You read about the idea that writers sit down in front of their PC and have a hard time figuring out what they want to say and what things they want to talk about. I find myself in this spot today reflecting on what all I have seen. Rather than try for a rundown of events and new features I am going to talk about topics near and dear to this users heart.
Some time back I was given promises by people in Siemens/SE about what the plan for the future was even though I was and am not privy to all the details. Regarding the known history of SE under it’s various masters as conveyed to me by long time users and web research I felt I had basis for real skepticism. I have none of that after today.
The thought I have entertained for a while in regards to the rise and fall of major mid range CAD programs dominance of the cad world has been based on the idea of companies that start lean and hungry with innovating concepts and thinking. It progresses to fat unwieldy bureaucratic concerns that lose sight of what made them great, users real needs, and then begins the end of their dominance. Most people reading this know PTC was there, then along came SW. I can only say after today I am more convinced than ever this cycle has begun anew in earnest and SE is going to be the future powerhouse.
The really important missing ingredients for this was corporate commitment to the idea that happy users = growth. Happy users happen when they have good tools and feel the company selling them software cares about them as customers. Another important thing is that software does not sell itself irregardless of how capable it is without sustained corporate commitment to R&D for and promotion of the product. Users want to see that their future prospects for work are growing because the user base is growing both in actual seats sold and who is trained in their program in the university or vo-tech schools to be a labor resource to expanding companies. That the efficiency of their daily use tools shows steady improvement.
I have felt that the tools were not going to be a problem for some time now and after today I feel that way about the resources and commitment being made to SE and that this is not going to be a passing phase. It is good to be here and I guess this is what it must have felt like when SW users were there at the beginning of the ascent for their software. You knew all the right ingredients were coming together back then and that’s how I feel now. In truth that is how everyone here that I talk to feels and I have to tell you there are users from V1 here that were harsh critics in the recent past and none are today.
The innovative work that was started in ST1 has now progressed to an eminently capable MCAD program that does jaw dropping things history modelers can only dream about. I don’t mean that to sound like PR hyperbole because in two presentations today on imported parts that is just what happened to me and I have been here since ST1. I still can’t believe the things I see sometimes because deep down inside there are still the vestiges of history based modeling habits and concepts of limitations as to what can(t) be done and what I just saw being done should be impossible. Or at the least it should have taken half a day AND an anger management session.
I am going to do my best to get some of the real life example videos used in some of the presentations today working on imported parts because seeing it is believing it. Real world examples count to me because it is the one my business and I have to work in where a better new way directly effects what I make each year. The tools are all here and there is nothing history based stuff can do for the most part in my world anymore except get out of the way.
Perhaps the most important SE position expressed today for the future of the software capabilities was reaffirming that the chief goal is to be the best MCAD program at the mid range modeler level out there and they are not going to go off on all kinds of goofy tangents just to appear like they are doing something. They are going to concentrate on geometry creation. If it does not make sense to achieving the goal of being the best geometry creating modeler it is not going to happen. I like that because that is where I live and so does I imagine 90% or more of the cad world. But I am also seeing the complex surfacing done in various products designed in SE and I think that there is far more capability here than they are given credit for.
It is going to take a few days to get organised for the videos and real parts so bear with me and stay tuned in as they are coming.
Has any mention been made of improvments to the useability and robustness of sync sheet metal? I like to use sync sheetmetal for the work flow but there are currently an awful lot of “gotchas” where it suddenly decides it can’t do simple things like change bend radius or change the length of a flange.
I did not attend the sheet metal session and as of yet have not had a copy of V4 to play with. It would help if you sent me some specific examples to perhaps see why you could not do these things.
In general in talking to other users who went to differing sessions than I did and in my own observations in the sessions I went to a lot of time has been spent making things better for users. The live rule are implemented better and more concise conditions for predictable behavior are everywhere.
To be honest about this in ST3 I am finding that the confusion over live rules and ST for many, myself included at times, stems from not having been taught how to do things correctly. On the topic of Live Rules, it was perhaps the most beneficial session here and one of the best attended and a LOT of the software issues are gone in ST4.
Here is a video of the problems I had tis week.
It is a simple part so deleating and reapplying the flanges is not such a big deal (though assembly relationship now need redone) but I am not sure I now have sufficient confidence to use sync for something more involved. I agree that having a good grasp of live rules is essential to being productive in sync, but I don’t think that is the issue here.
A couple of things here. What version are you running and what version of service pack for that version do you have. Can you send me the actual part file of the part in the assembly in question? I can tell a lot more about what the real problems are if I can play with the file. I am now back home from Huntsville so send the file direct to my email address.It has been sent to you and I will have a look.
Definitely something amiss here. We’d love to be able to trap it and see what is going on. Can you send me the file? You can send it to email@example.com and I’ll make sure one of my developers takes a look.