A year late, but hey! I just found this thread. Maybe people are still reading it.
In the interests of informing people about some of the troubling aspects of ProE, I should first say that:
1. I have never used SW, and desire not to, due to my consensus from all the opinions that I would just be opening yet another modelling "CAD of worms"!
2. I have spent 8 years with Pro. It is Love/Hate on steroids. I love its flexibility. I hate its irritating limitations within that flexibility.
That having been said, I find that Pro has the same fundamental development problems of most other software, so if you are looking for the "Holy Grail" of programs, you won't find it with Pro. What I mean by this is that, like most software developers, PTC will introduce all kinds of new tools without fixing the limitations of existing tools. Cases in point:
1. This problem had me going for a good two days. All PCs (and MACs) only support Radians, not Degrees. If you want degrees you convert Radians yourself to Degrees. From a purely mathematical sense (and perhaps elegant sense), it makes sense to always think in radians since this is TRULY the way the universe "thinks". Degrees, although much more common are a sort of bastard of the angular measurement world, soin my opinionyou should only convert to degrees when you need to. Like for input/output. But internally, programs that allow the writing of "scripts" should stick to Radians. Working this way keeps everyone on the same page. I don't mind having Degree functionality...I just don't want it to be at the expense of Radian "supremecy". My experience was one of building a ProRelation for the first time, and I knew the math was correct, it just wouldn't work! Never would I have thought that a program would have dissallowed the universal computer programming convention of working in Radians...but Pro did! I don't mind breaking with convention...when it's appropriate. As a result, Pro set me back two days until it dawned on me by looking at the results in both vb and Pro, that Pro does not let you work in radians.
2. In the world of the sciences, the functions SGN() and ABS() have been part of the universal toolkit since dinasaurs ruled the earth. But not with Pro. Which astounds me!
When working with Relations (with regards to a relation in a Variable Section Sweep, for instance) there is no support for SGN()!!!!! Even worse, if you are working with equation-based datum curves, not only is there no support for SGN(), but you can kiss goodby to ABS() as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As a result, you have to build these functions yourself from more primitive functions, but division by zero then becomes a likely result in many instances. This brings me to the next point:
3. By offering Relations, PTC has essentially initiated the use of programming techniques, yet has failed to offer some of the most essential programming concepts you would find in even the most basic, BASIC language; theincorporation of IF/ELSE/ELSEIF blocks, FOR/NEXT loops, unconditional jumps, simple error handling and more. Without these,...and SGN(), ABS(),...your Relation building experience will be a frustrating one. I have code that works great in vb, but is of no use in ProE when it fails to work at all, or in the least, may require a lot of extra and precious time spent trying to find a workaround. THIS HAS NOT CHANGED IN 8 YEARS!!!!!
Unbelievable and sloppy. If you are going to introduce programming, then you are obligated to support the most fundamental principles to support it. Yah, yah, Relations aren't REALLY programming. But it is sooooo close to programming in the traditional sense, thatit might as well be, and to miss that connection is a classic case of Moronity. Quit being lazy PTC and support BASIC syntax in Relations and Equation-based curves.
4. When working with Graphs, Pro will not allow vertical slope. In other words, PTC has neglected the incororation of the special case of infinite slope (90 degrees) as a viable option. This is such an easy scenario to account for, itbaffles me.
It forced me to spend once again, an inordinate amount of time to find a workaround to one of the most basic problems in programming. In other words, a vertical line on a graph IS a special case that can be detected easily in code, and upon detection can be dealt with by the corresponding special solution. I do it in vb all the time.
5. I am constantly frustrated by the fact that it takes 10 mouse clicks to do something that should take 2. For instance, it is truly amazing what you have to do, to do a very basic Copy and Paste operation. Yah, it's nice to have the extra paste options. So call that "Paste Special". But 99% of the time, i just want a bare-bones copy right over the existing one. Again, PTC throws honest-to-good universality out the window.
6. You can start a new file and import (via CopyGeom) surfaces from an existing file, yet you can't do much with them!!!! You could Thicken the original file's features, but not the new file's CopyGeom surfaces!!!!!
!!!!!! Unless you build yet MORE surfaces from the CopyGeom'd surfaces via Legacy mode. Yet more time wasted.
One curious thing is the behaviour of regeneration of rounds. I like to equate this with being "pre-approved" for a loan. The color of the round will change to an intermediate color as the clock ticks. But until the color changes to a THIRD color (white), you aren't gauranteed NOTHIN in the end! It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
DoH!
On the negative side, PTC has not addressed some very fundamental issues with Pro, and there is no indication that they intend to do so in the forseeable future. PTC has had more than ample time to streamline the workflow in so many areas and it confounds me that they do not see the EXTREME positive impact such simple fixs would have on the customer and his workflow.
All in all, Proe is pretty damn stable for the amount of math involved in solid modelling, and for that I am grateful. It DOES crash to the desktop from time to time, but again,...not bad. Still, to this day, Rounds are the most troublesome features I have to build for moderate to complex models (Outside of organic shapes). As you add more and more rounds, you simultaneously reduce your flexibility with each round and often, I find myself backed into a corner where I may have to delete some of the rounds I just built so I can approach the remainder from a different approach. But having reasonably successful rounds at all is a major feat, and for this I say, Thank you, PTC". And yes, rounds HAVE improved from version to version.
One additional request for PTC...PLEASE...PRETTY PLEASE, let an equation-based curve be possible as the section for a Variable Section Sweep. Essentially a Relation within a Relation.
All in all, how do I feel about ProE?
treddie
ffice
></O
