sorry to er start this on a bit of a bitching note
but it looks like sp1 has been released and from the last 10 posts in
this group it looks like my var isnt going to get an order from me
people are still having the odd problem to be honest i was looking at
2004 having used 03 and 01+ and it seem that as with pro e the relases
are getting worse not really better
i really feel for the guys paying subscription and the like because
some of these faults just stick despite the amount of complaints and
gripes however personal and feeble they may be. however some
requirements are just basic stuff like installing the software (and i
know theres a bigger picture before someone chews my head off for the
and still that isnt right
should i go back to pro e 2001 or solidworks 2001+ it seems we never
had it so good since those releases
does anyone know if catia is reliable and can be guaranteed to produce
Yeah, I've installed SP1 on two computers so far and they both
produced some lame error message. Luckily when I started SW,
everything appeared to be working properly, but you've got to
wonder what's broken, missing or what.
I think it's pretty obvious that this WI stuff is not reliable.
On the bright side, 2004 has been the most stable version I've used
in a very long time and I've been doing both curvy surfacing and
regular old fashioned assembly stuff.
The last bug report I sent to my VAR revealed something that I
find rather confusing (I don't know whether to be suspicious or
hopeful). SolidWorks basically stated that the software is somehow
smarter at catching problems, therefore it produced an error in the
Feature Manager on a part I was working on.
Was it just an excuse, or is SolidWorks's geometry really getting
better? Does this mean our lofts and filled surfaces are going look
different or fail in 2004 because the software is finally correcting
errors that have been there for years?
*Or is it all BS?*
If you read some of Paul Salvador's posts, you will see some of
the same issues I'm having. Older files failing in 2004. I really need
to know what the deal is because I too am getting tired of this.
After reading Mark Biasotti's comparisons between SW and Wildfire,
I'm coming close to looking into alternative software. He really hit
the nail on the head regarding C2 blends. If Wildfire had a better
n-sided patch, I'd be tempted but SolidWorks really does have an
awesome fill command which I use all the time. It totally ROCKS!
Catia is probably thinking, "That's the last time we give them one
of our cool features!"
If SolidWorks would just implement some tangency controls on
an "All Faces" guide curve (in a loft) as well as within a sketched
spline, I'd be set!!
If you look at the options for the start and end tangency on a loft,
you will see the "Tangency Length" settings. Something like this
could be incorporated into the Guide Curve settings as well
allowing the smoothest blends possible.
Additionally, if SolidWorks would add some of the latest D-Cubed
DCM enhancements like this...
or something like Wildfire has (shown in the PE vs. SW comparison)
we would spend less time on frustrating workarounds and more
time designing (right Ed?).
In Wildfire you can dynamically adjust the boundaries, but I can get
by without that if SW would focus more on C2.
I think I'm getting off track with the subject of this thread but I'm
in a writing mood.
I can't remember how long we've been asking for better spline
controls. Is SolidWorks just not getting the message? Are
industrial designers too rare still in the world of SolidWorks?
Wildfire seems to get it. They know what's needed in their
surfacing tools, so why doesn't SolidWorks?
This is kind of a weird thing to say but 2004 reminds me of
AutoCAD 14. I remember wishing and hoping that release 14 would
improve on some of the solid modeling commands. I also remember
being completely let down when they didn't add any improvements
whatsoever. I felt as if Autodesk made a terrible mistake by not
getting AutoCAD users more interested in 3D by tossing a few
more 3D bones in 14.
I get the same feeling in 2004 when I see no spline improvements
have been added (the new pretty command buttons don't count).
Even mirrored splines still don't work properly, which I consider
to be a bug.
Was Autodesk trying not to steel thunder from Mech-Desk?
Is SolidWorks trying not to steel thunder from Catia?
Yes, I still have bad memories from companies that have
competing products in their lineup. Something has to give
eventually and I worry.
Man, I remember working for Dominos Pizza when I was a teen
and I told my boss "You know, if Pizza Hut started delivering
pizzas, Dominos would have a serious problem". He said THAT
would never happen. Whatever.
I guess I have a problem when a person (or a VAR) says "Oh that
will never happen".
So will there be a conflict of interest between SolidWorks and
Catia? Oh that will never happen. We'll just keep making
SolidWorks full of limitations, half-implemented features,
regressions and bugs.
It's called Catia job security ;^)
absolutely agree- SW needs to tune into users asking for better
D-Cubed-yeah love to have that, offset splines too, etc,etc.
actually I feel improvements needs to arrive real soon (6 months) or people
are going to turn away from SW- at present handling curvy stuff is not the
fluid, articulate undertaking it should be.
bet we get other stuff people are not that interested in though....often
wondered who it is who asks for the 250 customer driven enhancements fed to
us each release...
Absolutely untrue! They gave you a new "prettier" layer dialogue box
and an incomprehsible new plot manager, just like they always did.
Some people want everything - - -
But really, Autodesk has been getting it's lunch eaten because they
are asleep at the wheel. What is totally laughable is that all the
awesome (yes I like acad for 2d drafting) drafting features have been
jettisoned in inventor. Throw away 20 years of interface
SolidWorks should not presume that they can keep the market if they
put out buggy stuff. I should be able to install a service pack
without a problem. I can't. I'm not incapable or stupid (mostly).
These things should not be a hassle. Past success does not imply
future success. I too have had hopes for them to improve some
obviously underpowered things, but they dont seem to, year after year
If they sleep, or somehow ignore the market, they will not survive.
Unfortunately many of these things seem geared towards claiming new
functionality instead of getting the fundamentals to be rock-solid.
Surfaces mean little to me (selfishly), but I am damned tired of
having sheet-metal error out when two panels are simply coplanar,
WHILE the 180 degree hem feature can blast clear thru another panel
and not even be considered a error.
There are too many things like this in the program (including surfaces
I'm sure - I'm no expert there). This really remindes me of when I
changed broadband providers because of bad service. Before I
switched, they basically told me to go "piss in my hat" - after I
dumped one and went to another, the old one was SUDDENLY interested in
my problems, offering free service and so on. Too late.
Unfortunatley there is no tangible way (i.e. witholding revenue -
maintenence, buying competitor) to make them listen without also
hurting yourself too. For this to stop, I think they need to lose
money and market share. That almost always hits home. Really do I
want to see this? NO.
I really do feel "loyal" to solidworks. The new software has many
nice improvements, but please don't ask your customers to do quality
I just want to install my sp1.0 to see if its better. I can't. I
don't want to call anyone, I don't want to fill out a report, I just
want to install.
"Surfaces mean little to me (selfishly), ..."
At least you have been very honest.
Good enough for me.
"but I am damned tired of having sheet-metal error out when
two panels are simply coplanar, WHILE the 180 degree hem
feature can blast clear thru another panel and not even be
considered a error"
I wonder how reliable SolidEdge is at sheet-metal ? My guess
would be that SolidEdge is much better from a reliability
Be nice if a SolidEdge sheet-metal users would comment on
whether they experience the problems you do. I tend to doubt
I would argue that they have applied lessons learned from 20 years of
interface development (both their own and others) and built an
interface that is easy to use. Now they just need to develop the
tools. In practice I find the Inventor and Solidworks interface to be
essentially the same with an edge to Inventor for ease of use and an
edge to SWX in development of tools. Going back to Autocad is painful.
: speaking of wildfire, is it pretty screwed up? I haven't heard much.
The ancient aristocrats among Pro/E users complain that Wildfire's too much like
SW (i.e., usable, easy, intuitive, you know the drill) and that just 'anyone'
be able to use it, meaning overpriced guru status will be a thing of the past.
(Well, okay, it already is, bless the competition and economic slowdows.) But too
many SW users are complaining that the publisher seems to be emulating
popping, slopping windows. You need to pick from a feature tree? ha, it slops
message window over the feature tree; you need to pick from the model? fu, it
plops some g'dawful, useless excrescense PRECISELY over the place you need to
pick. Please don't tell me SW's going this way, I'll shot myself!!!!!! What I
really need to know is, what will be the NBT in modelling, something I can learn
and buy stock in.
I sure know what you mean. I almost get motion sickness with all the
whizzing and bouncing around the screen.
I've just spent half the day trying to get some simple surface fills to work
(they won't knit. can't thicken, blah, blah, works fine in 2003sp5) 2004
going back on the shelf
for quite a while. I'm kind of thinking about reverting to 2001+, if I can
work it out with library data, etc.
The speed difference on drawings more than makes up for features added since
Since pro-e (wildfire) is down now where I can afford it, I was hoping it
was good enough on quality.
If that NBT comes along, though I'll probably be riding that train.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.