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

[datamgt] WF4 not supported for Intralink 3.x

j0sizemore
4-Participant

[datamgt] WF4 not supported for Intralink 3.x


Add 15 licenses from Grote Industries.

Joanna Burress

36 REPLIES 36

Lawrence Livermore National Labs has 190 Licenses of Intralink 3.4.

John Hengel
MCAD Applications Support
National Ignition Facility
Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
(925) 422-7608
ckg
1-Newbie
1-Newbie
(To:j0sizemore)

Please add another 8 licences to the vote at Thermo Fisher Scientific
trading as VG Systems Ltd.

Regards,

Chris Glenister
Mechanical Design Manager
Thermo Fisher Scientific
The Birches Industrial Estate
Imberhorne Lane
East Grinstead
West Sussex, UK
RH19 1UB
Tel (+44) 01342 310272
Fax (+44) 01342 315074
www.thermo.com

Add 4 licenses from IBML Birmingham, AL

Please add 53 license for Concurrent Technologies Corp.



Mark J. Pollagi

CAD/CAM/WindChill SYSTEM ADMIN. (Wizard)

100 CTC Drive

Johnstown, Pa 15904-1935

(814) 269-2778

pollagi@ctc.com

And 8 from Terumo Heart

Sunil Dasara
Terumo Heart Inc

You can add about 100 licenses (out of 229) for the Kenworth portion of
PACCAR. Peterbilt and DAF might chime in.

Please add Marotta Controls Inc. NJ USA, 24 licenses.

please add Instrumentation labratory Lexington, Ma -30 licenses

Please add Saturn Electronics & Engineering (10 seats)

Please add 23 pro/i licenses from Barco SMD.
I guess the other Barco divisions would join in too, but I won't speak
for them...

Frederic

---
Frederic Vanneste
Development Engineer Mechanics
CAD Administrator
Security & Monitoring division

BARCO N.V.
Pres. Kennedypark 35
B-8500 Kortrijk

Please add Cobra Design and Engineering to the list of WF4 not supported by
I-Link.

12 seats.





Please add me to this list of the folks deeply troubled by the complexity
and work load required to implement Windchill. As a tiny engineering firm
(14 people total) there is not way we have the resources to implement it.
I sat in sessions at the User event and I heard about groups of people that
total 4X out entire staff working for months to set the system up and get it
running streamlined. How can company of dozen people afford such an
undertaking!!



The talk of an I-Link lite is sure appealing to me as most of the
functionally/power is not required for our application, simply the data
management. (CM is easy when you are small)







Regards,



Michael Neal

Mechanical Engineer

Cobra Design and Engineering Inc.

3230 Bennett Street North

Saint Petersburg, FL 33713

Mike-

I couldn't help but notice your mailing address. It sounds so much more attractive than my Canfield, OH address. As a former PTC consultant, and consulting as part of a larger company that is comprised mostly of former PTC consultants, I would appreciate the opportunity to model a bolt or a flange for you once a year at your site. ; )

My family and I absolutely love the St. Pete/Clearwater area, and travel there close to once a year.

Just in case you get to that point, we do offer dramatically reduced prices (compared to PTC or doing it yourself) for Windchill implementations. Our people have been using/implementing since Windchill 1.0 and perform much of the work remotely, and have supported small five seat engineering shops up to organizations like Toyota and NASA. They will even maintain it remotely with a retainer type of Agreement. If this sounds interesting at all, I would be happy to make the trek to explain what we can do in person...and allow you to speak with some of our customers that have entrusted us with their implementation.

I hope you have a great day.

Tom McGuire
Magellan Engineering - Ohio
330.518.3413 (cell)

I think the volume of traffic increase is due to the fact that people still think they are replying to the originator of the post (as with Lyris), not to the general forum and don't realize it is getting bounced to everyone.

21 seats here at ITE.

Hello All,



I have the manual for "Windchill installation & Configuration" but was
hoping to find some step by step info that other users may have
documented on setting up "Full-Replication"



I have Intralink8 up and running on a single server (and what a chore
that was) I also have the training book but that only has an exercise on
"Lightweight-Replica"



Regards,



Robert Altman

CAD Systems Administrator

Antares Advanced Test Technologies

Suite 101

1150 N. Fiesta Blvd.

Gilbert, AZ 85233-2237

480.682.6256





106 seats here at Mabe.


Where as intralink was something that you could set and forget (for at
least a month) before maintenance or trouble, Windchill will give you
trouble every single day. Forget about the simple "My stuff takes so
long to check-in", I'm talking about "my stuff won't check-in" period.
Oh, and there will be a "I got this error :javalang ##XX do you know
how to fix it?". Yes, PTC needs to fix it, we are not developers. I
don't care about java lang, I want to see "your stuff didn't check-in
because we didn't finish that part of the software sorry, but you can do
this as a workaround..." Javalang errors just makes me waste my time
while I try every trick I know to get my stuff checked in.



So yes, you may pay X amount of dollars to install PDMlink, but I swear
it will not last. Without constant maintenance, your check-in times will
slow down and the amount of errors will increase. Off site help is the
only way to keep it going.


Have to disagree with that. Our servers take very little care and feeding - use more than our Intralink 3.4 server, but not much. However it will take more work to get them tuned. We have been running PDMLink since 6.2.6 in 2002 and have seen it get progressively more stable, faster, easier to tune and work with. Does it take more knowledge to get off the ground - yes. But a properly tuned and configured environment will work without any of the issue's that Alfonso was mentioning.

Jeff Zemsky

  • PTC/User Director of Web Operations
  • -

Upgrading from ProI 3.x to I8 or PDMLink used to be a difficult process but with the latest migration tools and a properly trained consultant, most upgrades and migrations have gone from months down to weeks. Obviously, the amount of time it takes depends on the size of the IntraLink vault and the amount of customization. We at Enser Corporation have managed many successful upgrades and migrations at reasonable costs, please drop me a note if you would like more information.

Agreed. But just ask about where you can get a PDMlink expert and how
much it will cost. This thing has been a hole in our wallet since we
started. If all my guys knew as much as I do, I would have 50% less
problems and questions to answer. But this is more than just a few weeks
of things to learn and put to practice.


I'd like to join the fray in the Pro/I 3.x vs. PDMLink 8.0 debate.

I'll start out by saying that I work for a ProductSpace, a Windchill
Certified Services Provider that has been involved in Windchill
implementations since Windchill 4.0. My company has also done several
successful migrations from Pro/I to PDMLink 8.0 where we employ our
proprietary DataP.U.M.P.TM system. Regrettably, we have also been called in
to clean up and/or performance-tune many, shall I say, 'less than well
implemented' Windchill environments. We also administer some of our
clients' Windchill systems through our RAPiDS TM support center. Many of the
contributors to this forum are or have been our clients. So over the last
three years, we've heard these arguments and complaints many times before.
So here's my unsolicited advice:

1. Pro/I 3.x was good at what it was designed for, Pro/E data
management for the localized Engineering workgroup. PDMLink has growing
pains in terms of functionality but it is good at what it was designed for:
Enterprise Product Lifecycle Management. But remember; only a portion of its
development team and its value proposition is focused on Pro/E data
management. Its greatest value exists in providing you the means to manage
your entire product development effort not just the mechanical design
effort.
2. PDMLink is a much more complex technology to implement properly than
Pro/I (understatement of the year). We have 10 consultants and no single
consultant knows everything that there is to know about Windchill. Each
implementation is different and none go absolutely flawlessly. Why? Because
to use a mechanical analogy: there are lots of moving parts and every
environment it's placed in is different and constantly changing.
3. No disrespect to the CAD Admins on the call who've implemented
Windchill on their own, but its usually done better by professionals who's
done Windchill several times before. It's also ultimately less expensive, in
the long run, to pay a highly qualified implementer then to bear the costs
of loss productivity caused by a poor implementation or keeping the status
quo while your competition beats up on you.
4. Even when the technology is implemented well, there needs to be a
discipline around taking the training courses to learn how to use it and
even more discipline to keep users actually using it. A side note, I have
some expensive exercise equipment. Somehow I didn't get any stronger until
I learned how to use it and kept using it consistently, even when it hurt
like 'h**l' at first.
5. If you're still reading this and saying, all the more reason to not
go to PDMLink and beg PTC to keep developing Pro/I 3.x, then read the next
points.
6. The truth of the matter is that most wasted effort and rework
happens not within but at or because of the handoffs between functions (how
many drawings redone because the supplier or manufacturing didn't have all
the necessary dimensions?). So a perfect Pro/I system only sub-optimizes
Engineering performance; it doesn't necessarily improve organizational
performance. An Enterprise system provides enterprise gains, even for the
smallest enterprise. PDMLink is well worth the effort if you are trying to
make enterprise-level improvements. But you I know you are saying "I'm not
responsible for the 'ENTERPRISE'. I'm responsible for Engineering support."
I would answer that by saying, The Enterprise is the organizational unit
that makes revenues, burns through cash, and pays everyone's paychecks.
Engineering is either contributing to the Enterprise's problems or its
contributing to its solutions.
7. PDMLink, like benefiting from any new thing, takes discipline.
Productivity gains only come when you take the time to understand how it
improves your internal and external operations (especially across
functions), implement it properly, tune it periodically, administer it
well, train all of the users (and that might include using work-arounds),
and then actually use it to get the most out of it. The companies that do
this are better off than they were on Pro/I. Some of those companies have
responded on this forum.



If you are still reading this, take heart:

1. PTC keeps improving the product in terms of functionality and
implementability
2. More resellers and consultants are gaining more experience
3. More of your bosses are starting to see the benefits of
enterprise-wide improvements
4. More success stories like Alcon Labs and Plug Power will illustrate
HOW to be successful (sorry about the no silver bullet discovery).



Best Regards,
H. Lewis Kennebrew, II














H. Lewis Kennebrew, II

Vice-President

Operations

Lewis,

Although you are presenting a positive case for PDMLink, you are
actually making the point for those of us that wish to stay with
Intralink 3.x.
I agree that PDMLink has more capabilities that Intralink 3.x,
especially in regard to PLM.
However, it may surprise you that those of us that want to stay with
Intralink 3.x, do not want the PLM functionality of PDMLink.
Why?
Because we don't need a PLM system or we already have a PLM system, and
we have no need to replace it.

Therefore, is of no value for us to upgrade to PDMLink 8/9 or Intralink
8/9.

And your message makes it clear: it's going to cost significantly to get
it done right.
And after we are all done upgrading, our users will not be more
productive.
How do I justify that to those that pay the bills?

Gerry Champoux Williams International
Lead Engineer 2280 E. West Maple Road
Information Technology Walled Lake, MI 48390
(248) 624-5200, x2816 (248) 960-2607 (fax)
-

Gerry



I agree with you to some point. There is a fine line between companies
today that use any data management system and those that do. I tend to
wonder how they survive. We are on PDMlink 8.0 and as Lewis described
we are getting more and more benefit everyday. The hardest part for us
was getting the users acclimated. We had the same problem with
Intralink 1.0. Long term I feel once the entire organization has moved
to the Windchill platform the benefits outweigh the disadvantages 50:1.
The price we have to pay for the delta between Intralink and PDMlink 8.0
administrative resources are insignificant.



You just have to figure out what your company can afford or what they
actually need. After all I still see companies die trying to use 2D CAD
for products that need to be designed in 3D.



Carl E Anderson

Engineering Systems/Documentation Manager

Black & Decker IPG

731-394-4226

Hi Carl,

Your argument assumes that all affected companies are in a position use,
and, have a desire to use PTC's particular PLM system. In companies that
already have an established PLM system it is not cost effective to
replace it with Winchill just because the mechanical CAD package in use
at that site happens to be Pro/Engineer.

The rest of the organization will not look favorably upon replacing a
PLM system simply because PTC says that this is the only solution they
wish to provide to manage CAD date. This sounds more like PTC's business
development department trying to get more market penetration for
Windchill at the expense of their loyal Pro/E customers.
Mike Foster
ATK Space


That is exactly my point.
We have already reviewed what Intralink 8/9 can do for us.
In short: It only replaces Intralink 3.x.
There is no significant improvement that will save time & dollars for my
company.
Likewise for PDMLink 8/9, which has great capabilities.
But they are redundant for us, because we already have a complete
information management system (IMS) to do so.
And our IMS does much much more than a PLM.
It includes ERP, MRP, Purchasing, General ledger, etc...
All integrated.
The cost to displace the PLM component with PDMLink would be millions of
dollars, with no cost reduction elsewhere.

I also want to make one thing clear.
if we upgrade to Intralink 9, we will likely not have to pay anything to
PTC.
We have all the software licenses required, plus the expertise to deploy
it all.
The costs of concern are the hardware upgrades, plus our internal costs
(data migration/conversion, re-customization, training, etc.)


Gerry Champoux Williams International
Lead Engineer 2280 E. West Maple Road
Information Technology Walled Lake, MI 48390
(248) 624-5200, x2816 (248) 960-2607 (fax)
-

Not to steal this thread but I can't help but make an observation.
There are definitely two sides to this problem and the line appears to
be drawn between service providers and users. One common theme is that
companies that have stood up and said that PDMLink is not for them are
being force fed the benefits of migration.



What ever happened to "The Voice of the Customer"?



There is no doubt moving to Ilink8.0 or PDMLink 8.0 has benefits but
aren't those benefits supposed to be measured against the cost by the
customer? For customers using ProE and IL3.x moving to ILink8.0 or
PDMLink8.0 is a significant cost bump. Both in terms of the capital
required for the upgrade and the ongoing expense of maintaining the new
complex environments.



No one can tell me that the costs of going from IL 3.1>3.2>3.3 are
comparable to 3.X>IL8.0 or PDMLink8.0. The costs of upgrading ProE and
IL were typically built into a companies/department run rate provided
they were current on maintenance. To move to IL8.0 or PDMLink 8.0 is a
major capital project with little cost benefit over the prior versions.



I don't know how PTC justifies internal projects but we require an ROI.
Spending $1 million to upgrade to the same application in a different
wrapper won't fly here. The move for companies simply needing a ProE
data management tool should be their decision and it is a gross
miscalculation to think everyone will get in line for PDMLink.



Greg Wertheim

Engineering Systems Manager

The Stanley Works


We actually have 2 other PLM systems that sit above PDMLink. Local level
is Metaphase which handles the official release. This is being replaced
by TeamCenter Enterprise. Above that we have SAP, which handles all of
the data for our division.

We use Pro/PDM for our release of Pro/E 2001 CAD data and PDMLink for
Wildfire data. These systems are used for CAD vaulting only at the
engineering level. Once engineering has released the data, it gets
uploaded to Metaphase for other departs to approve the release.

No one says that you have to implement Windchill-based solutions to be
the top-level PLM system. Implement it the level you need, which in a
lot of cases is only CAD vaulting, which is what Pro/PDM and
Pro/Intralink did.

Ben Loosli
Sr IS Technologist
Engineering Automation Systems
L-3 Communications/Integrated Systems
Waco, TX 76715

254-867-4069
-


I agree with Greg here, I don't doubt the windchill platform has
"certain" benefits, but in my opinion they are too insignificant to
justify the huge migration / admin cost for our mechanics departement.

We just want our CAD data managed, that's all. And Ilink 3.x is a
perfect solution for us, it's a lightweight solution with just the
features we need to manage our CAD data, nothing more, nothing less. How
can you ever justify such a hardware and admin cost, just to manage some
CAD data?

We pay maintenance for intralink 3.x every year, so maintain it for us
ptc...
OK, I can understand they want to standardize on the windchill platform
for obvious reasons, but then ptc should take the hit, not us!!!
They want to go windchill, just to maintain only ONE platform, not us.
I'm not talking about people migrating to PDMlink, but to maintenance
customers "upgrading" to intralink 8/9, ptc should say: "Look mr.
customer, 'we' want to standardize on windchill platform for this and
that reason, so 'we' will migrate your data to make this transition as
painless as possible. You are the long term maintenance paying customer,
so we want to keep you happy!!!"

Oh, just dreaming of an ideal world here... it friday (13th) isn't it
😉

Cheers,

Frederic

---
Frederic Vanneste
Development Engineer Mechanics
CAD Administrator
Security & Monitoring division

BARCO N.V.
Pres. Kennedypark 35
B-8500 Kortrijk

As a recent convert from Intralink 3.4 to Intralink 8.0 let me offer the
following.
First, our usage is as many others report, simple file vaulting. We do
not use any of the PLM features of
the Windchill engine. I am a part time admin with my duties spread over
both CAD system admin and product
developement. Our current total file vault size is 76G and our metadata
is 2.6G.

Next, our decision to upgrade was based on the following thoughts.
1. We wanted to be able to use future versions of Wildfire to take
advantage of enhancements to our primary
tool.
2. We wanted to combine data from multiple sites into one database to
improve collaboration between sites.
Intralink 8.0 was touted as being faster over WAN connections. (It
is. Not a lot but some.)
3. The web based client structure eliminates one whole aspect of
software maintenance and support. New
versions doe not have to be pushed out to clients. There are no
client software issues to fix. Non CAD
users can be given read only access immediately without having to
install the client. The Intralink 3.4
client is a drain on memory resources. The web based integration
used very little precious memory needed
for improved modeler performance.
4. Once you get over the learning curve I found the Windchill interface
more intuitive than 3.4. It uses basic
Internet style functionality. Yes, there are new commands and new
menu structures but any major upgrade
will have that issue.

The way my company handled the migration was to send me to the Business
Admin and Migration classes.
It cost close to $3000 for the classes and my room and board for the
week. We then bought a new server.
It was a Dell Blade with 4G of ram. I did the basic install and practice
migration on it then converted it to the
production machine. Yes it took lots of support calls to make it all
come together but hey, we pay maintenance
for a reason right?

Time frame, I took the class in mid July. I did the base install and
config in early August. I migrated our local install
at the end of August. I created a lightweight replica at a remote site
in November for testing. Over the Christmas break
I migrated the data from the remote site into the main database and
replicated the content back to them.

There have been some small issues but over all it is a good system. The
users like it. and maintenance has been
minimal it was complete. Overall even with my labor costs, the classes
and the new hardware we spent far less than
the price quoted by PTC or the counsultants we talked to. Would the the
use of PTC or consultants have made the
process faster? Yes! Would it have come up with less configuration
issues? Yes! But now we have a real good
understanding of the install and how future maintenance is done.

Now let me finally weigh in on the issue of 3.4 support for WF 4. I
would much rather see PTC spend the development
resources on a simple, robust installer/migrator for Windchill. It would
be a big task but I think a smaller one than
recoding 3.4. There is no reason I can see why an installation program
can't evaluate your current setup and self configure
the new install. It could easily evaluate desired settings to determine
if path names and network settings are correct
before committing to the install. PTC needs to recognize that basic
users would be happy with a basic setup so they
should provide one out of the box with little configuration needed. And
what little configuration there is should be automatically
determined by the analysis of the current system.

Let's face it. If all you 3.4 adherents could run an automated set of
scripts that would install and migrate without the need for
large expenditures on consulting just to upgrade, would we be having
this conversation?


Kory Krofft
Applications Engineer
Trimble Navigation Ltd.
5475 Kellenburger Rd.
Dayton, Oh 45424
Ph. 937.245.5356
kory_krofft@trimble.com


Announcements