Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

And I thought I was only joking about "Misfire"...

dougr

New member
I just read that WildFire hasn't improved PTC's bottom line much and they're having to resort to more layoffs.



I haven't made the switch and DOTF elimination is a big deterrent for me to go to Misfire.



What do WildFire users think ?? Is the switch worth it ??



Just been to my 1st presentation on SolidWorks 2004 and most new stuff seems to be a refinement of what's already there. They're introducing specular shading - nice but who really needs it.



Functionally, they're making a push on surfaces which is interesting as Pro/E's already there but I'd guess less than 5% of Pro/E users know about surfaces.



Have been a big surface user for about 10 years and never understood why PTC has never pushed these more - much to their detriment.
 

miked

New member
I would never consider switching back to 2001.

I spend 95 percent of my time surfacing and the rest making simple drawings so I can speak to the solid modelling aspects ( they really cant be much different though).

I have tried 2001 recently and a clients office and found myself cursing it.

It does take awhile to figure out where everything has been moved to, but I am now waaay faster than I was in 2001.

Wouldnt go back if you paid me to.

Mike
 

swcalvert

New member
I havn't used Pro/E for very long now, but after seeing what the differences are between 2001 and Wildfire, I would not go back. In this day and age, most programs are designed around a windows like interface (icons). Just about anything new going forward will be based, somewhat, on icons. It is faster and easier to learn. Now, having said all that, I would agree that PTC has some work left if it wants to get back some of its lost investors. My 2 cents about what wrong with PTC is: Too many old versions running in the field and not enough monies being spent on R&D.



Steve C
 

bhayden

New member
>I just read that WildFire hasn't improved PTC's bottom >line much and they're having to resort to more layoffs



Yep:

PTC's third-quarter net loss widened as revenue fell 7.2 percent and the company initiated a cost-cutting program with the goal of returning to profitability by 2004



Mean while Autodesk and Desault Systems continue to grow revenues (market share) and turn a profit in these admittedly tough times



Not releasing Intralink 3.3 before Wildfire has meant that it will be at least 4-6 months before another window of opportunity exist for me to change over. So far I see little compelling reason to change. I do primarily sheetmetal. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a reason to use surfaces.



One big factor would be being able to switch to Linux. Hopefully this will be fully supported in the future meaning a port of Intralink as well. That might be tough given the ties to Oracle.



I'll most likely skip the WF release and reevaluate when 2004 is available for beta. If indeed the new stuff seems to be a refinement of what's already there. Then I hold out hope. Things like my question about an axis through a curve. Why should you have to create a point which you then waste more time hiding when axis through a curve is the same geometry as axis through a cylinder. Groups, why do I have to ungroup and regroup there by destroying any patterns in order to add or change features? Why do rotational patterns break at 180 degrees? Why are constraints so difficult to select and edit? Why can't you mirror walls in the sheetmetal module? I could write a book and all the dumb things regarding sheetmetal.



Please, PTC, fix the easy stuff before adding more.



Bernie Hayden

XKL LLC
 

red_devil

New member
I've been using Wildfire since February and mostly I have found it excellent, though the removal of DOTF was a mistake. But, hey we all make them. Why not have them there and you can decide if you want to use them.



One feature that would be sooooooo helpful would be a 'save as' to a previous ProE version. This would help me no end, as a lot of our clients have not upgraded yet.



There are obviously pro's and con's for every new piece of software, some will love some will hate it. I think it's a step in the right direction, but PTC should listen to their customers a bit more!



Anyway that's my opinion.



Jeff
 

Brian_Adkins

Moderator
>>One feature that would be sooooooo helpful would be a 'save as' to a previous ProE version



This is 'sort of' available using Neutral files and the Assocative Topology Bus to get updates.



How to Use Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire Cross Platform Cross-Release Interoperability:

http://www.ptc.com/cs/tpi/120556.htm



experpt:

==================

Final notes:

- In addition to being associative, part and assembly level parameters can be exchanged and updated.

- Design, feature modification is not possible in the previous release.

- Along with the geometry and assembly structure, you can also update the model-level parameters, layers, and colors but only in Pro/ENGINEER 2001.

==================



-Brian Adkins
 

Brian_Adkins

Moderator
True...



but the ATB method is such that the 2001 model remains associative back to the Wildfire model. You can build off of the import feature in 2001 and then, if the Wildfire model is updated, your 2001 model will still regen correctly with the new updated geometry (featureIDs are constant). This is good if you are working with a supplier who uses WF and you don't. You don't have to rework your models every time the supplier makes a change.



I consider the UDF method as more of a one-time conversion. I suppose you could still simulate associativity with dependent UDFs, but there would still be manual steps in there. I've not tried the UDF method between WF and 2001, but I'm guessing that the probability of succcess much less with WF than it used to be in other revs.



-Brian Adkins
 

Nose Bleed

New member
Well - Doug...



The only use I've found for Misfire has been the Restyle option. Reverse engineering shouldn't cost $17,000 for a single license!!!! And the Export to Mpeg option in Pro/M



For the rest of my modeling is done in 2001 then transferred into Misfire so that I can put my Mechanica analyseees in my Power point Presentations.
 

scottc

New member
>>One feature that would be sooooooo helpful would be a 'save as' to a previous ProE version



This is 'sort of' available using Neutral files and the Assocative Topology Bus to get updates.



How to Use Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire Cross Platform Cross-Release Interoperability:

http://www.ptc.com/cs/tpi/120556.htm



experpt:

==================

Final notes:

- In addition to being associative, part and assembly level parameters can be exchanged and updated.

- Design, feature modification is not possible in the previous release.

- Along with the geometry and assembly structure, you can also update the model-level parameters, layers, and colors but only in Pro/ENGINEER 2001.

==================



-Brian Adkins





Brian,



Is there some way to elaborate on this subject? I am a mold designer using 2001 and the product development group at my company will be swithing to WF soon. I am somewhat relluctant to make that switch if I dont have to ...... I went through the whole 200i2 fiasco and the mold design portion of WF seems to be behind as far as advancements. I went to the link you provided and tried it but I do not see the #File -> #Associative Topology Bus -> Am I missing something and overall, how easilly is this conversion done? Thanks for any input on this subject



Scott
 

Brian_Adkins

Moderator
Scott,



You will only see the #File -> #Associative Topology Bus menus if you have the following config.pro option enabled:



topobus_enable yes



-Brian Adkins
 

doctordremel

New member
DOTF?



What s DOTF mean?



Double Offset Torridial Functionality

Datum Oscillate 'till Failure

Dysfunctional Opossum Training Facility

Department of Total Facilitation



My sup is telling me we are migrating to WF before the end of year
 

skuld

New member
HI Guys...



I float between two Jobs and at the smaller office we use W/fire but at my main job we still run 2001. Both are good and if you are used to 2001 you will find the change to W/fire a bit of a learning experience.



As to which I prefer? I would have to say W/fire (I've even made a conscious effort to start using the sketcher intent manager under W/fire). The concept of the dashboard and the menus off the dash board for controlling the feature references is cool and the ability to convert a cut to a protrusion is good.

About the DTOF question, yes it is a bit of a pain to have to change to the legacy menus to access it but if you change you way of thinking you can eventually learn to live without datum
 

Sponsor

Top