Slow the proliferation of new stuff?

Sean (and everyone else),
Instead of hijacking the "in-context" thread, I'm starting a new one based
on your last comment - "My Vote: Slow the proliferation of new stuff - fix
the nags" because I am interested in hearing opinions.

I've hear this statement before - we want stability, quit working on new
features and functionality until what we have is "perfect".

I for one do NOT want SolidWorks to stop releasing new, inovative, and even
COOL new features with every release. Give me new tools and I'll live with
whatever "nags" might pop up from time to time.

What do you want?

Richard Doyle

 

I agree. The new features and capabilities save us a great deal more
time than the occasional nag or bug ever costs us.

Dave H

 

I am with you Richard on this one. I for one have never had any major
problems with SolidWorks. I want to work somewhere that will buy me a
PC that will work faster on SolidWorks than I do in it. But I
definately want more new tools and more productive tools than to make
sure that SolidWorks never crashes again for anyone ever even if they
are running Windows ME with 256 Mb of Ram and use AOL for email.
Sorry I know that is ridiculous and extreme but I also rarely crash as
well but my work PC is sacred and I don't anything that doesn't need
to be there and I clean it daily. So give me all the new cool stuff
to make me more productive.

Ken

 

Richard,

If SW was a toy or a video game I would agree with the new, innovative
and Cool statement. But it isn't. The bottom line is that we have to
make money with it. For making money, the word dependable comes to
mind. There is dependable as in it will work as advertised and there
is dependable as in the interface doesn't have to be relearned every
year. On the later, SW has taken their greatest strength, an easy to
learn and use interface, and made it a deficit by having to relearn it
every year. As to the former, well, do we really keep accurate track
of how many man hours are lost every year to crashes? Yesterday comes
to mind. Two hours for two engineers and then four hours for one to
rebuild a corrupted assembly.

I can't disaggree that many of the new things in 2004 and 2005 will
gain time, but in the context of the undependableness, that speed will
be lost to the bottom line.

 

Mostly, I agree Richard. As stated, SWX, like any other company, has to
strike SOME sort of balance between new features and improving current
functionality/performance. I personally think they are doing ok in this
respect. Nothing is ever perfect. You cannot please all of the people
all of the time.

Fact of the matter is SWX is improving the product along with adding new
features (as in 2005):
Flexible subs no longer need multiple configs (one of my biggest
complaints)
Tolerances are now configurable
Library feature are now configurable
Library features are now linkable (changing the library part file can
update that feature in all parts)
Continuous curvature conditions added to lofts
Better spline tools
Note enhancements
Interference detection improvements

This is just a small list of improvements SWX has made to existing
functionality (not new functionality). Of course there are areas
needing improvement that SWX has not addressed (yet). Or, you may feel
SWX has not gone far enough in certain improvements. Such is life; let
them know how you feel and move on. If there is another package that
better meets your needs, by all means use it.

As for some of the 'unnecessary' improvements such as more color in
icons, I have something to say about that as well... Yes, I agree many
of these changes may be minor, especially to veteran users, but look at
ProE. It might have had a very good, modern interface when it was first
introduced, but as time went on , ProE failed to update its interface to
reflect more modern trends. This, undoubtedly, cost ProE significantly
when other 'modern' competition like SWX came along. Also, generally, I
imagine these changes are not very intensive and require less effort
than other, more drastic changes.

A complaint I often hear is the amount of WORKAROUNDS needed. What many
seem to forget is they are in the business of WORKAROUNDS. Engineering
and design can be described as using WORKAROUNDS to solve problems.
Sure, I would love to design the perfect product with perfect
functionality, perfect reliability, perfect manufacturability, perfect
cost, and perfect marketability. Unfortunately, I will need to use some
WORKAROUNDS to get the job done, sacraficing in all areas.

Please understand, I am not trying to completely vindicate SolidWorks
here. I want to see improvements just as much as the next guy. I am
never satisfied, and I am sure SolidWorks corp. is never satisfied
either. I only wish to quell those who scream 'bloody murder' everytime
they find something in SWX they feel needs to be changed or improved or
included.

I only ask everyone to keep your criticism constructive and positive.
Thanks.

 

This is a perfect example of what some may have considered a feature
that's wasn't quite finished.

From what I've been able to deduce from listening to SolidWorks
employees, there is a sort of 'cut off point' for what should be included
in new features. They have to draw the line somewhere.

Either wait a few more releases for the perfect new feature, or get a
new feature that's kind of a "light" version of what SolidWorks
really intended in the first place.

It has to do with how much time they have and what they can get by
with, given their timeline AND how much customers are willing to
wait for new functionality.

The 'Convert to Spline' is another good example. They gave us a
feature that was half way there, which was better than nothing. Then
they made it associative in the next release.

Anyhow,

For me, there should be more priority for fixing outstanding SPR's
than there is now. Just "kick it up a notch".

I guess we need an adjustable lever of some sort...

Move the lever towards more SPR fixes while sacrificing new features.
I know they set severity levels, so just move a few more SPR's into the
severe category and chop off a couple of new features. That's all.

Mike Wilson

 

Both. In a perfect world, I would have a stable SW core with a variety
of cool 'plugins' to add just the functionality I want. If a new
version of a plugin misbehaved, replace it with the previous.

Not that this will ever happen. You asked what I wanted, not what I
expected.

Jim S.

 

Several of us have been chanting the "less is more" mantra for years,
sometimes more loudly than others.

I know SW is trying to do the right thing, even if it isn't as "right" as
folks sometimes hope. There were some cool functions that were "in there"
in 2005 but didn't make the cut. There were simply too many holes in the
functions, and SW did listen and did the right thing by taking them out.
They didn't take them all out, though.

In the beta contest, most of my submissions were related to the interface,
mold tools, splines, and surface functions. At least those are the ones
that stood out to me. If the beta period had continued, I and many others
could have continued to submit a stream of sprs on new functions. The new
spline functions look enticing in the PDF, but are disappointing in actual
use (c2 sketch relation and handles in general). Same with the c2 loft end
condition. And the mold tools, well I've posted before on the mold tools.

I think we all could have done without the deform push surface joke, and
the pathetic mold tools which are reportedly meant to benefit a couple of
geographically specific groups of people, which if true would make me and a
bunch of my mold/plastics designer friends very unhappy. Library Features
and Measure have taken a step backwards. Nothing was done to make Toolbox
less of a death trap for new and unwary users.

On the other hand, PDMWorks, sketching, Indent, Flex, and the new "multi-
user" functions are enhancements worth having. Most of my crashes have
been model specific on complex shape / surfacing models, but the number of
crashes has been relatively low compared to versions before 2004.

Developing commercial software is a complex balance of business and
technical issues. Amateur armchair software critique is somewhat less
honorable, and requires less skill. Sometimes SW succeeds and sometimes
they fail. Much like you and me, I suppose.

matt

 

Sean,

That is a great list! You should send it to your VAR and your SW area
representative. Get them to sit down with you and really understand what you
are asking for. Maybe something will get done!

I wish I could make such a good list for plastic part design.


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

I want to work less than 15 hours a day. Lately I've spending an ungodly
amount of time trying to get good files to the mold shops. If SW worked as
advertised, I'd be going home at a decent hour. So I would really appreciate
it if SW would spend more time getting functions to work correctly.

As I recall SW98+ was very nice, but limited in the "complex geometry" it
could develop. I don't remember the next couple of releases, except that it
was always supposed to be faster but actually seemed to be slower. I think
that SW01 was really bad for us, although we were dumb enough to use it.
SW01+ was usable, had some nice new functions, but was painfully buggy. SW03
was a total waste for us, as we never loaded it. There weren't enough new
useful functions to make up for the pain of new bugs. SW04 had nice new
features, but many of them, as well as many other from SW00 on up, don't
always work.

On the other hand, we will probably switch to SW05 as soon as possible
because we would really like some of the new functionality (surfaces and
splines). Of course, that assumes that we don't switch to another system
before SW05 gets to a state of usability.

As others have said, I'm not asking SW to quit developing new functionality.
I just want them to put a much higher priority on finding and fixing the
mistakes.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

:

A complaint I often hear is the amount of
WORKAROUNDS needed. What many
seem to forget is they are in the business of
WORKAROUNDS. ...............................
----------------------------------------------

I guess most designers / engineers would pride themselves on their
problem solving abilities, but the question should be: can you afford
to spend time fighting software that either is ill equipped for a
purpose or performs inconsistantly and still be competitive?

 

Keeping in mind of course that some "workarounds" are specific to a
companies internal standards and/or "the way we've always done it".

Richard

 

"Keeping in mind of course that some "workarounds" are specific to a
companies internal standards and/or "the way we've always done it"."

 

Its hard to keep your criticism constructive when you are spending 38
minutes waiting for your part to rebuild on a 3Gb machine (450 features,
400Mb file...gotta love parasolid data, bloat, bloat). Now I am spending way
more time at work because I cant get anything done in a reasonable amount of
time. What makes me even more happy is that while Im sitting here at 7pm
waiting for SWx to rebuild, my little daughter is at home growing up without
me.

I just want to get my work done. Dont tell me how to react...to keep my
criticism constructive and positive. Ill react any &%$# way I
want...especially while Im waiting for SWx to rebuild at 7pm!!!

Craig

 

Slow, stop, faster... in the ideal world we all would like everything
to work at all times, as other have stated. SWX, if you all remember
started out as a mechanical design package, for the most part. But I
think all will agree that they have come along way. Hitting the
program with tools and features never even imagined at the start. I
would dare say that, and take it with a garin of salt, listen to their
customers better than any other software package out there when it
comes to givinf us what we ask for.

Are there things that happen that we would much rather it not, sure.
Does SWX have a fair amount of work to do before it gets to the point
that we are all more than just a little bit happier. Without a doubt.

Imagine, if you will, if SWX came back with the next major release and
said "nothing new, just a complete 100% piece of software that does
X,Y,Z" (X,Y,Z all being what we are asking SWX to fix) You will most
certainly hear it from the "Hey want my only new features" crowd.
Also, because this is business and it is about market shares, how much
are you losing out in general as well as to the competition?

Stiking that balance, seems like SWX, like most have someways to go.
It ia all about my love / hate that we all have going on here. And I
dont think the answer is to go use some other package that will have
the one feature that SWX is missing just to have that one tool. If
that were the case, then you would be bouncing between so many
software packages, you friggin brain would explode.

 

I agree generally that less complexity and more stability is desired,
but agree it is difficult with what is arguably the most complex
consumer software out there.

After 20 years with personal computers (& 40 starting with an IBM
1620), I no longer load betas or first or 2nd releases. The pain and
lost time is just too much.

I just upgraded to SoliWorks 2004 in June, and at SP4 that was just
right. No major stability issues or bugs that affect my work.

And all this SolidWorks effort lets me achieve the hallmark of my
work: ... simplicity, small size, fewest pieces, easiest assembly...
It makes a difference in lower cost products for my company.

Bo

 

We're looking at SolidEdge, UG, Catia and Pro/E to get better surfacing. Got
any suggestions?

We tried it once and seemed to see an increase in crashes. Since crashes are
incredibly variable, perhaps we didn't give it enough of a chance. Anyone
else have any comments on RedLight and crashes?


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

I'd rather have all the bugs/stability fixed before more new features are
added. Many of the new features have bugs, adding to the list and to the
frustration of the users.
The extra time required for workarounds caused by bugs/lack of stability is
not offset by the new features.
SolidWorks is almost 10 years old, many users have been using it for more
than 5 years. We are disappointed that many bugs/problems go on, unresolved,
year after year.
Best Regards,
Devon T. Sowell
www.3-ddesignsolutions.com

 

Sean

Your list makes sobering reading.

I started a list a while ago, with a somewhat broader scope, and had to
stop, because it started setting itself to Leonard Cohen.

I stepped off the upgrade treadmill a year ago, with excellent results. I am
getting familiar with the limitations and bugs, now that they do not jump
about like an epileptic parrot.
Between us, I know of a major site (dozens of seats) which thought hard
about following suit, decided not to, and have since found that migrating to
SldWks 2004 has damaged their productivity to the extent that they are
almost certainly going to do the same when their current sub runs out.

When major clients start doing this, we are all poorer for it. In a mature
market, it's not sustainable to focus resources on chasing after new seats
while neglecting your core constituency to the extent that existing seats do
not stay sold.

Frankly I'm moving towards the point of view that SolidWorks is like a
parade float, built initially on very fine lines. Every year it reappears,
looking glitzier, higher and wider, piled with ever more and ever fancier
working displays, whizzing busily hither and yon.
You have to look closely to see that a few of the "working" displays do not
actually work. Others use varying amounts of smoke and mirrors to disguise
minor problems. The prime mover uses more diesel every year, but the road
speed is struggling to be maintained.

What bothers me is that the visionaries who first built this wonderful
edfice have lost sight of the need, and perhaps not solidified the culture
and skills, to keep maintaining and improving the chassis and armature. This
NEEDS to happen so it can support and survive the increasing indignities and
blossoming bending moments inflicted by the outer layers. In many cases, it
would be as simple as redesigning or strengthening a bracket, sometimes just
even tighening a bolt.
Furthermore, last year's last minute additions often don't get any further
attention, even though it was obvious that they weren't ready when parade
day came around.
The things which are getting fixed, by and large, are the things which are
so bad that people boo or get hurt.

If this situation is not taken seriously, it will eventually get to the
point where the float can no longer totter round the corners with sufficient
agility to stay in the parade.

 

I agree with you 100%.
I do special machine type stuff, very little surfacing, and if mirroring of
subassemblies actually worked (added in sw2001 ?) it would save me far more
time than the combined effect of all other features added since.
bill