Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.
Can we come up with a list of companies who have migrated to Wildfire? Timeframe for migration of other companies who are still using lower versions? Just post compnaies you are aware of who use Wildfire as a mainstream CAD tool (not just in test phase).
I've used it for about 4 months now and I think it's great. It still crashes, mostly while in assembly mode. I also moved up from version 20 though, so anything would be better.
We have had several customers make the transition... The biggest problem has been instances in Family Tables with Intralink 3.3. Make sure you have the lastest build of WF/3.3 or you will have nightmares.
I receive frequent emails/requests concerning the switch from 2001 to WF. The largest concern, by far, up to now has been the realization that almost everyone switching will need training and in the current economy, no one wants to ante up the cash to get the users up to speed. So what they get is feedback like it's terrible I can't do anything any more, I used to do it in 10 seconds now I can't find the _____ icon. This really makes managers nervous and so they stay away form the switch for as long as possible, and to be frank, why would you switch unless WF offered your company a significant improvement in productivity. Most users can perform their duties extremely fast and efficiently with 2001 and it is a pretty solid release. Basic MCAD design needs were well filled a long time ago in Pro/E and now the majority of improvements, while cool and possibly could be useful, help fewer and fewer customers. Do you really NEED warp? Do you really need FILL patterns? Few do but most don't. The investment in CAD migration is huge for companies of any size and unless there is a clear need to move, they won't. Here's a question, How many of you got the training you NEEDED? or were you just dropped into Pro/E with minimal if any training. Then later after creating a pile of cool models find out your methods were fundamentally flawed leading to problems with external references, instances, or generl geometry failures during regen. MOST problems with Pro/E , (or any software, I suspect) lies in the inadequte investment in the training of the users. Reminds me o f the saying, We never have enough time to do it right the first time, but we always have time to do it over again!
I agree that to get people to move to a new release with a significantly different user interface there must be some compelling reason. And you're right that even if they don't like the old method they've learned how to use it effectively.
It's unfortunate that the new features tend to be geewiz gimmicks when there are many useful features that should have been built in. Number one would be an improved sketcher. It's idiotic to not be able to specify a radius when filleting lines. Lack of patterning is so lame it's embarrasing.
Another area Pro/E seems to be purposefully lacking is the ability to work with imported geometry. Sure if you have a perfect solid Pro/E can import it. But what about 2D parts and geometry that needs to be fixed. They're trying with Autobuildz but the fully automated approach is proving difficult to implement and isn't nearly as useful as just providing basic tools (like being able to select imported geometry by color).
PTC has another card they can play and that is to migrate some of the high end functionality down to the lower level packages.
The other big thing they should devote the majority of time to on any new release is bug fixes. PTC totally dropped the ball on this one. I've gone back and tested several issues I've had with 2001 and every single one was still bug compatible with WF. This is proof enough for me that the present management need to go before Pro/E is going to be significantly improved.
To be fair they have added some useful stuff. Like drag and drop assembly with saved constraints. And patterning is much better; but that should have been fixed ages ago.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)