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!!!!

 

[bbei]

You have anUNDO button in the sketcher. That's enough, believe me.


Having anUNDO at part or assembly level would just complicate things beyond recognition as you could be working on multiple files simultaniously (f.i.36 parts, 1 assembly, 2 subassemblies...) that are all interrelated.


Take it from me. You do NOT want an UNDO-button outside the sketcher.

 

[dgs]

You have anUNDO button in the sketcher. That's enough, believe me.


Having anUNDO at part or assembly level would just complicate things beyond recognition as you could be working on multiple files simultaniously (f.i.36 parts, 1 assembly, 2 subassemblies...) that are all interrelated.


Take it from me. You do NOT want an UNDO-button outside the sketcher.

Actually, as of WF2, maybe WF1, there is an undo in most areas of Pro|E. It's limited, however. Saving the part/assy, switching windows, activating a window and some other things clears the undo stack, making undo unavailable. Certain commands cannot be undone as well, like making a part level change in the assembly context.


I've found it very valuable at times.

 

[Mindripper]

Nobody ever said you HAVE to use the 'Undo' button. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more of it throughout Pro/E. It may be necessary to limit it on some functions under certain contexts, but having a context-sensitive software concept is starting to sound like SolidWorks, where almost any question or option is available with a right-click: no need to hunt though cascading menus for that obvious next selection.


The whole concept of 'Undo' can prove very useful to any user, at any level. And it is possible to have a very complex sophisicated software product that is also easy to use, allowing any user to develop their skills from the basic functions into the most complex features over time. This is how software usually evolves too - not just users. Forgiveness and flexibilityare valuableassets in software, and should in noway impede a high-level user: but it can save newer users hours of pointless frustration.

 

[intruder]

The discussion here seems to be heavily biased towards relatively new users. I am a long-time user of PRO-E, over 17 years, and I have a somewhat different opinion based on this experience.


PRO-E has come a verylong way from where it started. The user interface is vastly improved, and there are many less menu picks necessary to perform some very complexmodeling tasks. The robustness of the end models has become reliable, which wasn't always the case in the past. The companion tools; i.e. manufacturing, analysis,plastic part advisor, simulation, advanced surface modeling, are all much better now over where they started.


Given all of this however, I still have a love/hate relationship withPRO-E. Some days it is my best friend, some my worst enemy. I'm convinced it has contributed to me being a successful designer, as well as partially caused my gastro-intestinal problems.


As for PTC customer service, again the current crop of AE's andsales persons are a vast improvement over the beginning crew. There were horror strories of the ME's opinions and desires being completely overlooked and discounted when the decisions for CAD purchases were being finalized. A lot of PTC reps, in their $2000 suits, would go into CEO offices and make some questionable deals without any engineering input. I'm glad those days are over, at least in my local environment.


In addition to PRO-E, I have extensive SolidWorks experience, asrecently as last week. I have also used CADAM, Personal Designer, Medusa, Autocad, Alias and CDI in previous positions. I think I have a good basis for comparison of the state of CAD in the world today.I can't imagine my work without PRO-E being anywhere near as complete, complex and competent as with it. Please give it a chance to grow on you, if you are a new user. If the tool can't do the job for you, perhaps it's just not the right fit to your needs. No CAD tool will be the absolute final solution for all situations.


Thanks for reading my ramblings, and remember:


"Cheap, Fast, Good ... Pick Two"


Regards,


Bob

 

[Mindripper]

I take exception to the suggestion that 'show dims' is a valuable feature in Pro/E. In my experience, the dimensions and featurre references used to create a model are NOT what the designer or machinist want to see on the draiwng - especially if top-down design techniques are used. And the whole Show/Erase dialog box is still bewildering to me. I have been and always will be a driven dimensions guy: it's easier to create dimensions using a dimensioning scheme appropriate for a drawing than to decipher the multitude of options for placement of entities that the Show/Erase dialog box forces on the user.


I also have to take exception to the suggestion that the sales force at PTC has cleaned up their act. They tried to sell me a multi-thousand dollar module (Pro/Mold) I didn't need just a couple of months ago. It turned out the function I was looking for had been moved to another menu since I had last used Pro/E some six years previously.


I just wish PTC (and SolidWorks) would take more of the outstanding features from their competitor's software and integrate it into their products. Pro/E should be easier to learn and use, while SolidWorks could use more complex surfacing and sweeps. I like to think they are doing this. But it's obvious to me that Pro/E is the laggard on developing their product, and thier traditionally arrogant posture as the (one-time) industry leader has not served them or their customers well in the long run.

 

[phoxeoy]

I really don't see the point in creating dimensions twice. I agree the show/Erase should be a lot better. But talk about a maintenance nightmare; having to modify dimensions in two places, not my idea of a good time. I come across models from others all the time where they have created every dimension in the drawing or better yet, created dimensions and used relations to drive. All they had to do was use the dimension that is in the model to begin with. I guess its a personal pet peeve.

 

[AHA-D]

Created dimensions in a drawing are only created a second time, which - in terms of work - is equivalent or even better than using show/erase. They maintain a relation to the model, in a onedirectional way. Unless of course one creates overrides, but that is definitely "not done".


So you don't have to modify dimensions in 2 places.


Alex

 

[phoxeoy]

Am I missing something here? Are you kidding me! Can someone tell me what has been maintained sense the beginning of time,..... The drawing! What is stamped "APPROVED" and signed by engineers and managers?.... The drawing! So by creating a one directional relationship, (why even use Pro/E if you're going to do this), to make a change, modify, whatever... you have to do it in the 3D model. Now how stupid is that. All the information needed to create the model is in the drawing so, why not setup your models to be maintain within the drawing. One stop shop.

With one way relationship, to modify a dimensional value you have open the 3D model, make the change, open the drawing, (make sure we don't have any purple dimensions!), add the ECO change information, print.

With two way relationship I just open the drawing, modify the dimension value, add my ECO information and print. I never had to even touch the model.

 

[superdutynick]

Phoxeoy,<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


I couldn't agree with you more!!


Design the model like the end result; dimension it as if you are detailing it. Sure there are going to be some dimensions you have to add for the shop in the drawing but those are usually do to relations and design intent.

 

[phoxeoy]

See, what we have here is the difference between good, solid, professionally done models and then you have: hurry up, get the job done quickly, pay no attention to all the functionality in Pro/E and I feel sorry for the poor slob who has to go behind my models.

 

[AHA-D]

The model is the - virtual - product. I will ALWAYS change the model, and preferably in the context of the assembly. Then run an interference check to see if I might have overlooked some repercussions of the change. If all goes well the drawings can be updated. It's a poor thing for ProE that it has no real automatic indication that a drawing has changed, or a system to show an out of date state and a list of what has changed.


A drawing is nothing more than a means of communication. I've sent out models to get a mold made with nothing more than aquick drawingshowing the dimensions that mattered while thebulk was communicated as a 3D data-exchange. After all, what's the use of spending time plastering a paper full of dimensions when they all reside in the model, and the model is where the moldmaker starts. I've had other occasions where I built a perfect model for an aluminium extrusion and the poor chap reading the drawing totally misread it and made a no-use-whatsoever piece of extruded crap.


I would never let anyone change a model with nothing more than the drawing, not knowing what relations are driving it.


You see how different the view on a job can be ...


Alex

 

[Mindripper]

I have found that CAD users who lack an understanding of design intent, have never completed a course of study in draftingor don't spend much time working with fabrication shops just don't understand the function that drawings serve. Clearly the programmers at PTC fall into this category, and the mechanical engineers (if they have any) are not giving them a reality check. In a top-down design strategy, themodeling dimensions of a part may wellreference featureswhich don't exist onthe part. If you simply 'show' these dimensions in the drawing, they will be meaningless to the machinist. And even PTC openly admits that 'show dims' will not include all of the dimensions: some will need to be added as 'driven dimensions'. Since these are indistinguishable from the 'show' dimensions in Pro/E (but not some other CAD packages, like SolidWorks),a CAD usermay haveno idea which drawing dimensions can actually be used to alter the model, so the assertion that 'shown dimensions' are a useful design tool is bogus.


Amachinst typically wants/needs/expects the dimensions on the drawing to define the part in the fourth or eighth octant: the origin should be at the upper left corner of the part, extending in the plus or minus z direction. If the drawing isn't set up this way, then he has to redefine the diimensions into something he can actually use to make the part.


The model always drives the drawing, right? This is true for everything from zero to 100% 'shown' dimensions. But the drawing exists primarily as a fabrication tool, not as a design tool. Compromising your design intent to make the drawing better for fabrication purposes makes no sense. Yes, it takes more effort to create a drawing that suits the shop and keep the model ina state that reflects your design intent. But this is a strategy that results in better quality of design, and I'm a big advocate of high-quality work. It's also one of the reasons I think whoever made the model(s) should make all the drawings too.


I've met a few lazy designers and draftsmen who seem to be capable only of generatiing drawings by showing dimensions the engineer used to create the model (including the tolerances embedded in the dimensions), and have little concept of capturing the design intent - or even checking the tolerances to make sure the parts will fit together. 'Show dims' seems to be all they are capable of, and I'm kind of amazed they can stay employed. I would never hire them.

 

[phoxeoy]

I have found the complete opposite. If you have models that are created in a different way than the drawing is described then you just threw design intent out the window. If you operate in a 3D model only environment then all the data that clearly depicts that model better in the the 3D file.

Why in the world would you want to design a model one way and depict it in another? Who said anything about only using show/erase, I believe this to be impossible when it comes to Pro/E but not to use it at all is just stupid and lazy.

 

[GLEN20]

phoxeoy,


Must be we live in the real world


Design Intent is nice, but who has time to do MOL (Maintainance Of Line). We're all riding the Lean band wagon, and yet we still have to release these one of a kind special machines that no one can leverage parts on. I too, feel sorry for poor saps that will never realize I used "Sketch Data from file" for all those protrusion purchased parts. I was using the ACAD 2D-files supplied by the vendors. It was just 90MPH modeling to check for interferences. Hopefully, I don't get a speeding ticket from the ECN Police On to the next project.....

 

[AHA-D]

Phoxeoy,


I try to do robust (and easy to change) design. So if I have symmetry in a part I will use this in the design by mirroring as much as possible. If groups of features are positionally related I will set up a number of datum planes defining this location so that the features are the least possible dependent on each other but can all move in one go. Practically all of these datums are virtual, they can not be found in the part and any reference to it on a drawing serves little use. Design intent is clearly served - models can be changed reliably during the design process - but most dimensions don't make sense on the drawing.


Glen20,


Be vary carefull with imported geometry. I've had numerous cases where assembly fails for no apparent reason, only to find out later that what you think is perpendicular actually is 0.001 degrees off, making the creation of 3 aligns to the major datum planes impossible. And once you start adding constraints to imported sketches, or start tangling with the resulting model, to comply with basic needs, you can no longer be sure what happens with accuracy.


But it is weighing off speed (pure import) versus accuracy (remodeling).


Alex

 

[Mindripper]

I have a habit of being very nice to my machinists: they like to see drawings that are consistent with how they make the parts. They like me, and deliver my parts on time and to print. So I dimension them in a manner that is acceptable to both of us. These same machinists hate to see the prints of some other engineers/designers, and no-bid them or have difficulty delivering their parts on time. This has led me to believe that I have developed a good formula for getting things done over the33 yearsI've been making drawings. I do NOT use 'Show Dims' AT ALL - and never have.


I have seen a lot of drawings that use 'Show Dims' where the datum origin is floating out in space, have plus and minus ordinate dimensions or the primary datums located on internal features on the part. The machinist is forced to completely re-interpret thedrawing in order toproduce the part, and may have to (unnecessarily) develop special fixturing. The engineer and designers who come up with these drawings rarely set foot in a machine shop, andmay have never had aclose working relationship with a machinist. Their ignorance of and isolation from the processes that are fundamental to accomplishing the task at hand are obvious to me, yet the corporate environment they work in makes this ostrich-like behavior pattern possible. I was working with one of these individuals not too long ago: they claimed to be experienced and had been with the company for almost a year, yet had never set foot in the engineering lab or the model shop, where many of their parts were made and assembled.

 

[phoxeoy]

I do NOT use 'Show Dims' AT ALL - and never have.

Now thats just scary. To me anyway. I have always been able to design and model with the detailing in mind. I can say I use Show/erase about 85-90% of the time. Just because everything I put in the model is going in the drawing, just makes sense. I could just never imagine creating the model and setting all the tolerances and notes and whatever and then replicating the same process in the detail side. Seems a complete waste of time to me.

I deal with a lot of models that other people have created and I have seen some weird stuff. Some people tend to model by the seat of their pants and build features on top of each other to create something that I could have created in one feature. What ends up happening is you have construction features on top of construction features; features that have no business in the model and with a little bit a skill could have been avoided.

I still say, if the dimensioning scheme in the model is different than the drawing; theres problems.

 

[dgs]

I do NOT use 'Show Dims' AT ALL - and never have.

I could just never imagine creating the model and setting all the tolerances and notes and whatever and then replicating the same process in the detail side. Seems a complete waste of time to me.

I'm with Mindripper, I rarely show dims. I never set tolerances or add notes to the model dims anyway. At least notes that would be useful on the drawing. I'll add notes to dims that control part positions so that the next guy know to set this dim to 105 degrees to open the door all the way or whatever.


To me, the way I create the model has everything to do with what that part should do and little to do with how it needs to be made. That means that some features will be dimensioned from planes or datum features that have no actual geometry associated with them. That way, if part A and part B both have their screw bosses at 10" from the FRONT plane, they'll line up. That front plane might be 2" outside the boundary of part A and 2" inside of part B.


The drawing is not the end result, the part is. The drawing is a means to communicate either how to make the part or how to inspect it once it is made. That frequently requires different thinking than how to design or model it.

 

[phoxeoy]

That frequently requires different thinking than how to design or model it.

Amazing, how is that?