Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Reasons to Change

Reasons to Change

Hi John,
A hardy perennial this one.  Are WF3 then 4 then 5 each better in a
justifiable way?  Yes and no.  If WF2 reasonably does everything you need to
do already then you may not see much benefit.  If there are things in WF2
that take longer than you want then some of the changes in each of the
releases may be just what your were looking for.  I would get the list of
enhancements that PTC produces for each version update (if that is not what
you already have) and look through those in succession to see if there is a
real advance for you.

We were dragged kicking and screaming from R2001 to WF2 and I posted at the
time that all our experienced users took a severe performance hit for months
until our muscle memory was retrained.  Once at that point I was not keen to
go back.  In any case many of our suppliers had already moved so for file
sharing there was not a lot of choice.  In actuality we could do the
projects we do today with R2001 (but we wouldn't want to)

We skipped WF3 and jumped from WF2 to WF4 partly as a result of the
previous experience.  We did have 2 days of WF2-WF4 update training and this
was helpful.  WF4 definitely offered more for us than WF2.  Key things for
us were better pattern handling (visual version that
really supersedes pattern tables for us) and better (read different)
assembly handling.  There would have been other stuff too but now I struggle
to remember without going back through a lot of notes.  One warning though
is that one company had major issues moving from WF3 to WF4 in there very
large assemblies.  We did not have that issue so I suppose our assemblies
are not so large.

A couple of months ago we moved to WF5 as this was the first time existing
users saw the demo and went "let's upgrade".  There is some really nice
stuff in WF5 but I still have gripes.
The instant gripe for most users is the drawing interface is now MS ribbon
style (as for Office 2007).  It works but it is yet another interface
change.  We also see all geometry features (solids and surfs!) highlighting
when you mouse over or select a part in an assembly.  This affects us as we
use Top Down Design with skeletons and copy/publish geom features.  More of
a nuisance but something that got broke from WF4 to WF5.  This effect is
even with the surfs layered off.  We have an SPR on it but no positive
feedback and I am yet to post this large on here or the PlanetPTC forum.
But to be positive the better functionality in WF5 still makes it an
improvement for us.

   - The extra RMB functionality in the tree is great.  (Insert here and
   Open generic are our top two).
   - More and better sketcher functionality.
   - File thumbnails
   - Model properties handling. (actually the changes start in WF3 and are
   for the better)
   - Part and feature handling if missing/failed etc.  This is a big
   improvement in productivity but does come with risks that assemblies and
   parts can be saves with failed missing/failed etc.  Still think this is much
   better for those who know what they are doing.  You can config this off but
   we don't.
   - I think if stopping in the middle of a redefine of an earlier feature
   the part not having to regenerate from that point was introduced in WF4 but
   it sure is in WF5.  This really saves time on complex models.
   - Dynamic Edit is sort of like Edit definition but it is really a
   graphical visualisation of dynamically dragging vertexes and the like.  You
   need to do a regen to accept the dynamic edit just as you do for standard
   edit.  I think this only works on features made in WF5.
   - Draft checking is improved so now that areas without draft are obvious.
   - New options for handling rounds as they pass through a mold split.
   - Part replacement in assembly was improved in WF4 and is better again in

As for actual productivity gain?  I think impossible to measure and I sure
do not agree with "XXX% fewer mouse clicks" and "XX% faster"

Regards, Brent Drysdale
Senior Mechanical Designer
Tait Radio Communications
New Zealand
DDI +64 3 358 1093

On 22 October 2010 01:57, Wayman John (external) <
> wrote:

>  Hello,
> I have been asked to prepare a business case for changing from good old
> Wildfire 2 to a later version.
> I have downloaded and read all the PTC sales pitches for 3, 4 & 5. If all
> the promised productivity gains had materialised over the years, I would now
> be producing finished designs shortly before I started work on them!
> I am interested to know what real-world advantages and disadvantages you
> have experienced in the move from 2 to 3, 4 or 5.
> Is it really worth the bother, considering that, when a change does not
> save money, it costs money?
> On a personal level, I would naturally prefer to be playing with the latest
> and greatest, but it's not my money!
> I am also looking for a similar justification to make the leap from
> Intralink 3.3 to Intralink 9 or PDMLink.
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Regards,

RE: Reasons to Change

I thought I would chime in here. I have had my exploder notices set to vacation for ~2 years or so (haven't been on vacation that long :-)) to cut down on email I get, but the issues we are having in WF5 made me come back to the exploder/forums and search and see what other people are saying. We have used both WF4 & WF5...just having switched to 5 about 3-4 weeks ago after using 4 for quite a few months. Our take...I would DEFINITELY stay with 4. WF4 was awesome.

While there are some nice enhancements with 5, the ribbon interface is really slowing us down. Most posts seem to point to work-arounds for the ribbon issue(s). If everybody is working around it, why is it there? I wish we could go back to 4 but it is probably too late for us. I have to say that this is the most negative feedback that I have ever had from an "upgrade".


As far as Intralink, we upgraded from 3.4 to 9.1 a few months ago. If you are just using Intralink for vaulting/data storage and management, I would stay with 3.X. We use windchill now and while it is very powerful, it is more restrictive (admittedly on purpose) and probably overkill for simple data management. We will be using it for change management and other things that are above the capabilities of Intralink 3.X. We found Intralink 3.4 M011 to be very stable and we knew it inside and out and could make it really work for us.



In Reply to