Wildfire 3.0 ???

[pedja666]

Does anybody happen to know when the pre-production release of WF 3.0 is scheduled and what are the most important enhancements in it? The only thing that I learned from a PTC guy some time ago is that the WF 3.0 will be really backwards compatible including 2001, WF and WF 2.0


Thanks

 

[ScottAW]

Buhahahahahaha!!!!



I've heard PTC's sales people before make promises of the software
being backwards compatible. They've never been right, it's all
B.S. in my opinion. It'll be a cold day in hell when PTC actually
does the normal and right thing to do, making their software backwards
compatible!!!

 

[Israr]

I have heard from Sam Husseini, a ptc employ that WF 3.0 preproduction will be ready by the end of July this year.


Israr

 

[Speling]

I don

 

[saymo]

We all heard that WF1 would be backward compatible...


which it wasn't you could save your proe file to a neutral file .neu and then this format could be read by previous versions.


pretty much a 'dumb' non interactive model


WF3....The same story is circulating.............you can save backwards....


Reality = it is still a neutral file.....!!! the difference is that it is a neutral file with a model tree....


the model tree however is as dumb as the neutral file...you can do nothing with it!


Oh what a great enhancement!

 

[pedja666]

Spelling


Though Ipresently work with 2001, WF and WF2 depending on which version customer is using I believe that backwards compatibility is a bad idea for the following reasons<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />


1-It will significantly decrease PTC revenues and prevent themfrom investingin R&D and therefore depriving us of potentially better and improved software.


2- It will inevitably introducehundreds new bags into software which is already complicated containing million lines of code. The those who now asking for backwards compatibility will be the first ones to whine and rave about them. There is no major MCAD presently which is backwards compatible probably for these reasons

 

[Speling]

Maybe I was like hundreds time
before misinterpreted!!!





I am not person which need
explanations about backward capabilities

 

[pedja666]

I know you did not neither did I.I was talking about the people constantly complaining about the backwards incompatibility. Probably it can be done at the expense of the software stability but you cannot have both worlds. Just do not complain after when the performance of the software is affected. Again there is no major MCAD application which is backwards compatible I do not see why the ProE should be the first one. I

 

[maxweston]

Hi there,


Here is a clasic example of why ptc don't make their sofware backwards compatible.


The company that I work for at the moment is using 5 or 6 seats of 2000i and have reluctantly recently decided to upgrade to Wildfire. If 2000i was backwards compatible they would never upgrade again or at least not until ptc stopped supporting 2000i.


If previous versions of Pro/E were able to read later version files then rewrite those same files, the later versions would have to be able to embed code in the file that gives previous versionsthe same functionality as the later version.


I don't think so.


Max Weston.

 

[FDdesign]

The pre-production of WF 3.0 should be readyin the fall of 2005..... a PLM of PTC told me that.... maybe it is earlier like Israr said but I doubt it....


I don'tthink it is backwards compatible.....

I've saw a beta version of it and what I remembered (forregular users)as nice was the possiblity to make shaded views in drawing-mode.


Regards
Edited by: FDdesign

 

[saymo]

"If previous versions of Pro/E were able to read later version files then rewrite those same files, the later versions would have to be able to embed code in the file that gives previous versionsthe same functionality as the later version."





Microsoft office does it???


also error reporting


also recovers documents after failures....


as with many many many pieces of software?
Edited by: saymo

 

[mgnt8]

Does anybody happen to know when the pre-production release of WF 3.0 is scheduled and

I've heard very little lately about WF 3.0. If it were to be released 2nd or 3rd quarter 2005, shouldn't we see a pre-release version right about now? Is something wrong - sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

 

[rpassolt]

Preproduction will be in a couple months.


Production is scheduled for this Fall.

 

[keith faskin]

there is no reason why you could not have backward compatible models, yes there is a different user interfarce which is time consuming to use, but can anyone really try and tell the rest of us that in say v19 you couldnt model something you can now. the basic feature construction is the same, its just gotthe kingsclothing on.


is the base curnel changed or a fillet not a round; or an old round not a fillet, if it can go one wayv19 to wd2; then it can go back!


ptc do not; so you cannot; thats it! its a good product for some things, so try not to be blinded by the ptc hipe

 

[rpassolt]

I agree that in most cases backward compatibility would probably not be that hard to maintain, but it would still have to maintain. In other cases, such as

 

[ScottAW]

There is only one, I repeat, one reason that there is not backwards compatibility.


Profit margin.


PTC makes more profit by not having backwards compatibility. It forces companies to maintain their service agreements (lots of $$$), and it cost the software developers a lot less money if they don't have to incorporate backwards compatibility features. So they save tons of $$$ in less development/work, make a lot more money with continuing service agreements, and it gives marketing the ability to hype up the latest GUI or reintroduction of an old-feature with a new name so they can make more in new sales, as well as convince those that weren't maintaining a service agreement to buy in again to the PTC-world.


Profit margin... that is the ONLY reason, and you are fooling yourself if you think it's anything but that.

 

[rpassolt]

Correct! You can't stay in business long without profit margin.


Despite that, at least3.0 introduces opening native files in previous versions,and hopefully the files will have at leastATB associativity functionality.

 

[scottm]

IMO - Sure its profit margin - but I don't think there's anything wrong with focusing on maintenance customers. Maintaining backwards compatibility is a HUGE burden on software. You can 10 programmers working their tails off to introduce WF 3.0, or you can 6 programmers working their tails off on WF 3.0 and 4 working on making it backwards compatible.


I'd rather put my money towards the latest release. While its natural that people aren't going to jump to the newest release immediately (we just loaded 2.0), it is reasonable to expect that a professional user base would keep up (at least within a year or two).


Any PRO-E user should be paying maintenance, etc., so I don't want PTC spending a whole lot of time on backwards compatibility. Just my opinion, but I've used a lot of different packages and I've never expected or needed it. If I wanted to buy a static software package without a maintenance contract I'd go to OfficeMax and buy AUTOCAD LT.

 

[saymo]

scottm,


if you dont really need backward compatability, or dont want PTC to invest their time with it, please tell me your CURRENT testing procedure of PTC software before implementation to your company network?


I am purely guessing but I imagine that your primary role is design? not admin?


If you are a designer then I imagine you would like to see new tools,,,,If your the poor guy in admin that takes the decision to implement the software to his user community only to find that the software crashes all the time, then I 'm sure the designers may want tried and tested software in the future





New gizmos and tools / funtionality are great, IF they work and can be tested!


WE NEED BACKWARD COMPATABILITY.
Edited by: saymo

 

[scottm]

Fair enough - I'm used to being a one man show... I don't have to deal with many issues that an administrator would deal with.