could solidworks be the new wildfire (disaster)

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 above statement) 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 on time

Reply to
Loading thread data ...
2003 is now 'ok' but for 2004 it is still early days-as per usual expect it to be working well about sp3....... : ( .....hang in there dude....SW rules! ok? : ) enjoy your weekend...
Reply to

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...

formatting link
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 ;^)

Mike Wilson

Reply to
Mike J. Wilson

absolutely agree- SW needs to tune into users asking for better spline/surfacing functions. 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...

Reply to

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 development(?)!

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 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 control.

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.



Reply to
Sean-Michael Adams

"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 standpoint.

Be nice if a SolidEdge sheet-metal users would comment on whether they experience the problems you do. I tend to doubt they do.


Reply to
jon banquer

speaking of wildfire, is it pretty screwed up? I haven't heard much.

Thanks Bill

Reply to
bill a

I sure know what you mean. I almost get motion sickness with all the graphic stuff whizzing and bouncing around the screen. I've just spent half the day trying to get some simple surface fills to work in sw2004sp1, (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 then.

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.


Reply to
bill a

As if any one cares.

And my guess is that you don't have a clue what the issue is or what "coplanar" is.

Perhaps you have heard of sheet metal.

Bla, bla, bla more stuff you can't & don't use. Where's the usual

3dinkies ad? But, then again, you don't use that either.
Reply to
Cliff Huprich

Too, bad, you can't go back, since all of the files you have worked on in

2004 have been converted and won't work in the previous versions.
Reply to

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.

Reply to

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.