Slow the proliferation of new stuff?

I find this thread interesting... I come from Autodesk world (as at least
one of you had mentioned as well). I hear the same basic discussion in the
Adesk groups... "why won't they fix the bugs and make it work instead of
adding in half-baked features that don't work properly." The thing is, it
is exponentially worse over there. SolidWorks seems to strike a nice
balance between stability and innovation, but Inventor (for example) is weak
in both areas. In a long term evaluation of both SW and Inventor, I was
able to crash IV much more often than SW. In comparing innovative features,
SW trumps them.

I still use Mechanical Desktop; in it I have gotten what many of you ask
for; NO new features, just fixed bugs (and stability). I hate it. Any
moderately difficult part is made up of the 'workarounds' that some of you
have discussed.

I saw where SW (and even Inventor) have progressed to, and I decided that
our company needed to go there as well (we're switching to SolidWorks).
Time will tell how stable it is--I believe it is more so than it's
competitors. I know that it's the most innovative of the bunch; while there
are a few tools that we currently need that don't exist in the product, I
believe that SW has the best chance of growing into a complete solution for
us.

None of the CAD options are perfect. SW is the best of the bunch though. I
belive that.

Brian

 

Swx may be the best of the bunch at the moment, but it they were to clean up
numerous
old defects (poorly functioning features, etc), they would have a much more
loyal
following, and the almost priceless marketing value of users that have a
high degree of trust
in the product. As it is now, I think many users continuously consider
alternatives.
Kind of comparing the brand loyalty of owners of a Mercedes vs a Chev.
Cavalier.
Both products get you down the road, but which one inspires pride of
ownership, etc.

It seems that a number of poorly implemented features have pretty much been
abandoned. In terms of
perceived quality, it would be better to drop the feature altogether, if it
can't be fixed.

Bill

 

In terms of perceived quality, it would be better to drop

At least categorize the functions according to reliability and advertise
truthfully so you know which ones are likely to be a waste of time. Software
"Lemon Laws" are looming in the not too distant future.

 

I think this is the crux of what most of us are saying.

Whether it is complex geometry in molds, drawings of large assemblies,
rework after a crash or corrupted file, relearning the interface or
any of a number of things, SW can cost a user plenty of time on a
regular basis because it is not stable enough, fast enough or
dependable enough.

And there is a real problem getting it stable enough because of the
difficulty capturing some of the problems we all have because they
don't fall into the nice neat repeatable category that seems to
generate SPRs and hopefully fixes.

 

Greetings all! Yes, for those that noticed my absence, I was fishing in
MN - waved to Corey on the way through Mpls. For more questions on the
great trip, start a new thread as that's not the subject of this one.

Anyway, from the programming side, it usually happens that you work on
something, get it at least somewhat functioning, show it to a few people,
and all of a sudden, you see many more possibilities for it than originally
perceived. It might be added functionality, handling an irrational
keystroke from the user, seeing that the original direction wasn't the best,
etc.

Either way, getting something working in front of people usually opens up
the mind to what-ifs that weren't thought of before. It's inevitable. I
think the flexible subs are a good example of SW getting a feature out
there, knowing that the current iteration had some limitations, but was
certainly usable and beneficial at the current state. How much it
contributed to crashes, I don't know, but there is some good functionality
there. Then after people used it for a while, improvements were recognized
and deemed worthwhile to spend resources on.

Perfect isn't going to happen, we all know that. I just try to understand
what works and what causes problems and work around that.

WT

 

I've spent WAY too much time chasing and running from bugs with my
AutoDesk products. I get the feeling that Solidworks is better in
this regard to some extent. But, for a long time I figgured that I was
better off with a program I knew inside-and-out because I already knew
the bugs could navigate the work-arounds easier that with a less
familiar program.

I think the bug issue is more luck-of-the-draw. Some companies run
trouble free, and others slam hard into a bug or two and suffer
greatly because of it. I would rather not take that chance

Give me rock-solid operation over new features anytime. New
features are always a liability.

Joe Dunfee

 

Thanks Brian
Since doing the SWX 2001+ 'Essentials' training I have been
vacillating over
which midrange MCAD modeler to invest in........(even considering
Alibre due
to its LOW cost; but who uses it & is it possible to make a living at
it?)
Finally decided against IV, mainly 'cos ADESK marketing strategy sh*ts
me!
Unimpressed by ACAD, specially their attempt at 3D; long-time user of
MicroStation (because Plant Design companies favour it, plus it
interfaces
with PDS) but its only slightly better than ACAD.
SWX developers (seem to) genuinely try to satisfy their customers, and
have
a reasonable attitude toward them. Your comments have helped
crystallise my
thinking. Probably I won't need very advanced features for the type of
work
I do but would most surely benefit from working exclusively in 3D.
So here goes!!

 

Alibre due to its LOW cost; but who uses it .....

Almost everyone; native format is STEP. 8~)
Do you foresee a need or desire to exchange native data?

Will it do what you need? If low price is a concern and you won't be demanding
more advanced features you might consider Pro/Desktop or a few others that run
in the 1 - 1.5 k US range.

3D: They are floundering. The software is overpriced based on capability and I
think the only reason they get away with it is the huge amount of legacy dwg
data and so many of those emerging acad flatlanders just don't know any better
and stick with the brand name (speaking from personal experience). Their
software has a few characteristics that would recommend to a limited set of
users, but not that many.

Just for the sake of discussion.....

 

Almost everyone; native format is STEP. 8~)

I meant that in jest, but just remembered seeing this in another group:

"A co worker of ours works with Alibre and is able to import my ProE .stp
files and manipulate dimensions, features and so on and measure the part."

There was a bit more to it and I thought it curious and have meant to look into
it. Anyone have any experience with it (and hope the OT nature of this will be
forgiven)?

 

I HIGHLY doubt this is true...

 

Dunno. Thought it was probably something kin to FeatureWorks, which for a cheap
program isn't too bad a deal. Honestly don't know, though.