Before I start, I should declare that, ever since I first encountered Pro/E, back in 1994, I have always said that Pro/Detail is a stinker. I told the PTC salesman so, on the day I signed the order. I avoid using it whenever possible. I'll model anything, but I hate having to detail it. That said, I am willing to accept that it has its good points. I just don't know what they might be.
For the record, we currently use Pro/E wildfire 2, although I have used almost every release there has been since 1994.
Now for the more objective side of this discussion:
We have recently taken on an undergraduate in his placement year. He is a Mechanical Engineering student. He had used SW, briefly, at university, but never Pro/E.
On his arrival, I gave him a tutorial to work through, which, being young, he polished off in next to no time. No doubt he has no trouble with the remote control for the TV, either!
I then gave him a 'real' task; we needed an engineering change to an existing part. The existing part was drawn by hand, many years ago, so it needed modelling before the drawing change could be done.
He modelled it, from scratch, having had some 7 days' experience of Pro/E. I kept a distant eye on him, but mostly let him go his own way. Simultaneously, I modelled the same part. Afterwards, we compared his model to mine, side by side, on adjacent monitors. With a very few exceptions, he had modelled it the same way as I had (Note: I like to think that is a good thing). As you might reasonably expect, it took me only half a day, or so, compared to his 3-4 days, but that's as it should be. I gave him a few pointers on what he could have done differently and why.
That done, we set out to do the same with the drawing.
He made his drawing. I (reluctantly - see above) made a drawing in parallel. I even had to ask for help at one stage The shame...
He hit more snags, asked for help more times, got completely stuck more often, and was rendered almost speechless with anger more frequently, during the first day, than he was during the entire modelling process. The whole sorry exercise was extremely frustrating for him, simply because the drawing package in Pro/E is so difficult and unrewarding to use. he also made a comment to the effect that the experience had been much less frustrating in SW. Everything is there, everything is possible, but almost everything is tortuous and frustrating to use. Making a drawing in pro/E is simply not a pleasant way to pass a day, where making a model is. That's the bottom line, I think.
It has always seemed to me that my long-standing antipathy towards the Pro/detail package, and towards drawings in general, may have coloured my judgement as release after release came and went. However, the experience of this one young chap, who found the modelling process so simple and enjoyable, seems to have vindicated my point of view completely. Note, I am not triumphant, nor pleased, just disappointed.
Remember, this was not an exercise in becoming an expert draughtsman overnight. It was an exercise in using a productivity tool to re-create an existing paper drawing in electronic form.
I am aware that there have been many improvements in Pro/Detail in later releases, right up to Creo 2. However, I am also aware that at least some of the people who are extolling the virtues of these improvements are the same people who have consistently defended the package for all these years. What with the well-documented hatred of the much-vaunted ribbon interface in the drawing context by the majority of the user base, and my natural suspicion regarding the real substance of the improvements, I will not be holding my breath ...
Clearly, the Pro/Detail package in WF2 is, and will remain, what it is. Equally, the production of drawings, however distasteful it may be to me personally, will remain an integral part of mechanical engineering design for many years to come. I hope that this real-life, somewhat objective, example goes some way towards helping PTC prioritise improving the usability of the package, because, without that priority, it must needs become increasingly hard to compete with other software, such as SW.
I know there have been many discussions like this before, with widely differing opinions on either side of the debate. This time, however, I have at least tried to start off 'evidence-based'.
I look forward to hearing other people's experiences in similar circumstances.
I, too, am a prior SW user, as well as Catia and Inventor. The majority of my experience is in Catia.
Pro drawing, what little experience I've had with it, is horrid. There are many scary tales on this forum about the idiocracy of doing drawings in Pro and what hoops have to be jumped through to accomplish one. And don't get Antonius started on the GD&T aspect of Pro.......it makes me quake in fear. I've worked in Aerospace and am getting ready to go back into it, and THANKFULLY not on Pro. GD&T is intregal to Aerospace drawings and is used frequently.
SW drawing portion IS very robust. It is very easy. And PRO could go a loooooooooooooong way to learn something from SW in that regard.
While I realize Pro is powerful, it most certainly isn't easy to pick up. It goes against not only common 3D modeling and drafting conventions, it goes against Windows conventions as well. I KNOW it was ported from another operating system. That being said, if the company makes a commitment to port to another OS, they should follow through and make the software operate with the conventions particular to that OS. Long right click mouse function? Where did that come from in Windows? NOWHERE.
Out of all the 3D programs I've used, I like Pro the least. I will be back in SW after this week and can say I'm very happy about that. Pro has some serious issues that need fixed....there was another post on here about how Pro had been left dormant in regards to leadership and I think that's left parts of Pro woefully inadequate. 3D designers need a robust drawing package. Not many companies run strictly on 3D models yet, and it's possible they never will. The Pro drawing package needs a serious overhaul.
Kris Rowlands wrote:
It goes against not only common 3D modeling and drafting conventions
Can you give some examples of what you're referring to? Just wondering if I'm misunderstanding what you are referring to.
Well, John, I can very much relate. I have chosen to stay on WF4 because, well, frankly, detailing in creo flat s##ks. The ribbon is the worst interface ever. I don't think you could make it any worse if you tried. SRSLY. There are even some weird things in modeling (stupid simplified reps window) that I hate. As there's so much that I hate vs. new stuff that I "like", I'm going to stay on WF4 indefinately. It's SO much more effecient and faster.
Honestly, coming from AutoCAD which I used from '86 (v2.18) to starting on Pro/E on v15 in mid-96, I can say that the 2D package in A/C flat smokes the 2D capabilities in Pro/E. enough so that sometimes I'd create geometry for symbols in A/C, then import them into Pro/E. I like that in A/C you can snap to endpoints, midpints etc. of EVERYTHING, wereas in Pro/E you can't. Also, When I need to move text around, don't just give me some friggin' box, actually SHOW the text as I move it. I like that I have more control over the entities of a dimension in A/C, but I LOVE the snap lines and the the way the dimensions themselves can be manipulated. Yep, dealing with GD&T s##ks in Pro/E, no doubt. I'm contemplating making a set of non-parametric symbols for use in dwgs, just like I did way back in the day for A/C.
WF4 is a very good improvement over WF3 or WF2 (especially using flexible parts in assemblies and their BOM's), but I would stay away from creo like the Bubonic Plague. You think you're hating life now, just wait.......
I think we all feel your pain John. I just think none of us know what to do about it.
I've had numerous conversations with PTC salesmen, developers, support personnel, even product line managers. The concensus is always the same... PTC doesn't focus on the 2D drawing. The same people have all said this goes back to the very founding priciples of the company.
Well... Marxism had founding principles that were rigid and unmovable, too. How's that working out for them? Software is a business like anything else. The rules of business in today's environment can be summed up as follows: Adapt or die. The landscape is littered with the remains of companies who couldn't adapt, change, and flex with the market. How's Kodak doing? What about Hechingers? Circuit City? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I understand PTC's principled stand against 2D. We get it. We've gotten it for 20 years.
SolidWorks didn't give a hoot about taking a principled stand. They decided they were going to give the customer whatever in the world they wanted. They wanted market share. The world has proven time and time again that just making the best mouse trap doesn't necessarily mean success.
I worked for a company in the early 2000's called Corvis Corporation. The telecom equipment we made was literally faster than anything the world has ever seen before or since. It was literally a better mouse trap... faster, cheaper, more robust, more intelligent, the true wave of the future. Stock soared to almost $120 on the first day of trading. Just three years later... $.01 We went from having a higher market capitalization than General Motors (over $30 BILLION) to... about $9.95 in three years. Why? Because making a technically better product does win market share... and it doesn't gain customers.
So what do we do? I've joined the Detailing Technical Committee to try to push for 2D enhancements. Frankly, the TC has been a bit of a disappointment so far. I've been advised to submit a list of relevant enhancements and they'll be considered in January at the next face-to-face TC meeting. I get the impression even the technical committee is just treading water. It feels like anyone who might make the case to PTC that the detailing package needs an overhaul has long since given up the fight.
Now we're relegated to asking for useless features ... like adding HTML links to drawing notes... or shaded views on a drawing. Anyone who cared about 2D just learned to be quiet because the issue has been declared dead by PTC.
This is pretty sad. It's the one place PTC hasn't started listening to it's customers. For all the progress that's been made this one area is stubbornly stuck in the mud. As I've said numerous times, PTC has a world class 2D CAD system already in it's stable (Medusa). for awhile they were selling this as a 2D add-on. I'm sure it didn't sell well and they took this to mean people didn't want the features the tool offered. Who knows. I never used the Pro/E+Medusa hybrid drawing package... but I was an ace at Medusa in the 1990's. When I had access to both, I could easily do more work faster in Medusa than I could in Pro/E for at least the first 3 years. Regenerations alone just killed Pro/E productivity.
Everything you could ever want plus the ability to perform global modifications to sheet elements using the internal 2D programming language to Medusa made it a really wonderful package to work in. In all candor it rivaled AutoCAD for years and years. PTC owns it... and... stuffed it in mothballs.
I believe PTC feels the time for drawings is rapidly coming to a close. You can almost hear the wheels turning."Yeah we probably should've done more with drawings in the late 90's and easly 2000's but NOW we've finally turned the corner.... paperless drawings will be here in the next 2-3 years!" Wrong again.
What the company fails to calculate is that many government entities don't change quickly. Machine shops also don't change quickly. There are some early adopters but by and large you still have to hunt for a vendor (machinist) will to work totally paperless.
Look... the United States has tried two or three times to "Go Metric" and it just never seems to work. It's like PTC is saying "we will not support Imperial dimensions because Imperial dimensions are on the way out!" The same is true for drawings. Yet PTC is digging in it's heels like a petulant child who won't eat it's broccoli. As customers all we can do is beg, plead, work on the technical committees, and vent our frustrations in blog and discussion threads. For those fed up enough, they'll move to SolidWorks who are only too happy to welcome them into the Borg-like "hive".
I don't know what to do about it other than complain... and after 20 years, even complaining is getting old. It would certainly help if more people would join the PTC/User Technical Committee though. Geeez... someone needs to toss some smelling salts into the middle of that group and wake them up!
Thanks for letting me take a rare moment to vent. Back to cheerfully helping everyone and acting like this stuff doesn't bother me.
Wow! Awesome post, as usual! I think that's the common theme; Instead of listening to what the customer wants, they're busy dictating to the customer what they feel the customer should have. Wrong.
It's tough to stay positive sometimes... but I'm going to keep working through the proper channels. I'm going to play the game and take my concerns to the Technical Committee using the best persuasive tactics I have to get them heard and voted up the list. Hopefully we'll present the best ideas from me and other concerned members to PTC and the process will work... and the developers will hear us.
Until that process doesn't work... or breaks down... I have to put my faith in it and do my best to advocate for detailing improvements this way. I'm not going to assume the worst... I'm going to hope for the best and do what I can to move the software forward.
Cross your fingers!
I wish you (and PTC) the best! I think if they truly listen, we can get back on track.
I was asked once to be on the TC by the VP of Variable Section Sweeps. I was very much looking forward to working with them......until I guess they found out I'd been critical of Windchill......then I could never get a response after that. Too bad, as I had some pretty cool geometry to work with them on:
I'm still feeling my way with the Technical Committees. They're run by PTC/User which is an independent entity from PTC.
When I ran into the PTC/User people at the Orlando conference, I chatted them up for awhile. I also asked them some tough questions about their membership, level of activity, their website, etc. They bristled at some of the questions.
On Planet PTC Community, I do my very best to stay positive, upbeat, professional, friendly, and helpful. Out of respect for my employer and an even deeper respect for NASA, I always aspire to represent them in the best possible light. But in person when I'm afforded bit more privacy and my words aren't being digested by hundreds of users and PTC employees, I can be more direct.
I straight up asked the PTC/User people why their website looked as though it hadn't been updated since 1998. I asked why they gave up control of the user conference to PTC... and if they were still involved in planning the event or if they'd given that up, too. I asked why the email exploders were slowly fading into silence. I asked why the RUGs (regional user groups) were disappearing. And finally I asked why the TC's didn't appear to be doing more to carry enhancement requests up the line to PTC. You would've thought I pulled a wrestling move and clotheslined the poor guy. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I had limited time to speak to a million vendors and colleagues. Plus I was making last minute additions to my own presentation and I didn't have time to mince words.
After I realized the stunned look on the gentleman's face I recognized that I may have offended him! So I spent a few minutes taking their survey and trying to give constructive feedback with a little less "directness". I got the impression that PTC/User is made up of people who want to do the right thing... but they're a volunteer organization. They're understaffed and shoveling against the tide. I realized the real problem wasn't PTC/User... it was a lack of participation, leadership, support from the community. So I came back to work and decided to contribute as much as I could. I've joined the PTC/User email exploders so I can answer questions there, too. I've made plans to start a new RUG to replace the ones that have gone defunct. I've joined more TC's and have been encouraging others to join as well.
In short... PTC/User needs some help. They need some fire, some passion, and a whole lot more participation. The whole PTC community of users needs the same thing.
Frank, you'd be great on a Technical Committee. If you could refrain from some of the more "colorful" analogies, I'm certain people would stand up and applaud you. You don't need an invitation to join... you can sign up yourself. There's some sort of approval process but I don't believe too many people are turned away. I'd love to see you sign up and start channeling some of your energy into firing up the TC's. They could use an influx of people with conviction and ideas and I think you'd fit in well.
To sign up for a TC, log into PTC/User at www.ptcuser.org and view the list of available TC's HERE
I just love being in the company of upbeat and excited Pro/Detail users
I too have used a lot of systems over the years and I've been able to avoid (like a plague!) all of AutoDesk's offerings. I can say, however, I don't have a favorite detailing module... not Pro/E, not UG NX, not S/W, not Cadkey, the closest I ever came to actually enjoying detailing was ComputerVision. The bottom line is, unless you are a -very- good draftsman or an engineer that is willing to manage the intricate details of your design, you won't really like detailing in any form on any system. I've worked with some brilliant minds in the industry, but rarely do I find one of these minds that can actually finish what they start (DFM). Even people that are charged with having to -finish- and -vette- a project are too busy making busy work than actually doing their jobs. It is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with competence in the industry.
I am one of those rare breeds that likes to turnkey an entire design. I -chose- to go back into Pro/E. I can drive this system to levels few ever achieve on any CAD system. From 2000i, to WF3, and now Creo... it honestly hasn't changed one bit! Now for the caveats... if you work for an organization that demands associative -everything- from the model to the drawing, good luck! If your organization locks (read only) their models and expects you to make "good" drawings without -any- changes to the model... good luck! If you don't have the patience to learn the quirks of every CAD system's detailing package you ever used, you're in the wrong business. And as others have suggested... Apply KISS! My output is that piece of paper that comes scrolling out of the whirrr-pop-click:click-fuzzzzzz.... machine that spits out paper with black lines, archaic symbols and some text on it. That piece of paper represents all my sweat... and it stands on its own. No CAD system, no reader.. no windows... nothing else supports -my- design than a collection of diagrams in the hands of professionals that know how to interpret them.
There is only one thing I ask of PTC... a functional system; from Help Systems; Comprehensive Menus; and versatile detailing tools that do what -I- need them to do. If I want to document a 1/10 degree dimension, the system should do it, no questions asked, or obscure settings preventing me from doing it. A grid snap should flip with a switch on every detailing menu; A section view should be generated on the fly from any view... What I can do with a pencil and eraser should be doable in -my- favorite CAD system. Since that system doesn't exist, I think I have pretty much what I can expect.
I have 10 more months to decide if I will stay with PTC. No one is driving me to PTC. And I now own Creo 2.0. I also own Cadkey and still use it... and I'm sure I will own S/W at some point. I quit upgrading my PTC when I made less using Pro/E than they wanted for maintenance. I was making my living with Cadkey at the time. I can drop maintenance just as quickly if PTC gets a big head again. I'm still waiting to be impressed. Otherwise, it is just carrying on with what I know.
As for ASME Y14.41... the ship came and went. People using it have their shops in-house or pretty much have their shops by the nads. You -still- need to know what you are doing as an engineer or detail drafter. It really is -no- different. Something, be it a fabrication agreement, standard shop practices, or the complete detail spelled out on the model... something to know exactly what you want made. If you can do Y14.41, you can draw the drawing. Technically, the "paperless" module is just as clunky as the "detail" module. But if you want to reduce COGS in your organization and you need to have the world quote your designs, nothing beats paper except paper that stands on its own. NOTHING!
Holy cow Antonius... Epic.
I agree completely.
PS: ComputerVision is basically Medusa which is the 2D cad package I referred to that PTC now owns... so I agree with you there, too!
Wow, that's a flash to the past. I was introduced to CAD in the CV CADDS4X 3D mainframe. CV was a great adaptation to "paperless" at the time with a great ANSI Y14.5 implementation. Once the PC made their way to desktops (PC AT), they put out a brief 3D version PC version not mentioned in the Wiki.
Ahh, geez... I would think there is config.pro option for almost anything but this.
Wish I knew this before.
Thanks for the tip.
Refrain....refrain......pardon dear sir, I know not this word. I shall Google it forthwith!
Isn't there a light at the end of the the tunnel....
The Creo switch admitting that 2D isn't dead and has it's place in modern product development thus resulting in Creo Layout. I believe Mike Campbell mentioned at PTC Live that some of the technology from Creo Layout would be added to Creo Parametric detailing in the coming releases...maybe Creo 3.0...
It would be great if the same techology was used in modeling sketcher as well.
The light at the end of the tunnel might just be a guy with a flashlight.
I cannot hang my hopes on Creo Layout- a product that was supposed to be released with Creo 1.0, but got pushed back to 2.0. It's also a product with the absolute thinnest amount of documentation. I haven't even been able to RUN the thing to evaluate it.
Thus, I feel I cannot regard this (until recently vaporware) product as the 2D drawing savior. After 20+ years of hearing "it will be fixed in the next revision", I have to be a bit skeptical. What's the saying... Fool me once, shame on you... fool me 21 times... well I must be a complete fool!
Sounds like hyperbole doesn't it... "21 times"! Surely it can't be 21 times! But hey just for the heck of it let's count... starting from rev 9 (10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19, 20, i, i^2, i^3, 2001, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, Creo1, Creo2). Remember rev 18 was skipped due to performance problems... so that makes 21.
I've used them all... and I'm still waiting for those drawing enhancements. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. When I can draw a box in detailing mode by picking two points, maybe we will have made some progress. Let's see if it's there, shall we?
Nope. Not yet!
I have only been fooled 7 times as we started with the WF release....
I know that they did not deliver Creo Layout as promised and I'm yet to decide how useful it is or if it's more a marketing hype with the 2D to 3D and back associative reuse. Still the way it works is on a different level compared to the horrible sketching environment in detailing. There are some video tutorials on http://learningexchange.ptc.com/
I believe that Creo 3.0 will determine the developing pace of PTC. It's difficult to know how long they had been working on Creo before they announced it. Still I'm happy to see that they went back to yearly releases in stead of every second year so hopefully this should bring us many improvements unless everey release only contains a few new features.
Let me also say that your metaphor of the old house in another thread was spot on!
Thanks! I always love a good metaphor.
I like the yearly release cycle. Back in the very old days, they used to have TWO full releases a year! That was crazy!
I went looking for Creo Layout today only to find I still cannot download it. I downloaded the very latest Creo 2.0, too. I thought maybe it was bundled in. I seem to remember someone from PTC saying it would be out in M020 or M030 of Creo 2.0
I looked at the videos and read the technical documents I could find. I can tell you... if they took Creo Layout and made it the basis for a revised 2D package, I'd be very happy. First, there's a RECTANGLE command front and center on the menu! Hooray!
But I can also tell you from looking at the material, that's not what they're trying to do. It's all about turning 2D sketches into 3D. I can just tell that's the goal... and it's the ONLY goal. They're just not going to budge on this whole 2D drawing thing. For pete's sake... all they need to do is take Creo Schematics, add in the report generator, and a few other odds and ends and we'd be all set.
Have you ever used Creo Schematics? It's just the old CV/Medusa product with some bolt-on programs running in the background. It's amazing and it's as fast as lightening. Creo Layout looks like another completely new product... like Creo Sketch. I downloaded and installed that thing, too. I completely don't get it.
What's next... Creo Skype? It's Creo... but it can make video phone calls for free. Creo Facebook? It's also Creo but it does social networking. Oh wait, they already made that... it's called Windchill SocialLink (not making that up either).
I'd be happy if we could just keep focusing on improving the core product. No more re-inventing the wheel... just steadily improve it. Chisel away at the shortcomings until we're left with a perfectly sculpted tool that does the job we need exceptionally well and blazingly fast. I think we'd all be overjoyed!
Brian, many years ago when "maintenance fees" meant getting more for your money over time. I think that concept has dies a horrible death. Now the core users pay PTC to develop stuff you have to pay extra for. At best you get a teaser that lacks any real functionality. Can you believe the lack of spline control in a basic cad system today? Holy cow!
If 2D is really dead... and core development is no better than what I got with Creo 2, I'll be on SW in a flash. It is on PTC to impress me. I was impressed until I found out none of what was demo'd to me was core tech including direct modeling.
This concept of extension modules is going to turn off a lot of potential users. I have no choice but to pass on the cost to clients, and that often drives me right out of the market. And then I am stuck with the maintenance costs or worse, inability to upgrade core products due to extension limitations. It's just not fitting my business model.
I'm glad I am up to date with the core Pro/E on modern platforms... but I am simply -not- impressed. Someone has been resting on their laurels with regard to core tech.
I had a bit of an exchange with a PTC Product Line Manager at Planet PTC Live in Orlando about this topic. The topic of direct modeling came up. People love it (me, too).
I must have been a bit loopy from the intense week I had... because I had the nerve to say "Yes, we love it... but why isn't it in the core package?" I can't recall the precise answer and I don't want to misquote. I just remember the response wasn't what I had hoped. When asked why it should be given away for free, I said... "I'm sick and tired of hearing from all the SolidWorks people about how their software can walk on water... it would be nice to have something cool on our side, too!"
I think it all comes down to economics. I can't even pretend to understand the costs to run PTC and maintain all that software. I just hope PTC spends it's money wisely investing in it's core products and trying to make them the best and fastest in the world. That's what Creo is supposed to be... a paradigm shift to change the CAD landscape for the next 20 years.
I'm not saying that Creo Layout is the new Pro Detail....just that they indicated at PTC Live that they will use technology from that module in future releases of Creo Parametric. Maybe it will only be for sketching...maybe dimensioning as well..only time will tell. My point was actually that since PTC finally admitted that 2D isn't dead, detailing in Creo Parametric will hopefully improve more than in the past.
I have not used Creo Schematics and was not aware of it's potential as it doesn't seem very widely used...at least not in Europe.
I'm with you Magnus... I hope Creo Layout is a sing of things to come in future releases, too. As for Creo Schematics, I'm hoping we can start delving into schematics topics on the new Piping, Cabling & Schematics group in the Creo category. I'm going to address Schematics in an upcoming blog once I get passed some of the lingering Cabling information I want to get out.
Schematics is pretty cool... if you have the training to use it correctly. Once we dig into it on the group, I hope you'll have the chance to check it out!
Thanks for that reply, Brian.
I admire your approach: Change from within is always more likely to succeed than whinging from without.
Sadly, I wasn't even able to rustle up the funding for a trip to Orlando, so TC meetings are not likely to be possible for me. Otherwise, I would be up for it.
I think I not only understand the PTC principled stand against drawings, I actually agree with it. However, until that utopia becomes real, we are where we are, and that involves those nasty sheets of paper.
In fact, it is worse now than it ever used to be in the drawing board days. Here's why:
In the old days, when the old King was alive, and I worked on the drawing board, I drew stuff as big as it needed to be for readability. If it needed a 10-sheet A0 drawing (that would be 'E' size for you, I suppose), that's what I drew, and that's what I copied and sent to the supplier.
Nowadays, the buyers send pdf copies by e-mail and the supplier prints it out on his A4 (A) or if we are lucky, A3 (B) size printer. My 10 sheets of A0 are now illegible. So we now have an additional constraint that didn't exist in the drawing board days, that of making sure nothing is too small for an A3 sheet. That's progress...
Anyway, let's keep up the pressure in the hope that someone in the higher echelons of PTC climbs down off their soap-box and acknowledges reality.
By the way: Light at the end of the tunnel? Creo 3? I wish...
Creo 3... I hope!!
I have some ideas for these TC meetings. I'm sure they won't go over well... but I'm going to try to push them anyway. Maybe if I can get one of the TC chairpeople to warm to some of these ideas, more people can participate.
If not... well... I've never been one to listen to authority much.
PTC seems to have Creo 2.0 updates scheduled out all the way to February 2013 with M040. Seems I will have to live with some shortcomings for a while.
|M010||June 15, 2012|
|M020||September 2, 2012|
Does this mean Creo 3.0 should be out early spring?
I can assure you they're still putting new enhancements and bug fixes into those upcoming releases. September may be closed for new additions but I'm sure they're working furiously to get as many SPR's resolved in M030 and M040 as possible.
We're looking at Jan/Feb 2013 to move to Creo 2. After some soul searching and research, it seems like we'd be better to hold off on Creo 1 and go to Creo 2 once it's gotten a few more releases behind it. I'll be doing extensive testing before we move our people to the platform. Hopefully by spring Creo 2 will be inching closer to being "bulletproof" so we can make the hop. Of course... this doesn't address the Windchill side.
There's not enough time in a day...
I also remember the old drafting board days. Working for the NAVY (defense), we had very strict rules on lettering size because eventually everything was shot down to microfilm. Then when we got AutoCAD in '86, we kept the standards because they worked. Lettering on the field of the ddwg was a 175 Leroy template, and we figured out what size that was, and used that for our text. Sometimes my Engineer hands me a mark-up of a C or D size printed on A size, and I can barely read it. I'm going to tell him form now on to print B size, screw saving paper, because I can;t read it and it's too much strain on my eyes.
I don't know that we can every truly go paperless. Surface preparation, treatments, finish, GD&T, and other annotation are best described on a drawing. Period. So, PTC (and other companies) NEED to realize this, and actually have a good detailing package. By FAR, I find the detailing the worst part of creo. It's a nightmare to get anything done. That said, I remember the old days it would be a nightmare (i.e. almost impossible) to document the complex shapes I've designed for the IM plastics or Al die casting world. For that, the mold maker gets STEP files, and burns it from that, and the only thing he needs a drawing for is any critical tolerances.
But, like I said, I don't think we ca ever go truly paperless unless we mean by that that nobody actually prints anything, but has a PDF and a monitor to look at at all times.......almost impossible on the shop floor especially in a foundry or other REALLY nasty environment.
I share Frank's views on paperless. We're not stuck in the dark ages, and we use 3D models both in-house and with external suppliers to speed up the programming process and to aid communication, but the drawing clearly and succinctly captures all the critical requirements.
The guys in Inspection can print it off and use green highlighter for dims that are in spec, and red for those that are out; and suppliers can phone me and say "You see that dimension 12 in grid ref B4?" Now, try either of those with a 3D annotation...
I've only really used Pro/E for drawings (certainly for the last 11 years) so I have little to compare it with. On the whole I think we've learnt to cudgel it into doing what we need, although there are certainly times when it's frustrating; and when I was briefly associated with a Catia project it seemed bizarre that you couldn't propagate model dims to the drawing (we use shown dims wherever possible in Pro/E) so it must have some good points!