to help the actual program, but it was a familiar interface to the user. And if would have found mouse drivers then to integrate, I would have done that also.


Alex
Edited by: AHA-D

 

[phoxeoy]

Gamack,

I really like when you said, "True professionelusers go and learn it for themselves." Although I really don't see any other choice that we have. I guess all those people (Including myself) that trys to advance their skills in Pro/E with a certified instructor are just false professional users. I wish I was born a "True" professional user, then it would be easy to master the package. Well, I know who I'm going to ask for any help questions I have for now on.