Pro-E / PTC sucks

[GLEN20]

I feel all your PAIN! The sad thing I've loved Pro since release 14, went to Waltham for training and everything. Just like you, I've jumped around employers a bit. Even took a few steps back to use MicroCadam, Cadkey, and ACAD.


The current company I'm in just upgraded to WF3 (still love 2001, because I can't get my old Pro-Programs to work in WF!!)). Since all of our sister companies are using Inventor - I'll be going for training next month. I wish it was Solid Works instead. I too was spoiled by Solid Works. As you said most of Soliworks folks are ME's from PTC. This is why all of the commands makesense I learned more in my 1 week of Solid Works "Essentials" (Better that PTC's 1Week of "Basic"), 1 week of "Advanced", and 3 days of "detailing"....... 2 weeks and 3 days of Solid Works and I'm more Dangerous than all 21 certificates from PTC (3 Mechanica, 3x3days refresher courses from Release 20, 2000i, and 2001).


Obviously, when a refresher course is offered ----- it's like taking Pre-calc, before Differential Equations


But for PTC's defense ---- they are ahead of everyone else, dimension driven drawings, rather than "created dimensions", the model tree is more advanced (tracing the constraints)........ but then again --- the program was designed by Software folks, rather than ME's ----- Think about how many times we pushed DONE in the past....... and why the heck isn't there an UNDO button still!!!!
Edited by: GLEN20

 

[nura]

i do agree to some extent.. More than understanding the product design, designers spend more in understanding the Software to create that. This is pity... tooo parametric for a novice user.... Complexity multiplies by asking a PDM System to manage the Proe data...

 

[superdutynick]

Pro/E is not for everyone. You have to get to know the software and also have a good general computer knowledge to excel. It is kind of like pool... everyone can go in and hit some balls around and even win once in a while, but it takes talent to be able to execute with precision. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


If you aren

 

[mattraby]

Superdutynick,


We, the weak of mind you refer to above, bow to you superior mastery of computers. It's pretty easy to do if you sit on your ass all day.


But tell me....is it lonely there on your office-chair pedestal?

 

[arroyopr]

ding ding!


first round

here we go.

 

[phoxeoy]

What a bunch of whining babies. Aaah, did the mean-o Pro/E close on you? whaaaa, Solidworks is easier to use.....bla bla bla. Its like this people, if you want the job then learn the tools that are out there. If you like Solidworks better, than find a job that only uses Solidworks. Oh and by the way, stop posting on the ProE Forum too.

Does Pro/E suck sometimes? Yeah, sometimes it can make for a bad hour or two. SO CAN EVERYTHING ELSE software related. We got highly complex pieces of software here and we got people whining about Icons.

 

[superdutynick]

mattraby,


by mattra fact quite the opposite. There are days when I dont get much done because I am busy helping others with Pro/E. I also spend a lot of time working on programs using Pro/Program that require input from many users, so my desk is quite busy and far from lonely.

 

[prohammy]

Pro/E is not for everyone. You have to get to know the software and also have a good general computer knowledge to excel. It is kind of like pool... everyone can go in and hit some balls around and even win once in a while, but it takes talent to be able to execute with precision. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>


If you aren

 

[arroyopr]

I bet your fingers tip must be hurting.

 

[superdutynick]

prohammy


I agree, and I guess this is my fault for posting this morning. But my point was (and rereading it dint come across) if you do not like Pro/E go get a job using something else that you can use, and like to. Pro/E is for the higher level user, the "engineer type" people. We should be able to figure out how to use without tech support. Hints the name engineer.

 

[dgs]

Let's leave the personal attacks for another forum, please.


I want to address a sentiment I've heard hinted at here and I think lives at PTC as well. It goes something like this:

Pro|E is a big, sophisticated, highly capable and complex program. It's going to be hard to use and that's OK because of all the complex capabilities it has.

Why? Why can't a CAD package be robust, capable, sophisticated and easy to use? Why dismiss easy to use because it can do hard things? The geometry and the design and engineering problems it can solve are hard enough without making the software hard as well. There's no reason that easy to use and highly capable can't go hand in hand.


It's my opinion that one of the primary goals PTC should put on Pro|E is to make the complex tasks easy. Easy ought to be a high priority because the tasks are sometimes so challenging. Let us battle our design challenges, not our CAD software. What if it had all of its current capabilities and made SW look clunky and difficult?

 

[bbei]

Why?


It's simply impossible. The variety of shapes and structures simply is too large to have "simple" buttons and switches developed for.


There are dozens of ways to create a disc with circular cutoutin ProE, each mannergives its characteristics to the model, you can use those characteristics in your assembly model.


For instance, you can create the disc in one sketch where two circles are extruded. In the sketch you can define the circles to be concentric.


You could do it otherwise by defining two seperate circles, each in their own sketch: one as a extrusion, one as a cutout but with part-level constraints instead of sketch level constraints as in the first example.


In the second example I can redefine only the second circle without have to look at the extrusion, thus making sure that the extrusion does not get influenced in any way as it features higher in the model tree.


This is a very very simple example, but it shows that for the buildup of your model, many possibilities are feasable and as a designer or engineeryou need to determine which manner fits your design best for the current AND future projects.


That's why you need a good training and experience in parametric design.


Once you get a good grip on the design philosophy of parametric designing, you have a very powerful tool that is a real cash generator, as I mentioned earlier.


This is also the reason why I rejected Solid Works, as it does not implement parametric design consistently for mold design. In my experience, ProE still islightyears ahead in relation to other so called parametric design software.
Edited by: bbei

 

[dgs]

I see your point, but that's a geometry issue, not a software one. Pro|E ought to give us the freedom to build as is best for our situation, but not force us to stop and thing about how to drive the software for that method versus another. Consistency and clarity are what's lacking in a big way in Pro|E. Here are some examples.
<UL>
<LI>MMB functionality I mentioned above.</LI>
<LI>Similar functions operate in very different manners. For example, why should Drawing dim creation, sketcher dim creation, reference dim creation and part measurement all have different interfaces? They all do very similar things, yet they all have their own interface. Take measure out of that list, and they all are the same and should work the same way.</LI>
<LI>Hidden information. Dialog boxes and text entry fields in Pro|Eare frequently too small to display the information. (Find tool results and WF3 assembly contraints are 2 examples) I'd bet that the majority of CAD users have large, high resolution screens, so make the boxes and fields bigger.</LI>[/list]


Those things make the user stop and think about the software instead of their design problem. There's no reason why designing them out of Pro|E shouldn't be a high priority. All of our lives would be easier and happier as a result.


This is my pet peeve in Pro|E (and other software too), can you tell?

 

[superdutynick]

Pro/E doesn't just make you think about the software it makes you think how best to use the software to achieve your desired result. The is on of the key elements of Pro/E... design intent. A little more thought upfront in the original creation saves you countless hours when the customer changes their mind about what they want. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


A lot of customization can be done with mapkeys. ie I have a mapkey "di" that is dual functioning. It initiates creating a dimension in either sketcher or drawing type di and then select you references then middle click to drop your dimension.

 

[bbei]

I couldn't agree more.

 

[superdutynick]

By no means should this be taken in a bad way, i mean no disrespect but just as a comparison


We can take thefront loadwasher and dryer on your website. There are much more settings that can be adjusted than say the $250 top load special at lowes... why can't I just put the clothes in there and push start? We both know that the front load is better I have one and would never go back to a top load.


My point is the front load (like Pro/E) has many more settings and can do a better job than your typical top load.

 

[phoxeoy]

Why? Why can't a CAD package be robust, capable, sophisticated and easy to use?

The more a software package is easier the more complex the behind the scene's are. Look at Windows OS, Its a bloated, memory hungry, "user friendly" piece of crap. You strip all that pretty crap out and just put functionality the better of you will be. The problem is the more complex the functionality the harder it is to add ease of use.

 

[superdutynick]

Well stated phoxeoy... Pro/E taxes computers enough as is.


I can't stand it when people add pretty little icons for every mapkey. Use mapkeys... utilize both hands not just the one with the mouse.

 

[dgs]

I agree with most comments here to a point. Yes, the more functionality you add the harder it is to make it easier. I would say that makes an ease of use focus that much more important. It's more work for the programmers and may mean a larger, more resource intensive program (I wouldn't say that's unavoidable, but I'm not a programmer so I'm not sure).


I thin with the WF series, Pro|E is a large improvement on the big picture scale. The dashboard interface is bringing a level of consistency across the program, for example. On a micro scale, however, it's maddening. This has nothing at all to do with the complexity or capability of the software. It has to do with a lack of attention to detail and a lack of focus on making things easy if possible.


I also agree that mapkeys are very useful, I have a few dozen in my config file and several more I've written for company wide use. But, if a user is compelled to write a mapkey to simplify a basic function (create a dim or measure a distance) I would say maybe the function is broken.


Take the washing machine example again.Say the top of the line frontloadmodel has 100 possible cycles and options. I could provide a 5 row, 20 column array of rectangular buttons to select one of the 100 cycles. Or, I could group the options in like sets (water temp, fabric type, etc) and have far fewer buttons and knobs. I could get 100 different cycles with only 3 knobs, 2 with 5 choices and one with only 4. Which would be easier to figure out - and what would you more likely buy and be happy with - 100 buttons or 3 knobs?


The functionality is the same, but the ease of use and the user experience is very different.

 

[Mindripper]

I have to agree completely with dgs. After all, what is software? Why do we use it instead of using the pen and pencil I started with when I made my first drawings over thirty years ago? Software is a PRODUCTIVITY TOOL. The primary intent is to make it possible to accomplish a task more efficiently: faster, better quality and (hopefully) with less effort. Obviously, this includes learning to use it.


Simple functions should be easy to learn and use. It makes sense for a user to be able to develop their skills from simple functions and grow into the more complex functions withouta great deal offrustration. And let's face it, most of are pretty intelligent individuals: knuckle-draggers don't get to the level we are at.


So I guess I'd better ask the questions directly: why is SolidWorks easier to learn and use than Pro/E? Why has Pro/E been changed to mimic SolidWorks? Why is the Help function in SolidWorks so much more effective than in Pro/E? Surely allCAD users want to see improvements in the quality of the products they use for a living - and Pro/E is clearly trying to adopt the SolidWorks 'look and feel'. But like a slick Pro/E demo (which they are so famous for), itis only skin-deep: the core program and all of it's functions remain unchanged.


I disagree with the contention that Pro/E is much more capable than SolidWorks. Both programs are parametric solid modeling tools based on using design intent to develop the models and assemblies: this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, as both programs were conceived and written by the same core group.Pro/E has some additional functionality in certain areas, but the difference is minimal for most users. This wasn't true five years ago, but SolidWorks has been making major enhancements to everyoffering(particularly the advanced features) in their product line, while Pro/E has changed little. The cutesy new GUI in Pro/E (which is only partially implemented) is not any real change to the core product or it's idiosyncracies. And nothing has been done to significantly improve the production of drawings in Pro/E in at least six years - an area where there is a lot of room for improvement, in my opinion.


With respect to the suggestion that users who prefer SolidWorks should abandon Pro/E and get a job using SolidWorks, I will not personally comment onthat at this time. But does anyone seriously believe that further erosion of Pro/E's market share will help it's users? PTC needs to spend more time listening to it's users, and that's part of what this forum is about (hopefully). I got an e-mail from PTC yesterday where they were bragging about user ratings of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 for their products. I don't think a 7 is anything to brag about - especially when the product quality had a long-term negative trend to it.