Im sorry, but i have to disagree on this on.
Not the standards thing, but the notion that PTC delivers "quality applications".
I have newer had to Work a program, as much as Creo.
We have a user, thats just changed to Creo from WF4.
He has been on the phone with support... a lot, to find out how I (the cad admin) has fuc*** the program up.
Now support has then told him, in not so many words, that Creo is all f***** up, but, that ver m050 is better.
We are now waiting for the support, to release it, so that we can install it and test it.
An this is all without bothering about the gui... This is just the lack of stability, the lack of tool working as advertised and so on..
We are currently looking over our customer base, evalutating wich alternative, will give the best coverage.
The customers we have, that are using wf, we show this thread, and the 50 like it.
Basicly. The best upgrade from WF isnt Creo. The ONLY reason, for getting a Creo license, is for opening legacy stuff.
If your happy with WF... Stay there.
If you want to upgrade, Inventor(personal XP) or Solidworks(personal XP), are better mechanical offerings. Proberbly NX(No personal XP) or Catia(No personal XP) for surface modeling.
Again. I actually like Creo.. When it works.. but its broken
We have been on Creo 2.0 for over 8 months.. .I have not heard anyone complaining. Could you please give me some examples of what problems you are experiencing... either I may be able to help or you can forwarn me ...
Most of the issues I've seen on this thread concern the interface. Rest assured, in the CAD world, this is universal. The marketing department runs all the CAD companies, AutoDesk, Dassault (SolidWorks), etc. They insist on a new release every year, and there MUST be 6000 changes. Usually the engineers only have a couple dozen things to address, so they fill in the rest with change just to be changing. The user interface is particularly vulnerable, as that's all the marketers see (they usually have no idea and no concern how the software operates). The end result is a user interface that must be re-learned once a year, with no regard to the agony this causes the user. The CAD companies can do this because the software is bought by purchasers who also have no idea and no concern how the software operates. As long as it looks different, the marketers can say it's "new and improved", and as long as it looks different the purchasers will believe it. Accept it -- it's the business model.
I have worked at a host of very large companies and they all allowed some level of customization. Or maybe to put it a better way, I've never worked for one that didn't. Even large companies realize that workers are different and, therefore, work differently. Companies who treat their employees as if they've been stamped out by a cookie cutter end up with a fairly unhappy, unmotivated workforce. I'm all for standards... but even within an organization that has some fairly strict standards, there's still room for customization.
I've heard stories of companies that don't allow mapkeys, etc. Unless my family was starving, I'd walk out of such a place. The innovation and motivation of good people is often the only difference between a company struggling to get by and one that crushes the competition. For a simple 3-light stop light, I might agree that it's a good thing that all lights are the same. We're talking about something with 4000 little fiddly buttons and icons. It's not the same thing. By allowing employees to tinker and try out different scenarios, they'll naturally begin to optimize their workflows. No meddling middle manager from any company is better equipped to decide what icons should be displayed on a screen than the poor sap who actually uses the software every day.
So I say standardize- yes... but users should have the ability to customize, too. Companies that offer free coffee also offer cream, sugar, splenda, equal, and perhaps tea, too. They don't just give you the coffee and tell you to drink it black or don't drink it at all! Customization... within reasonable limits... is a good and expected thing.
Now id have to agree.
When i get the chance, i make tools, mapkeys, and im trying to get Jlink going.. Im just the kind of guy thats to laaaazy to change the drawing head, or customer name, on 500 parts or even print drawings, sorted for the right printer.. By hand. One by one.
Once i have a tool, i document, what it does, and more important, what it doesnt, and perhaps even, if it has its small flukes/bugs, that i just didnt need to remove, to get the job done.
Then i share it, at the next cad meeting.
Now In in a previus setting, i did a print manager for inventer. This alone saved 3 work days, per print cycle, made savings in paper use, and made i possible to print a project, over nigth, releasing the printers for the dayly work.
Now Creo doesnt have a decent macro language, and im.. despite my best effort still not able to get jlink working. So for now, i do really creo.. sorry crappy hacks in Autoit.
Back to the point.
Normaly when people see the tools, they have an idea for a tool themselves... They just have no idea how to create them.. So i make their tools as well. Document, and distribute.. How else to get efficient ?
So standard are great.. for the end result, and perhaps even for things like skeltons, coordinate system and so on. But for a user interface ???.
An IT manager once asked me.. What then when youre gone, and the tools dont work in the next version ??
My answer.. You will be back to where we are now, exept you wont have the productivity gains in the mean time. Now i did a macro, saved in a part, designed to "spread the virus... ehh tools". And it worked. All a user / IT manger had to do, was run the part, accept that it would point to the macros. and presto. Working system. Now i have done something similar in Creo, because this i one really cranky program. Some config.pro settings have to be set one way to create some objects, and another for others..
The ONLY cad program, i know of, where the default settings are unusable.
Never said anything about mapkeys... I think you are talking about an extreme. I am talking about things like Drawing configurations, Config options set up to improve network speed.. Things that without a doubt improve performance. You started off stating we should have an open source system so users could develop their own interface??? That is a bad idea. For the most part the interface is one of the key factors that differentiate one CAD system from the other. I have lived this environment... everyone has their own opinion of where the icons should be. So in the end I think we agree for the most part...
I, too, am very lazy in the same way as you. I'm so lazy, I'll stay up nights and weekends working on macros and time-saving tools so I don't have to do the same work over and over. I'll put in 20 hours to save 3 minutes per drawing. To me, that seems like a fair exchange. I don't always know if my efforts are going to 'break even' but when they save me work, I feel like they're worth it. Every once in awhile I create something that saves hours or even days. Once you've done that, you sort of get addicted to trying to find more clever ways to save time and effort. Not every effort pans out but the ones that do are such a boost to productivity, they're well worth the time spent.
Just FYI, I do have a couple of tricks I can share that allow you to automate or skip filling in a title block (or "drawing head" as you called it). I also can help you automate the same repetitive task over hundreds of models without using AutoIt.
I've been dying to share the title block thing for quite awhile but I've never had the time to properly document it. The technique involves a combination of drawing parameters and a drawing program executed by a mapkey. At my job, we have about 30 text fields on our title blocks. We're not at a point where we can use Windchill to handle the data. For now, it's all on the field of the drawing in the title block. With one mapkey, I can fill in 95% or more of all the title block information. I can also update a drawing with new information with just a single button.
On the model side, there are other threads where I've demonstrated how to use a trail file to process an unlimited number of files automatically. By "process", I mean starting with a list of Creo models, opening a model from the list, performing a series of steps, saving the model, and then repeating the process on the next model in the list. I just shared this trick with someone at my job who used it to process over a thousand models in about an hour.
If any of these tricks seem interesting to you, let me know. I am a bit under water at the moment trying to prepare for the PTC Live Event in Anaheim but I'd be happy to share as time allows.
Gimme gimme :-)
Ever since i found out, that a for loop, isnt used to pause a C64 program, i was hooked.
Then a robot programmer quit, and i had to program the robots, so i got into Rapid (ABB) programming.
Then Inventor had a plain stupid way of handeling prints, and that ment i had to go into Vba programming
Then we had a fanuc, a KUKA, a MOTOMAN.
And then i started for my self, programming Melfa robots ( well anything anyone wanted to pay me for)
Then i got kids, and now im working Creo, Learning to combine mapkeys, autoit, vbscript and finally vba in some of our excel sheets.
And id looove to learn more.
both mapkeys and trail files, have the problem, og only working, if everything is just right.
So i have a mapkey, that calls an autoit script, to start a mapkey. That starts a new drawing, with the model name, and if i comes with an error. Autoit captures it, an runs another mapkey, that opens the open file dialog, where autoit, enters the filename... UGLY, but it gets the job done.
I always have a problem quantifying for my boss, that working 1½ day on saving 3 min, is a good deal.. .But once it works. he normaly comes around..
Do you have any xp with using Jlink ?
I don't know... I think having the possibility of designing your own custom interface is a good thing.
I worked on CV Medusa for years and years. I developed a custom interface that was an order of magnitude faster and more efficient than the out-of-the-box interface. I took that custom interface to Amp Incorporated which, at the time, was a massive CV Medusa customer and also the largest installation of Pro/E at over 900 seats. This was before companies like Caterpillar and John Deere had jumped in. This customization was not small... it was a complete reinvention of the entire interface. There were custom applications, screens, toolbars, colors... the works. This saved hundreds and hundreds of hours across the entire organization. And these were just the ideas and contributions of one person... little ol' me. Imagine if we could do something like that and leverage the entire community of PTC users.
I understand your concern that it seems like it could be a huge disaster. Not everyone will want to change the out of the box configuration. But every time this has been tried, it's worked out for the best... it hasn't been a disaster. Apple and Google don't develop every tool and app for their gadgets... other creative, talented people do. Many people write their own apps (some good, some bad) in the hopes that their little app will become the next "Angry Birds" thus making them rich. Why not provide that kind of open environment for the Creo interface so creative, talented, artistic people can take a crack at coming up with something better?
I mean, let's think out of the box here. Why are we stuck with the interface PTC gives us? Why can't the interface be something more? We're talking about a few hundred icons that "do some function". You press the icon and it does something. Big tickle. What's the big deal. Why can't we change the icons PTC gives us? Would that be so hard?
You can do this kind of thing in other applications. Hell, you can do this in other PTC applications. Creo Schematics is based upon Medusa... which, as I said, could be customized like crazy. At one point there were "trays" in Medusa where you could build your own interface. Does that functionality still exist buried somewhere in Creo Schematics? Maybe. Creo View has tools that can be accessed from within Microsoft Office. You can make your own little interface to operate Creo View from within Office. Is that so different than what I'm suggesting?
This is nothing that hasn't been done before... it just takes a bit of imagination and foresight. If PTC were to develop an open and customizable interface, the user community would embrace it. I'm sure of it.
I love your enthusiasm... and your passion... but if everyone has a different interface how do you train users?