Inventer Discussion forum -Failure of R5 to address 2D deficiencies.
Topic: I Don't Believe it. Msg: 1 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/08/01 - 23:28 (GMT)
They didn't fix it.
All that R5 hype. All the whiz-bang toys. iMates for crying out loud.
Gizmos and widgets, but they can't fix what's broke.
Every IDW that's based on an assembly and has an auxiliary or detail view in
it is a bloody accident waiting to happen. The section & detail lines won't
stay put when you add parts to the assembly. They try to maintain their
location relative to the size of the parent view, and jump all over which
trashes your detail and section views. I first posted to this group about
it back in March, and have several times since. I've complained to my VAR.
I've talked directly to Autodesk, to some fairly important people there.
I've E-mailed their bug line.
The problem is it's not a bug. The thing does just what they programmed it
to do. It's a design flaw, and It needs to be fixed.
I thought it was the same problem that caused projected views to jump out of
alignment if you played with the visibility of parts in one of them, but
they got that one fixed, and left the other one to give me grief (which did
almost immediately). I had the section line constrained down to the
projected centerpoints of two circles in the view, but what good does that
do? The projected points become part of the sketch for the section line, and
jumps merrily off into space with the rest of it, and there it sits, happily
and solidly constrained down. Over nothing. And the section view
just....goes away.
I'm beside myself. I'm furious.
What do we have to do to get this software to work in the real world without
shafting us every time we turn around? Who do I have to talk to? Believe
me, nobody from Autodesk want's me talking to anyone who's thinking about
trying Inventor right at the moment.
What do we have to do?
Walt Jaquith
Harris Thermal Transfer Products
Newberg, Oregon
Msg: 2 of 82
From: Drew Fulford
Date: Oct/09/01 - 00:53 (GMT)
>What do we have to do?
First identify serious flaws of this nature which you alread did.
Explain it clearly so the problem, but more importantly, the pain is
clearly understood, which you also did.
Next make a public call for action to fix it. I'll do that for you
now! Autodesk please address this kind of stuff ASAP, its weak,
embarrasing and not reflective of a world class product you advertise.
2D Drawings are the key deliverable Inventor users must produce. Your
customers need this 2D component to work flawlessly. And just because
your main competition gives little attention to 2D doesnt mean you
should follow suit. Think of it as a chance to capture some of their
market share instead of constantly defending yours.
Lastly get a lot of people to back you. More important than lots of
individuals here, get some important people to back you from their
larger paying customers.
I'll start (not that i'm important at all, but i do represent some of
their clientele). Autodesk, I agree 100% with Walt here, it's been
echoed from my clientele and i've reported it enough times. I shouldnt
need to keep on reporting this kids stuff. It shoudn't need to be
wished for either, its obvious, its flawed. With 5 releases under your
belt, 2D needs LOTS more attention than its getting. Fix whats there
first, then add new needed 2D stuff.
Drew Fulford, B.A.Sc. Systems Engineer
Solid Caddgroup Inc, Burlington, Ontario
Phone: (905) 331-9670 Fax: (905) 331-7280
Check out my MDT & Inventor FAQ @ http://www.mymcad.com/
Msg: 3 of 82
From: Gary Cook
Date: Oct/09/01 - 05:02 (GMT)
I represent a typical user that has transitioned from Solidworks primarily
because of it's (more) painful lack in 2D, which Drew is referring to.
Inventor is much better at 2D, and has better dwg output, particularly in
R5, but I agree it is still lacking some critical areas. So, I hope Autodesk
responds, and quickly. People like me in our small company do not have
time to thrash away on fixing stuff like this.
Gary
Msg: 4 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/09/01 - 17:00 (GMT)
Thanks Drew, and everyone for your support. I've E-mailed one of those
'important people' from Autodesk, and copied them on this.
It's sad. I'm just getting a feel for the good, solid improvements that were
made in R5. There's a lot here to like, and I'd really love to be raving about
it instead of stirring up the manure pile. But I can't just say 'oh well, they did
this and this and that, so it's ok if my views get trashed all the time.'
I'd support a service pack to fix this. Anytime now would be soon enough.
Walt
Msg: 5 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/10/01 - 19:17 (GMT)
Since I started this thread, I've been contacted by several people from
Autodesk regarding this matter. I just got off the phone with Autodesk's
new Director of Quality Assurance for the manufacturing division. I gave
him the history of the problem from my viewpoint, and we agreed that these
issues need priority consideration. He assured me that we do have their
attention.
I pointed out to him that those that responded in this thread represented a
vital core group of Inventor users with a huge sphere of influence, and that
we had 'spoken with one voice', and Autodesk would do well to listen
closely. Since he's new to the Inventor universe (although not to
Autodesk), he promised to spend a few days educating himself and re-
searching the problems we've brought up, and get back to me.
He also assured me that he'll be keeping an eye on this thread.
Walt
Msg: 6 of 82
From: CAD Sense
Date: Oct/10/01 - 21:36 (GMT)
(Begin cynical ranting)
Gee, Lip service from yet ANOTHER person claiming to know stuff all about the
problem or product and works at AutoDesk, instead of real information from one
of the many very knowledgeable and long time Inventor team. Wow that doesn't
sound like the AutoDesk we all know and love. Change the record guys.
Everytime someone makes some noise there is another person trying to hide it
who claims to just be new to the product but will get to the bottom of the
mess. Then they quietly fade out then along comes ANOTHER new guy full of
enthusiasm saying they will change the world but nothing ever happens.
(End cynical ranting)
Brian Corbin CAD Sense 025 22 99 415 +64 3 327 22 26
Msg: 7 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/10/01 - 22:15 (GMT)
I can't swear that you're wrong Brian, but at the moment that's what I've
got. I have talked with a development team member also. We'll have to see
how Autodesk reacts. This thing has gotten too big, and (I hope) too many
people are not going to let it just fade away for another six months. I
don't know about the rest of you who pitched in on this thread, but IMO
Autodesk is going to need to issue another service pack. Way soon.
Walt
Msg: 8 of 82
From: Gary R Smith
Date: Oct/10/01 - 23:02 (GMT)
The individual that Walt has spoken to is a "Director" level employee at
Autodesk. He has been with the Mechanical Team for quite a while despite
assuming overall responsibility for Inventor Quality within the past year.
He and I spent time this afternoon looking at this issue.
Msg: 9 of 82
From: Gary R Smith
Date: Oct/10/01 - 22:56 (GMT)
We aren't really the "evil empire" we're often painted to be...
Msg: 10 of 82
From: Gary Cook
Date: Oct/11/01 - 00:19 (GMT)
I don't know how much more response this thread is going to get, as it is
becoming buried.
I'd like to say that I appreciate your comment, from Aug 28th.
>Those of us on the Inventor team are striving to make Inventor the best CAD
tool on the planet. We think we're off to >a good start and we are
continuing to focus on better interactivity.
>We certainly appreciate your loyalty and your comments. While we do have a
"roadmap" laid out that takes us well >into 2002 and 2003, please feel free
to email me with your suggestions if you feel that they are not being heard.
>Gary R Smith
>Autodesk Inc.
>MCAD Product Design Team - Inventor Assemblies
This is proof enough to me that there are committed people who will work the
2D issues out. By way of comparison, the Solidworks newsgroup has been
fuming away with easily 10x the vocal outrage, as service pack after service
pack roll out full of bugs and unimprovements.
I think that as long as the Inventor community sees continual response and
interaction from Autodesk, there will build a fierce loyalty that will do
Inventor more good than a mountain of webcasts and press releases.
I look forward to your continued involvement.....
Gary Cook
Msg: 11/12 of 82
From: CAD Sense
Date: Oct/11/01 - 00:20 (GMT)
Point taken Gary (R Smith ..AutoCad employee),
Some of us are just gettin a little frustrated with Autodesk as a whole at
the moment. A lot of this has been caused by bad marketing decisions and
"other" product failures, which are not in your control.
My point is people are gettin real tired of ifs, buts, next release, and
promises and would just like to se some plain old action. Its much easier to
quiet these fears with results than more promises.
Brian Corbin
CAD Sense 025 22 99 415 +64 3 327 22 26
Msg: 13 of 82
From: Ed Rasmussen
Date: Oct/09/01 - 00:53 (GMT)
Walt,
I am sorry they did not think this issue was a "must" for R5. I can
understand your disappointment and anger. I have run into the problem, but
I probably use fewer sections than most so I just grit my teeth. A lot of
good things have been done in R5. Some important fixes have been added in
R5sp1. Progress is being made and I do appreciate that fact. However, this
type of problem is larger than just the sections and details. With many
timeconsuming modifications to views, line widths, lines displayed, trail
lines, etc. it is very sad to have to completely redo them just because of a
minor modification to the part or to the assembly. I have learned to leave
as much of this cleanup to as late in the game as possible. This only slightly
lessens the pain though. I do not understand why the developers do not put
a priority on preservation of as much existing work as possible. As Walt indicated,
deliberate effort is made to get the views just right. It should not be necessary to
do the same things over and over again with every single revision to the drawings.
Please make this necessary design correction a part of a R5 service pack, if
possible. If not, it is a "MUST!!" for R6. Thanks. --Ed R
Msg: 14 of 82
From: Monty
Date: Oct/09/01 - 02:10 (GMT)
I could not agree with you more !!!! --Monty
Msg: 15 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/09/01 - 02:56 (GMT)
One day digital output may be the standard where every machinist has a large
display on the table by his machine but today is not that day. We still use
paper out here. In most cases, it's the paper we get paid for and consequently
the paper part needs to be excellent not only because it should be anyway but
because that is what the clients get for their money and what the machinist go
by to make the parts. What am I supposed to tell a client standing in my office
looking at the nice office copies of his drawings that I have all printed out for
him when he says, "Oh by the way, wonder if you could make a couple of little
changes right quick and reprint these three sheets?" Naturally, they all have
section views and you already know what's going to happen. --Larry
Msg: 16 of 82
From: Guzie
Date: Oct/09/01 - 03:36 (GMT)
Count me in as well. I have been with this program from the beginning and
while I like getting new functionality we have to fix what doesn't work well.
Forget the added features like sounds when applying constraints or a hokey
select other tool. Fix the stuff that doesn't work well first and beef up
the weak areas. I see the 2D side of things as needing the most help. While
R5 brought a nice improvement in things like view sketches and broken views
it is still lacking some basic fundamentals like Parent/child dimstyles that
mimic Autocad functionality, customized hole note standards, and the ability
to change the tolerance on hole notes.
Kevin Guzniczak
Burke E. Porter Machinery
Msg: 17 of 82
From: Todd Kettell
Date: Oct/09/01 - 12:09 (GMT)
I have also experienced this. I found it to be the most destructive when I
had detail views on additional pages that did not contain the parent view.
I got around it by not adding pages to my drawings! Since we view our
drawings online it really doesn't matter what size the drawing is.
As far as fixing something in future releases, I believe that the problem
should be fixed in every release. Why should we have to upgrade to fix
problems? Now that's insane.
Todd Kettell
Carroll, Ohio
Msg: 18 of 82
From: Tas
Date: Oct/09/01 - 14:08 (GMT)
I couldn't agree more completely. I think all improvements for the next
release should be focused entirely on the 2D side of things. Autocad is
pretty much the universal drawing package for regular 2D. Everyone was
used to the way Autocad worked. I know this is Inventor and not Autocad,
but Autodesk owns both of them. Why not make Inventor more like Autocad?
If nothing else, newcomers will feel comfortable when creating detail
drawings. To tell the truth, I have used Inventor for a while now and
it would make me feel more comfortable too. The bottom line is everybody
has to produce printed drawings. And right now, it is by far the most
difficult part of Inventor. --Tas
Msg: 19 of 82
From: Keith Bender
Date: Oct/09/01 - 18:19 (GMT)
"And right now, it is by far the most difficult part of Inventor."
WHOA! Not what I wanted to hear. Ease of 2D drawing creation is exactly why
I purchased Inventor. My models aren't really that complex - PC boards,
sheet metal, components, etc... I hated how hard it was with AutoCAD to
turn those 3D models into 2D drawings (paperspace, viewports, solview,
soldraw, xrefs, etc...), and how hard it was to change them. Now, I've convinced
management to purchase Inventor because I can just drag and drop views, easily
dimension them, and have them automatically update with slight changes to the
model. So far, I have created only several 2D drawings, and they worked fine.
I hope when crunch time comes to be able to knock out a whole bunch of 2D
drawings with ease. Management will expect that to happen.
Autodesk please fix this problem! I agree with the other post here - this
is more important than the addition of features!
Keith Bender
Msg: 20 of 82
From: Dan Sponholz
Date: Oct/09/01 - 14:28 (GMT)
This sounds exactly like a discussion that started around the time R4 came out.
Several users posted stating that Autodesk needs to focus on improving the
drawing functionality and stability in R5. So, I'm just chiming in to let Autodesk
know, like the rest of you, that designers out in the real world still have to make
drawings. Spending time duplicating effort by cleaning up drawing views that
were already clean just because I added a hole to a part is waste of my time.
I wish I could charge back to Autodesk all of the time I spend redoing something
that had already been done correctly in the first place. Maybe then I'd get some
attention. So Autodesk, where is this on the "Priority List" now? --Dan
Msg: 21 of 82
From: Craig Skinner
Date: Oct/09/01 - 15:16 (GMT)
I too constantly find myself wasting time recreating views. This is primarily due
to the fact that when you make a change to an assembly and then go back into any
idw’s referencing that assembly, detail/auxiliary views just disappear or screw up
so bad that I have to re-create them. I think that perhaps one of the main problems
here is that people testing/writing the latest release of Inventor may not be using
it to actually design anything. My guess is that in house testing of the software
tends to be carried out on its modelling capabilities and the ability to document
that model. The main difference here is that when you are modelling and documenting
an existing object, you never enter into a true design process where things actually
change many times before the product being designed is finished.
The real testing is carried out by the users of Inventor and according to this thread
quite a few are experiencing very frustrating program behaviour when they are trying
to get drawings out of the door. Its all fine and well to try and leave the actual
2D detailing of a design until the design is so far progressed, such that it *should
not* change, but in theory, I have to produce 2D drawings alongside the 3D model in
order to convey any potential problems or let an engineer review and check the
designs and also to get prices and input from fabricators. I think that AutoDesk
really need to look at this and address it rather than adding more bells and whistles
to try and avoid the bigger issue. -- Craig Skinner
Msg: 22 of 82
From: sdotson
Date: Oct/09/01 - 16:59 (GMT)
Walt and all...
I feel your pain and I couldn't agree more. I was one of the big "squeaky wheels"
when R4 took away our ability to control some of the dimension alignment styles.
There was a huge thread about this a while back and we basically all demanded that
Autodesk fix these issues before giving us new "features" (clicky sounds when I
constrain things). As you can see they did not get fixed in R5 either. So I started
a new thread on this a few weeks back and it quickly died out. I know there are more
people out there that have problem with the 2D side of IV and I’m glad to see that
they are speaking up on this thread.
Autodesk needs to realize that most of the people on this board are some of their
most powerful allies and can equally be some of their most powerful detractors.
When will they realize that they need to listen to US, the people who buy their
product. For crying out loud, I even pointed some of this out in the beta.
Mark down another very disappointed customer.
Sean
Msg: 23 of 82
From: David Radlin
Date: Oct/09/01 - 15:30 (GMT)
One reads the rhetoric in advertisements that profess NN% time and cost
savings. Yet I see no disclaimer in the same that states for instance
"except in the cases involving idw section view updates.... and design view
updates... and.... and...."
A fundamental point of this whole 3D thing is to have drawings
"automatically" update to reflect changes in the model. Issues like this
are not only not "automatic", they become added task burdens and money pits.
Gotta see improvements here....
Dave Radlin
www.synexus.ca
Msg: 24 of 82
From: Brian_Coon
Date: Oct/09/01 - 17:46 (GMT)
My turn,
My company just restructured and you know how that can uset the apple cart. I
was in a small group and convinced my boss to let me use Inventor. I just started
teaching the other guys in the group to use the software. Now I am part of a much
larger group, a group that has made AutoCad 2000i the standard drafting software.
Now I have to justify keeping Inventor to New Upper management.
Ok Autodesk Inventor team here is where you can stand behind me.
I explain to my new manager how great Inventor is, how fast I can make drawings,
how part drawings automatically update. But then I have to further qualify that
..However, when I change a part that has a drawing view that is sectioned, the
change will corrupt the view and it will have to be redone. And, when I make a
revision to a part I have to play the rename game to keep my annotation on my drawing.
Any guess to what software I will be runing next week? --Brian Coon PE
Msg: 25 of 82
From: jmartzig
Date: Oct/09/01 - 17:49 (GMT)
Ditto on everyone's else's comments. drawing side needs work! --jmartzig
Msg: 26 of 82
From: Ray Feiler
Date: Oct/09/01 - 18:11 (GMT)
Autodesk, as a current Mechanical Desktop user, it is issues such as these
that keep me at bay. Please respond. Thank you. --Ray
Msg: 27 of 82
From: Tom Guy
Date: Oct/09/01 - 18:21 (GMT)
Learning to use Inventor is like learning to juggle on a desert island.
It's a great way to keep yourself amused, but since no one can see the
results, it's not very practical.
This drawing output problem is why we don't really use Inventor for
anything, and have not bought R5. --Tom
Msg: 28 of 82
From: tmiller
Date: Oct/09/01 - 18:48 (GMT)
Hi Gang, you can certainly add me to the pile. I've been carping about .idw
shortcomings since R2. None of my complaints have been addressed ...as yet.
I am convinced that the separate teams that "cook" Iv. are not in very good
communication. This is a perfect time for them to prove me wrong. Adding
little noises and useless buttons to the program is an incredible waste or
their resources, and further reinforces the notion that there is a serious
lack of "real world experience" when it comes to actual plotting of images
onto paper. Again, I await the official response, and hope that someone,
somewhere, who actually has worked as a drafter in the industry, is listening.
I still love Inventor's modeling, and can impress clients with the beautiful
images rotating in space on my computer, but when the boss needs the update
printed and mailed out red-label, my very JOB is at stake. In this current
environment, that's like riding a razor blade. Time to fix these problems now.
-Tim Miller, REsys, Inc.
Msg: 29 of 82
From: John Anderson
Date: Oct/09/01 - 18:34 (GMT)
Ray,
I am in the exact same boat that you are in. This issue, many others AND
the issue that Kent Keller brings up in the mdt5 ng under the heading "What
the #%&#???" are exactly why I CAN'T switch from MDT to Inventor. I live in
New Hampshire, have lots of colleagues in the Boston area that also feel
the same way. Some have even called for SW demos. I am not quite there
yet, but....
Let's hope Autodesk hears all of us and does something positive. --John
Msg: 30 of 82
From: Jeferson Stutz
Date: Oct/09/01 - 19:31 (GMT)
Maybe Fix the problems is a "Mission Impossible" theme. Certainly add
me to the pile, but sometimes the Feature Reorder doesn´t work.
Jeferson (Brasil)
Msg: 31 of 82
From: Benjamin
Date: Oct/09/01 - 23:22 (GMT)
Same here...I've just been talking to a reseller about upgrading 21 copies
of MDT 4 to Inventor 5, but unresolved issues like this force me to question
whether Inventor would even work for us. Why spend money to upgrade to
another product with its own set of new problems to work around? --Ben
Msg: 32 of 82
From: Mech_D
Date: Oct/09/01 - 23:09 (GMT)
The door was opened. Most of you know that I am not from Autodesk and I may speak
up when Inventor cost us more than if we had stayed with our old CAD package and
struggled through changes and the times. One comment that I got from them is that
the LAW says that they cannot add new features to a released product. What is with
you Autodesk, all of us has at some point complained about the lack of Inventors 2D
side and you had the chance to communicate with US, AutoCAD & Mech programmers, past
service patches, fix, update, and improve this software for R5. Some of us had made
the comment that we are willing to wait for R5 if it was released with true improvements
to what you had and made it as stable as possible. You choose to ignore it and add bells
and whistles. It is time you take a step back and really look at how your doing business,
not at how many dollars of this software your selling or what position your in the CAD
software section but how you can satisfy your current customers. Times are hard and as
your customer I have to continuously go back and repair problems with the documentation
or the lack off caused by Inventor. You cost us money, not only for the software, but
also for the bells and whistles that end up costing us to use through the Internet.
Now I think that having a feature built into the base software that cost you to use should
be outlawed, didn’t somebody get sued over that. Where are the fixes, where are the
improvements if we need to go back and correct them, where are the productivity gains,
where can I go to create sheet metal parts that have all the features in the flat pattern
and the documentation, where are the views after I have made them and just added or
changed the model, why are all the dimensions so drastically affected when I add a
chamfer, why do we have to except that the templates are not parametric and you
continuously advertise how parametrical Inventor is, where are the answers to all of
those people's questions before mine, when do we see a low cost upgrade ($1 to be legal)
to recover from all the damages that occurred from the past and now I’m looking at
it as into the future? --Mech_D
Msg: 33 of 82
From: Simon Moss
Date: Oct/10/01 - 01:42 (GMT)
Does anybody present any customers with visible sketches on objects?
Nobody left that can't see a jpg or bmp. The first time I presented one
printed, the guy nearly fell over. Not 'customary' but either is inventor.
No good for houses I guess, but great for components. Give it a go.
Msg: 34 of 82
From: Simon Moss
Date: Oct/10/01 - 01:49 (GMT)
Then you use you avi's from you ipn's and you jpg's in a simple html
presentation. Drawings! Lots of Luck. --Simon
Msg: 35 of 82
From: Mike Thompson
Date: Oct/10/01 - 15:57 (GMT)
Add me and everyone else in my department to the list of people who are EXTREMELY
tired of the 2D problems that Inventor has ALWAYS had. We've had Inventor from the
very first version, as many other people have, and we have continually been told
"That will be fixed in IV R(Next)." When will this actually be the truth? Don't get
me wrong, I actually love Inventor for its ease of use on the modeling side of the
program but the drawings are the part that actually help get a product out the door.
Why wasn't this the first priority? How many people will it take to get some sort of
response from Autodesk? With all of these people responding you must know it's not an
isolated case of frustration. Sorry to heap more crap on the pile, but by this time
it is necessary to start using the program as it is advertised. --Mike
Msg: 36 of 82
From: Brian Debelius
Date: Oct/10/01 - 16:53 (GMT)
I'm not using Inventor yet...,but this seems to be the way of Autodesk. They never go
back and fix whats broken. Having the latest marketing gimmicks integrated seems to
take the highest priority, and not fixing bugs/behavior problems. Now, since I'm
considering Inventor, and starting to prime the pumps here to migrate to it; This
is really scaring me. --Brian
Msg: 37 of 82
From: Kent Keller
Date: Oct/10/01 - 17:33 (GMT)
I find this thread "almost" humorous. I have been saying this stuff since before R1 and
most of the time I got blasted for my opinion.
It is also somewhat amazing that since 2d has so many pitfalls, that the VBA development
didn't start there.
Actually though overall there have been some decent improvements in the 2d drawing end,
but just not enough.
Kent
Msg: 38 of 82
From: Ed Rasmussen
Date: Oct/10/01 - 17:59 (GMT)
I think most of us feel that Inventor is a very good package, at least I do. It is
even pretty good at creating the initial drawings. That is where the problems
problems discussed in this thread come to the front. You spend considerable
effort to make a nice drawing of your part or assembly. Then you make what
seems to be a very minor change. Next thing you know, the drawing needs
major cleanup that may require recreating views. This it the weakness of the
drawing package. And, as everyone so clearly pointed out, it needs to be
thoroughly addressed as soon as possible. Major emphasis needed. --Ed R
Msg: 39 of 82
From: Numan
Date: Oct/11/01 - 02:51 (GMT)
Oh no. Now what do I do? First I find out MDT has some major problems, so I think
about going to SW. But then I hear IV is better at the 2D than SW. Now this thread!
Sheesh, time to look at SE. Won't some company get it right ever? --Numan
Msg: 40 of 82
From: Summit
Date: Oct/11/01 - 03:35 (GMT)
I think that some of you that don’t use IV are getting the wrong impression. IV is a
GREAT product. Is it absolutely perfect? No... but I don’t know of any software that is.
The issue at hand is the people that have used IV for several releases and post here
asked that R5 fix all existing problems (many with IDWs) and then add features later.
We also made it clear that we were willing to wait as long as necessary. I’m sure the
development guys want the base product to be rock solid. The marketing boys need FEATURES
to sell. So... we get sounds. We are talking about one problem (yes it’s a major pain).
We (current users) are disappointed that the existing problems were not all fixed. I had
SE & IV at the same time. I would recommend IV to anyone. --Summit
Msg: 41 of 82
From: Jeff Howard
Date: Oct/11/01 - 03:52 (GMT)
"summit" wrote in Msg ...
>> The marketing boys need FEATURES to sell. So... we get sounds.
...I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this candy is a poor trade-off.
May impress a bean counter, but I consider it a waste of developement funds.
>> I would recommend IV to anyone.
...Ditto.
Jeff
Msg: 42 of 82
From: Cadsysmgr
Date: Oct/11/01 - 11:53 (GMT)
I will be loading a Network Licensed version of IV5 from our parent company in the next
couple of weeks. PLEASE, HOW DO I TURN OFF these sounds. I have never had a CAD user ASK
FOR SOUNDS. Only HOW DO I TURN THEM OFF. Thanks. --Cadsysmgr
Msg: 43 of 82
From: jorgen
Date: Oct/11/01 - 11:56 (GMT)
Delete or rename connect.wav. --Jorgen
Msg: 44 of 82
From: Simon Moss
Date: Oct/11/01 - 12:44 (GMT)
I didn't get any sounds. What's going on?? Am I blessed? --Simon
Msg: 45 of 82
From: jorgen
Date: Oct/11/01 - 12:54 (GMT)
Maybe you don't have a soundcard or speakers? Maybe mute is on?
Maybe wave sound is off in volume properties?
Maybe you dont alt-drag to contrain? --Jorden
Msg: 46 of 82
From: Simon Moss
Date: Oct/11/01 - 13:29 (GMT)
5 channel. Yamaha system w/sub woofer. I don't miss much. Something is obviously amiss.
Hmm. Do I need to fix this or do I not have it because I don't need it? --Simon
Msg: 47 of 82
From: Charles Bliss
Date: Oct/11/01 - 14:49 (GMT)
Perhaps it's Coriolus effect. Don't things move backwards down under? --Charles
Msg: 48 of 82
From: Simon Moss
Date: Oct/11/01 - 23:24 (GMT)
I got it tocking. I like it! --Simon
Msg: 49 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/11/01 - 13:16 (GMT)
Well, guess I have to disregard conventional (wisdom ?) again; I like the sound
capability as a confirmation the operation succeeded. I guess, the code to enable
sound is pretty much copy/paste since so many programs have it, so how much
development time could it really take --Larry
Msg: 50 of 82
From: Ed Rasmussen
Date: Oct/11/01 - 15:35 (GMT)
I agree with Larry. The sound does not bother me and I use it as a confirmation
of the placement operation. But for those who don't like it, the deletion or
renaming of connect.wav file should take care of it as mentioned in numerous posts.
Obviously I would not choose the sounds over more useful features or fixes, but I
don't think Autodesk scratched anything from their list to add the sounds. --Ed R
Msg: 51 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/11/01 - 16:33 (GMT)
Most speakers have volume controls that, if turned down low enough, would make the sound
inaudible. Guess if one really hated sounds, though, they could remove the sound card!
--Larry
Msg: 52 of 82
From: Gary R Smith
Date: Oct/11/01 - 13:52 (GMT)
> So... we get sounds.
> I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this candy is a poor trade-off.
For what its worth, the addition of the snap sound to the constraint
placement probably took all of thirty-eight seconds to add to the code
(since there was no attempt made to make it play with any sound management
system - a decision made to minimize the expense of adding the candy). The
constraint sound was added by the assembly team in Novi.
The drawing issues are handled by the team in San Diego.
It is an incorrect assumption to lump all programming tasks into one large
resource pool and assume that anyone can do anything. Just isn't so.
Gary
Msg: 53 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/11/01 - 16:34 (GMT)
That's what I thought, only I was thinking a minute or two. --Larry
Msg: 54 of 82
From: The_tool_man
Date: Oct/11/01 - 13:10 (GMT)
Hello all: A long time ago, we tried MDT 1.0 and saw something quite similar to what
you describe. Making even a minor change to the model would cause all of the drawing
views to revert to their default state. This meant repositioning or hiding all of
the dimensions nearly every time. Our VAR told us repeatedly that MTD 1.1 would fix
the problem, but it didn't. Needless to say, we went elsewhere (Pro/E) for our 3D
parametric needs until Inventor came along. How (and if) AutoDesk dealt with this issue
might shed some light on how they are likely to deal with Inventor. With that in mind,
I inquired on the MDT NG, but got no response. Perhaps someone in this NG knows. Did
MDT get fixed? I share your frustration. For this and other reasons, I export my IDW
views to DWG and annotate in AutoCAD. Looks like this won't change with R5 as I had hoped.
--John.
Msg: 55 of 82
From: Jerry Mathis -Engineering Supervisor, ProShots, Inc. A Kodak Company
Date: Oct/11/01 - 15:20 (GMT)
I don't post much here anymore but I have to on this one. I couldn't give a rat's
arse about a wave file for constraints or a new select other tool that is totally
stupid. Guess how excited I was when I saw the Hole Chart function? Guess how
dissapointed I was when one of my detailers said "Guess what? You can't edit the
text." EXCUSE ME? Then what is the point?!? IT is USELESS. Same with hole notes.
Believe it or not, I think there are more than one IV user out there that would
like to have different tolerances (decimal precision) for the callouts on a
counterbored or csnk hole. I have been pretty disgusted with IV's idw ability for
awhile now...but as Phil Collins (Genesis) puts it I'm "in too deep".
PLEASE-Autodesk! Fix the idw crap that DOES NOT WORK or has little to no
functionality (hole charts, hole notes) before you take the time to find us another
wave file for the constraints!! Just my two cents. --Jerry Mathis
Msg: 56 of 82
Frrom: Noel Jones
Date: Oct/11/01 - 15:54 (GMT)
Just to add my 2 cents, even though this problem has been pounded. Now that you have
to delete the views and start over, try to delete more than one without a power exit.
Thank you so much Autodesk for giving me job security.
--Noel Jones Design Eng. Traulsen & Co.
Msg: 57 of 82
From: sdotson
Date: Oct/11/01 - 16:19 (GMT)
I think the sheer number of replies to this thread illustrates the users strong opinions
on this subject. I can't remember a thread this long in the existence of this NG.
Gary, you have always been a good participant in this group. While we all understand that this
is a peer-to-peer NG you have gone above and beyond with some of your responses to questions
and to some of our "gripes". We also realize that you are not a part of the 2D drawing team.
With that said I think it would benefit Autodesk and it's users to have a representative of
that group reply to this thread. Even if to only say "We hear you." Sometimes I feel like
we are talking to the wind. At the very least an acknowledgement from the 2D team is warranted.
Sean
Msg: 58 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/11/01 - 16:42 (GMT)
Actually, we did get a response by proxy. See Walt's post I pasted below.
[Since I started this thread, I've been contacted by several people from
Autodesk regarding this matter. I just got off the phone with Autodesk's
new Director of Quality Assurance for the manufacturing division. I gave
him the history of the problem from my viewpoint, and we agreed that these
issues need priority consideration. He assured me that we do have their
attention.
I pointed out to him that those that responded in this thread represented a
vital core group of Inventor users with a huge sphere of influence, and that
we had 'spoken with one voice', and Autodesk would do well to listen
closely. Since he's new to the Inventor universe (although not to
Autodesk), he promised to spend a few days educating himself and researching
the problems we've brought up, and get back to me.
He also assured me that he'll be keeping an eye on this thread. --WJ]
Gary also let us know that the QA Director came to his office to discuss the matter.
Larry
Msg: 59 of 82
From: sdotson
Date: Oct/11/01 - 17:44 (GMT)
Guess I missed that post. Sorry. While better than nothing I still think that someone from
Autodesk needs to take Gary's lead and become a bit more involved in the NG. --Sean
Msg: 60 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/11/01 - 17:56 (GMT)
Well, guess it's all in how you look at it. Bunch of guys been complaining about someone from
Autodesk taking 38 seconds to add sound to the program. Bet they'd really holler if Autodesk
spent the time to keep up with this group. [Just kidding guys, couldn't help it.] --Larry
Msg: 61 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/11/01 - 18:11 (GMT)
The response I've gotten from Autodesk on this problem has been very good so far.
I can't speak to the past; why the issue got overlooked, but I don't think it will
be overlooked again. I just sent off a package of files and a step by step guide
(how to destroy a detail drawing). The results dramatically illustrate the kinds
of trials we've all been experiencing.
I'd like to restate that I'm not anti-Inventor. Like many of us, I have pegged my
job and my career to Inventor's success. I want to be able to recommend it without
reservation. I want many companies to use it, so I always have good job opportunities.
Most of all, I want it to work really well, so I can be proud that I chose it. For all
of this, I still don't think there's anything better out there. If I did, I'd be gone.
Although I seem to have a natural ability to stir up a big stink, there's not a lot
of fun in it. I probably put the folks on the design team in the hot seat, and that
thought doesn't overjoy me, either. What will overjoy me is getting this problem fixed.
At this point, that's all I want.
Walt
Msg: 62 of 82
From: Monty
Date: Oct/11/01 - 20:14 (GMT)
Once again Walt, I agree with you 100%. I am convinced IV will work for us, and I
have stuck my neck out selling it abilities. I only hope AutoDesk can get their act
together and fix the idw issues.
I use small template assemblies of three to fifteen parts. It is important that I
turn these projects around quickly. Sometimes ten a day. Dealing with the idw's
is very frustrating and time consuming.
I am now dealing with a represanitive at AutoDesk and I am encouraged... I too have
sent assemblies to AutoDesk in which the idw has failed. I suspect they have many
samples choose from :)
I'm keepin' my fingers crossed.
Monty
Msg: 63 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/12/01 - 17:37 (GMT)
I got a callback from my contact at Autodesk, right on schedule. We've raised a
feweyebrows. I'm told the development team now has a clear understanding of the
problem concerning instability of detail and section views, and that a team is
being assembled to find a cure. He couldn't give me a timeline this early, but
promised to keep me posted. --Walt
Msg: 64 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/23/01 - 14:36 (GMT)
Last Friday I participated in a conference call with a few developers and QA people from
Autodesk. They understand the problems (it turns out there were a lot of little things
contributing to the instability of the detail views, not one big one), and have proposed
a fix that sounds like it will resolve the problem. I don't have a lot of details (I am
not a programmer) or a timeline, but I got he impression that Autodesk considers this
a very hot issue, and would be driving hard to get us a solution as soon as possible.
I'm very satisfied with Autodesk's response to this situation so far, and expect to get
final closure soon, and then I'll really be a happy camper. Thanks for all who jumped
in to lend their weight to my protest. We'll all get better software for it, and the
satisfaction of knowing we helped it happen.
Walt
Msg: 65 of 82
From: Ed Rasmussen
Date: Oct/11/01 - 15:35 (GMT)
I agree with Larry. The sound does not bother me and I use it as a confirmation of
the placement operation. But for those who don't like it, the deletion or renaming
of connect.wav file should take care of it as mentioned in numerous posts. Obviously
I would not choose the sounds over more useful features or fixes, but I don't think
Autodesk scratched anything from their list to add the sounds. --Ed R
Msg: 65 of 82
From: Larry Caldwell
Date: Oct/23/01 - 23:30 (GMT)
Thanks for the update Walt. --Larry
Msg: 66 of 82
From: Ron Crain
Date: Oct/23/01 - 22:43 (GMT)
Thanks for the feedback Walt - Better software is our goal - Fingers are crossed. --Ron
Msg: 67 of 82
From: Noel Jones Design Eng.
Date: Oct/11/01 - 17:54 (GMT)
Just one more thought on this subject. If this product were anything other than
Autodesk software, then there would be fixes for this and you wouldn't have to buy
a new release just to get it work right. If this were a product produced by Ford for
example, I think the vehicle would probably been recalled. I know for a fact that
my company would be fixing our product at no charge if it didn't work as advertised.
Maybe a class-action would solve our problem. --Noel Jones
Msg: 68 of 82
From: BuyBak
Date: Oct/11/01 - 18:12 (GMT)
Just want to say a couple of things. Thanks Walt for bringing it up for the umpteenth time.
It is good to see all our frustrations in this area are finally get some attention from Autodesk.
That brings up another point, thanks Gary for chiming in.I know there are a lot of Deskers
watching this NG, but you are consistently going the extra mile to give feedback and advice.
It is reassuring that we're not just flapping in a breeze. Thanks again guys. --John
Msg: 69 of 82
From: Jeferson Stutz
Date: Oct/11/01 - 20:14 (GMT)
Just to remember, How may times we hear from Autodesk. "Next version we
will have parametric surfaces " .....Since the existence of Mcad products
from Autodesk. I worked with Autodesk for last 10 years, and what make
this products sold by the whole world It´s exactly the persistence, headache
of the users. We can not illness with customers.
If we stop to lunch. We will be the lunch !
Don´t worry, lot of trade-ins from SW, Pro-E, sales....but our life maybe
can be a little bit more easy.
Autodesk - Next Logo
We hear you !
Msg: 70 of 82
From: Erich Koch
Date: Oct/11/01 - 20:02 (GMT)
Wow, Walt you really got something going here, and thanks to Gary for keeping an eye
on the NG. It would be nice to hear from other members of AutoDesk also. Do the
people that do the programming have any idea on how to use this program? Have they
even tried? I came into Inventor from MDT and really like the 3D modeling. It is a
real pain to go back to MDT to do ECO. But as already has been said the 2D really
needs some attention. While working in my title block I tried to rotate the whole
title block 90 degrees, lines and text, and could not do it. I could not find this
simple capability. Somebody please prove me wrong on this. And the 3D needs some
attention. I am making a layout for a control panel with lots of text on it.
WHAT A PAIN. Need to go to MDT, Mtext, explode text, bring it in to IV, blah, blah,
blah... And then to move the text it takes a bunch other gyrations. RIDICULOUS.
Well, I better get back to work, I still need to place 24 more labels on the panel!
--Erich
Msg: 71 of 82
From: JohnPonikvar
Date: Oct/12/01 - 15:16 (GMT)
Whew!! I'm glad to hear it's just a glitch. I thought I was doing something wrong.
PHOOEY!!Autodesk, Shame on me for getting into bed with the devil. I'm in too deep
to turn around. --John
Msg: 72 of 82
From: Afaix
Date: Oct/12/01 - 17:28 (GMT)
Put me on the back-up list. I'm an reseller AE, and I think I can speak for just
about ALL of my Inventor customers when I say that R5 falls well short of expectations.
I had gotten just about everybody moving ahead successfully with R4. Since R5 was
released and they all installed it, I'm being buried DAILY with tech support issues
that I just don't have answers to. Every think from the ubiquitous crashing issues,
to R4 to R5 translation issues (particularly w/ idw files), drawing views showing the
WRONG INFORMATION, Volo View bringing up the wrong file, bend table issues, the new
hole chart is useless, people can't get thier scroll wheel to do the select other
thing anymore, customers that have downloaded new video card drivers based on Autodesk
recommendations and things are WORSE. It's a nightmare. SP1 was just released. I
didn't notice it addressing ANY of the afore mentioned issues. It's hard for me to
sell more of this product when A. I'm starting to become jaded against it, and B. I
just don't have time because I'm too busy dealing with tech support from my existing
customers. I DON'T WANT ANY MORE RIGHT NOW! (ironically, I just had to pause while
typing this Msg to take another Inventor tech support call) AUTODESK - FIX WHAT'S
WRONG! I think everyone would agree with me when I say that none of the existing
customers need more new features. What we need is a relaible product. Simply put,
I think R5 is doing severe damage to Autodesk's reputation. The customers I have that
are using Inventor now communicate with plenty of other design engineers, and I doubt
that they're singing the its praises. My request - make a product that I can believe
in, that I can sell confidently. --Afaix
Msg: 73 of 82
From: Ed Nelson
Date: Oct/12/01 - 17:54 (GMT)
First of all I think the IDW needs to be more stable but I believe it is more stable
then R4 IDW's. I think most of the frustration here is related to stability problems
more then with lack of ability in the product. Granted it lacks some key capabilities
but it does not keep you from doing your job no matter how complex you think your
drawings are. There are work arounds for just about everything except a drawing that
is corrupt. Key phrase in the previous sentence was 'just about'. I am not trying to
justify Autodesk and the lack of attention IDW's have recieved but I know from personal
experience that Autodesk listens to customers better then most CAD vendors. We have
the dreaded PRO/Headache and SolidPain in our company as well as Inventor and Autodesk
is the most responsive by far. We will stay with IV becuase it is the better technology
for the future and we know for a fact Autodesk will fix stability problems. If they do
not they will have spent hundreds of millions for nothing. I dont think they invested
so much in IV so they could purposefully ignore complaints of customers and drive them
off. Sorry for the sermon. --Ed
Msg: 74 of 82
From: sdotson
Date: Oct/12/01 - 18:14 (GMT)
I think a key thing you said is that "There are work arounds for just about everything
except a drawing that is corrupt". Workarounds are a band-aid for a problem. They also
usually take more time/effort than the way the command was designed to work anyway. I
don't think I've run into a ton of things I CAN'T do in IV. It's just that it takes a
lot longer and more thought and energy to do the workaround than if the command had
worked as advertised. --Sean
Msg: 75 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/12/01 - 18:30 (GMT)
Also bear in mind that the original post was concerning a very distinct problem.
Stability of the IDWs themselves, and the merits of Inventor's 2D feature set were
not intended to be issues. The problem I was dealing with was a specific design
flaw, not a bug or deficiency of the feature set.
The result of this thread is that the development team is looking hard at
the original issue I brought up. Most of the responses have stayed on that topic,
but those of you who had other issues, I'd encourage you to keep pursuing solutions
down the more official channels.
Walt
Msg: 76 of 82
From: Afaix
Date: Oct/12/01 - 19:32 (GMT)
You're right Walt, a lot of these posts, mine included, were a bit off topic.
Indeed, drawing issues prompted my reponse because the are, still, my biggest
headache. Believe me, not only have I been using official channels, I've been
attacking these issues from every angle I can think of. (I'm convinced that the
Inventor Tech support people all draw straws to take my calls). Again, to clarify
now that I've calmed down a bit. I am a big fan of Inventor, despite it's
shortcomings. I think Autodesk is sitting on top of a code that has the potential
to easily become the industry leader for solid modeling. I just hope that they're
aware of the shortcomings and make a concerted effort to address them quickly.
Have a good weekend everyone. --Afaix
Msg: 77 of 82
From: sdotson
Date: Oct/12/01 - 20:43 (GMT)
I totally agree with you Walt. What I think this has evolved into is that the
Inventor community is crying out with one large voice that we would prefer to
have some of these issues fixed as opposed to all new features. Your original
problem with the views was one bug but there are others that have been mentioned
in this thread. Some of these have dated back to R4 and still have not been
addressed in any of the R4 SPs or in R5 or R5SP1. I believe that this is the
issue that gets people very emotional (for lack of a better term). --Sean
Msg: 78 of 82
From: Walt Jaquith
Date: Oct/12/01 - 20:53 (GMT)
Emotional. Yeah. --Walt
--- ( Msgs 79 to 82 were asides unrelated to the discussion topic. Thread ends.) ---
(
geocities.com/wpsmoke)