Community Tip - Stay updated on what is happening on the PTC Community by subscribing to PTC Community Announcements. X
The parametric sketcher is horrible. What I could do in AutoCAD in 10 minutes is a complete struggle.
Why can't PTC create a good dwg and detailing package?
And I'm not even going to comment in depth on the absurd ribbon.....
Maybe its protected as a historical monument so they cant touch it . Seriously they need to redo sketcher in drawings same way it works in Creo layout and add some stuff to model sketcher also, like patterning. I always thought they would make Layout something like Acad lite thingy but they seem to just show that they can do this but its "so haaaard!" so they will stop half way.
I mean, they COULD make the parametric 2D sketcher SO nice, but it's just infuriating. I just fudged it and went on. Not the way I'd prefer, but you have to deal with the tool you have I suppose.
The hardest thing for me is that we hired 2 young new Engineers who'd used Solidworks, and while I'm training them on Pro/E (and it's quirks) I have to listen to them tell me how much better SW is..... And in some cases they're totally right. It's infuriating....
Hello, Frank,
I understand you.
But if you have the opportunity to review this webcast, it can could help.
But I understand that you do not have creo 2?
Cordially.
Denis
Is there an english version?
Hello, Scott,
Should inquire at PTC, they had probably make a English version.
Cordially.
Denis
Manage them out of the company as soon as possible. It's the only way to be sure. They don't want to learn Pro/E and will continue to resent you for pushing it. It will become personal and they will constantly work to remind non-CAD managers that SW is less expensive and faster and not old fashioned Pro/E and that you are standing in the way of a management cost-savings bonus. The best case is the newbies decide to go elsewhere. The worst case - everyone stays there hating each other.
Interesting point David. That came up again this morning when one of the Engineers, who I like actually (I like both new guys, actually), said he was going to do something in SW because it was faster/easier. I debated sending a letter off to the boss, warning him of this kind of stuff. This makes me want to actually do it. I won't debate them that windchill s#cks, because, well, it totally does. But I'm in no way convinced SW is better/easier, and it screws things up for the rest of us because it can't be used by anyone else or even vaulted properly. I think it's a bad idea to use SW for anything other than as an "import doctor", and will do nothing but bite us, as it has in the manufacturing dept. over in the corner.
Thanks for the input!
If the boss doesn't already know, don't tell him. Odds are it will appear as if you are a problem and you may know how that turns out.
Funny story - had a wunderkind a while back who decided that CADDS was too hard to use, so he'd just head home in the afternoon to AutoCAD it. He got a better offer and left. Shortly after he was gone, the boss had some design changes he wanted, but of course there was no in-house supporting data - it was gone with the wunderkind. The good news was that, in spite of all the time the wunderkind saved himself, it didn't take long to reproduce the geometry.
I've had this problem with contractors that come in and save the world, only to find months or years later that the world is a bigger mess than before. I think there is a movie theme in there somewhere
....and at least ONE sequel......
Well, I did write him an e-mail expressing my concern, citing issues the other dept. has, and how that's also a problem for me because they always come to me to try and help.....only to find that the files are "somewhere/nowhere" on maybe someone's hard drive.....in SW.
The boss wrote back that he saw my concerns, and would keep an eye on it.
We'll see.
Frank, come on, WF5 was a quick shot to show 'here, we have a ribbon UI'. It is bad and they should propably have skipped WF5 completely...
It functions at lot different and -believe it or not- better in later versions, object action AND action object...
And who needs a sketcher in 2D drafting? We are all going 'MBD' sooner or later anyways... (ok, that was a bit sarcastic. Coming from Germany I know how hard it is to convince people that they do not need a drawing...)
Bad is an understatement, it's horrible. Unfortunately, we're stuck on it for now, so, until corporate decides to change, we lose tons of productivity. The fact that they've put chocolate sprinkles on the turd that is the ribbon in later versions doesn't make it any more appetizing, and completely useless for those of us stuck on creo. I have never seen a worse release from PTC in the almost 18 years I've been using it. I agree, they should have never put it out there as lame as it is. It's PTC's "Vista".....
The "object action AND action object" garbage started in WF never made any sense to me. I STILL forget which comes first because obviously the developer, who must not actually USE the software, has a different opinion of what comes first than those who use it. The old menus made far more sense because they were all consistent. Maybe not as intuitive as they could be, but they were simple and legible (unlike icons) and once you had mapkeys, as us power users quickly did, who cares?
Actually, I doubt dwgs will ever go away. There's things you can convey that you just can't easily do in the model. I needed it the other day to show wire routing without having to model it all in 3D. The fact that the sketcher and other tools in dwg mode is STILL pathetic is indicitive of their attitude of placing the profits first and customer last.
Well Frank, I can name you some innovative companies who have already kicked out drawings altogether in some divisions like tool making...
Certain industries, perhaps. Can you document how to assemble an enclosure full of electronics and how to route the wires without a dwg? Or how to specify textures in areas on plastic parts? How to define area where ejector pin marks or gating can go? How about marking of a part where, say, a logo is molded and an insert can be canged out to get a different logo? I'd say no to all that, and more.
There are always going to be some cases and industries where it will never be possible to go completely paperless in the forseeable future.
Hello, Constantin, Frank,
Constantin, I quite agree with you.
Frank, my first job in 1964, I was a draftsman, drawing board and panthograhe, etc..
Then there was the CAD assisted with technical drawing.
Now with CNC and distribution of CAD workstations consultation, you can have access to the latest version of the play at any time
and to make information on the room where you will, that would not necessarily be in the drawing.
There some time, working with subcontractors who needed send drawings.
At the slightest change, they must return us the old drawings before receiving new with reception control, etc..
In-house production is possible, but nothing tells us that there is no an old copy of the drawing in the factory (by experience).
Cordially.
Denis
Tell the guy out in the field who's fabricating something that he doesn't need a dwg.....especially someone like welders, pipefitters, etc.......
...or the inspection people that like drawing numbered bubbles all over your drawing for their inspection report.
The discussion of drawings or no drawings is very like the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
It is unlikely that a company would continue to demand drawing production if it was no longer necessary, and suicidal for a company to quit making them in the case where they are necessary.
For companies that have a simple procurement stream, no matter how complex the resulting item, it is possible and even a good idea to remove complex descriptions from drawings and put them into shared documents**. If this is pursued to its logical conclusion, there is no need for a drawing. Molded plastic parts, for example, can be based on a set of agreed-to tolerances and textures can be represented by placing surfaces on named layers with the actual textures described in other documents.
Companies that have complex streams can never give up drawings. Drawings are inspection acceptance documents. If you work in an industry that requires external oversight (customer pays for and requires delivery of drawings) then there has to be documentation of what constitutes an acceptable item. Government and defense contracts almost always require these documents in order to ensure that anyone, even without access to the original models, is able to verify that items they purchase meet the original requirements.
What I find ridiculous about MDB is that at least as much effort is put into creating view orientation-specific notations as is done to put views and locate dimensions on conventional drawings. What makes it ridiculous is that even a tiny drawing has more room for/higher density of information. Crappy resolution on a laser printer is 300dpi. A 4k screen, just coming out, is similar in information capacity as a 14 inch sheet of paper. Working with that info on a screen is like driving a car while looking through a toilet paper tube. And, printed out, quickly applied notes, flipping between multiple sheets, no need for a keyboard, impact resistance, are all things a paper document can handle that no computer screen can offer as an output.
Creating drawings is an output for the purpose of informing others of the requirements for determining whether an item will be useful in the intended use, an output that can require depictions that aren't always supported in the model. They aren't always needed, but in many cases they are indispensable. It would be nice if PTC could see the value in better supporting this highly intertwined product description that is critical to profits for many of their customers.
**This is the value of documents like ASME Y14.5 and the ISO counterparts. Everything in those documents could be in notes and diagrams on drawings, but it simplifies things to have the complexity separate.
Hello, Frank, Scott,
Have you been able to find information to help you in the set plans.
Cordially.
Denis