Pat or anyone, I noticed you have been looking at these software packages since 2005. I am in exactly the same position you were in then. I also noticed you have postings as current as this month (Dec. 2008)on the same subject. Have you purchased one or the other? I am trying to make a decision by the first of the year. The biggest part of my decision is revolved around training. Are there any important questions to ask here? I have no CAD experience and little computer experience. How many hours of training should I ask for? I am leaning toward solidedge classic at this point. Anyone using Synchronous technology? SIS is my solidedge distributor and Trimec is my solidworks distributor. They both seem that they would do a good job for me. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
"pkelecy" Solidedge vs Solidworks 2
- Thread starter magoo75
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Magoo75, here is my answer for what it is worth. My first cadcam program was VX cadcam. I bought this 5 years ago when I recognised a need to design parts in addition to machining them. I had Surfcam at the time but no cad. Knew some about computers but certainly was not knowledgeable. Bought VX and went to training which like all cad companies is hideously overpriced. It got me 4 8hr days of training and as the instructer said was sufficient to confuse us but that also hopefully we could remember enough to muddle through along with the phone tech support. I was so hopelessly lost that I just did not do much for the first year. The second year came up, along with maintenance fees $$$$$ and I decided to either learn or forget it. Another round of over priced and to short training and away I went. The difference was this time I had just finished a big job and could afford to spend time dedicated to just learning. The next 6 weeks were spent, and I mean EVERY DAY from 8 to 12+ hours learning this junk. As I look back I can only say that the time required was significant and if you are not willing or can't make the time don't start down this road. I was told that I needed to play with the software even after learning it most every day or the knowledge would go away and I find that to be true also until it has become imbedded in your mind to the point it is almost instinctive. Once you go through this the next flavor of software abuse will be much easier and far less daunting to learn. I recently bought {8-08}SEwST Classic because I found myself doing more and more MCAD work and needed a package to do so. Went to 3 different SW open house demo day type meetings and was not impressed with either the reseller or his tech staff as they had to constantly fumble with doing parts I brought in for them to try. SE on the other hand has the most professional caliber of tech support I have personaly met and to say I was impressed over the SW guys is an understatement. There is a lot of griping about the new SEwST right now on the Siemens bbs and some of it is justified. However, what SEwST brings to the table IS revolutionary and while I am irritated at some of the problems, I believe that these will be fixed soon, it is after all the first version of something new so I do expect this afterall, and that nothing else will touch it at after these problems are fixed. I have the luxury of not being rushed into SEwST as I still have VXcadcam and can learn at a relaxed pace. I am VERY impressed with the overall capabilities especially sheet metal which has become very important. Just a thought here. I bought VX primarily because of the recommendation of a software reseller I know. I thought long and hard about what I would buy next as I was tired of dealing with major problems that did not get fixed -some lasting as long as 4 years- and I wanted to have something that if I chose to I could hire myself out and expect a market for it. VX had such a small user base that these were impossible to realise. SW has of course the biggest base but I was not thrilled with what I was reading about it on blogs and from users and from my limited personal experience. I elected to go with SEwST as I felt their market share was going to increase dramaticaly in the near future, and it was currently big enough that the hiring and contracting criteria above could be met. Most particularly was SEwST's ability to work on parts from most any source without regard to history and yes this is a big deal for me. It is kind of squirrely as to how it works but how much of this is me and lack of knowledge I am not sure and it is getting better all the time. You may still use the traditional SE program interface by the way if you do not like ST right now and it is top notch also. Hope this helps.
-
1
- #3
magoo75,
Sorry for the delay in responding. With the holidays and other work going on, I haven't been following the forum lately.
To start off, I ended picking SEwST over SW for my CAD system. It wasn't an easy decision though, as they both had their pro's and con's. In the end, there were certain things about SE (the constraint handling, assemblies, and drafting in particular) that I liked better, along with more reasonable licensing and nicer vars. Even with that, I'm still not entirely sure I made the right decision, but I guess time will tell.
With regard to training, as lapuser indicated, it will take some time and training to learn how to use the software (especially as new user). This is true though regardless of the CAD package (SE or SW). What I would recommend is working through the built-in tutorials first, before doing any classroom instruction. You get more out of it that way. Also, what I normally do when working through tutorials is takes notes (especially when I figure something out that, to me, wasn't obvious or intuitive). It takes longer to do them that way, but I find more if it "sticks", and later, when working on my own models, if I forget how to do something, I can usually find it in my notes pretty fast.
Good luck with your evaluation, and I hope my response wasn't too late to be of use. If you have any other questions, post back.
Pat
Sorry for the delay in responding. With the holidays and other work going on, I haven't been following the forum lately.
To start off, I ended picking SEwST over SW for my CAD system. It wasn't an easy decision though, as they both had their pro's and con's. In the end, there were certain things about SE (the constraint handling, assemblies, and drafting in particular) that I liked better, along with more reasonable licensing and nicer vars. Even with that, I'm still not entirely sure I made the right decision, but I guess time will tell.
With regard to training, as lapuser indicated, it will take some time and training to learn how to use the software (especially as new user). This is true though regardless of the CAD package (SE or SW). What I would recommend is working through the built-in tutorials first, before doing any classroom instruction. You get more out of it that way. Also, what I normally do when working through tutorials is takes notes (especially when I figure something out that, to me, wasn't obvious or intuitive). It takes longer to do them that way, but I find more if it "sticks", and later, when working on my own models, if I forget how to do something, I can usually find it in my notes pretty fast.
Good luck with your evaluation, and I hope my response wasn't too late to be of use. If you have any other questions, post back.
Pat
thread724-223361 may also be of use to you. You really need to think about what your requirement is and then see how these 2, or potentially others, match up to that requirement.
On SE training, as well as the inbuilt tutorials there is some training from Igetit that is pretty reasonably priced. We use if for our interns and it compares fairly well with the in person training they used to get.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
On SE training, as well as the inbuilt tutorials there is some training from Igetit that is pretty reasonably priced. We use if for our interns and it compares fairly well with the in person training they used to get.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
By the way, Pat. Glad you made it to the SE Newsgroup also. I hope you didn't make a "mistake" with your first post. Seemed to cause quite a stir.
--Scott
--Scott
Hi Scott, -Yeah, I think I may have stirred the pot a bit with that post. I was rather alarmed by what seemed like a lot of negative comments concerning the new release (seemed to be more there than I had notice here) and reacted a little. In retrospect I should have waited a day or so before posting (to "regain perspective";^).
The replies though have been pretty positive for the most part, and despite some second thoughts still feel SE was the right choice. The more I use it the more I like it. Still haven't quite warmed to ST though (the traditional environment seems easier to me). Perhaps that will change once I know it better.
Hope everything has been going well there. -Pat
.
The replies though have been pretty positive for the most part, and despite some second thoughts still feel SE was the right choice. The more I use it the more I like it. Still haven't quite warmed to ST though (the traditional environment seems easier to me). Perhaps that will change once I know it better.
Hope everything has been going well there. -Pat
.
Hi Pat,
I was watching this thread and even posted a blog entry that is a little bit related to it.
The nice thing about talking to other customers and not guys like me (I work for Siemens PLM) is that you can be a little more sure that the answer is not so biased. Of course you will also get A LOT more opinions especially if the UI changed like we did in the last release!
BTW, here is the blog. Maybe it will help:
Mark
I was watching this thread and even posted a blog entry that is a little bit related to it.
The nice thing about talking to other customers and not guys like me (I work for Siemens PLM) is that you can be a little more sure that the answer is not so biased. Of course you will also get A LOT more opinions especially if the UI changed like we did in the last release!
BTW, here is the blog. Maybe it will help:
Mark
Hi Pat, one of my first posts at the bbs site basicaly said that if all these constant gripes about the GUI are the biggest problems I have to deal with in SE I am in the right place as they are nothing compared to what I left. And this is a FIRST version so to expect perfection is silly. I am quite impressed with this as a V1 release. There is a small core of very serious and knowledgable users there that kind of run things. A couple of them have been of great help. The downside is that they run some issues into the ground. The more I use the new GUI and SE the better it gets. I think there are some rough edges but Siemens is going to address these for the most part I believe. Familiarity breeds contempt and when you are an old time user and a busy guy you don't want change for the sake of change and that is how a lot of these long time users see this stuff I guess. For me what I see, and I have to learn a new program anyway so I knew my time was gone going in, is a powerfull new way of doing things that saves me considerable time when I have to change a part. I have the luxury of a fallback program so I am not under the gun like some of those guys are. And anyway if they don't like the SEwST they can still run just SE and the gui is just not that big a deal. What are they going to do when they are forced into Windows 7 I wonder? I figure it is part of my competitive advantage in that I am willing to learn new things. Those that can't or wont will fall behind. Every blog/user group it seems has problems with their software so none is perfect but if ST is so stupid why are other heavy hitters scrambling to get on board HMMMMMM?
Mark - Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
lapuser, - I guess what one considers good (or not) all depends on what you're used to. Since I've never used the v20 interface, I can't really judge how the new one compares. I can say I don't mind it. It seems reasonably well organized, which is especially helpful when you're a new user (and I suspect that was the intent). I'm not sure it's the best arrangement for efficient modeling, which seems to be the general complaint. But as you say, that will likely get addressed in future releases. Imo, the most efficient arrangement is one that uses floating contextual toolbars and judicious RMB menus, and there's nothing in the current design that prevents that. We'll see!
Thanks,
Pat
lapuser, - I guess what one considers good (or not) all depends on what you're used to. Since I've never used the v20 interface, I can't really judge how the new one compares. I can say I don't mind it. It seems reasonably well organized, which is especially helpful when you're a new user (and I suspect that was the intent). I'm not sure it's the best arrangement for efficient modeling, which seems to be the general complaint. But as you say, that will likely get addressed in future releases. Imo, the most efficient arrangement is one that uses floating contextual toolbars and judicious RMB menus, and there's nothing in the current design that prevents that. We'll see!
Thanks,
Pat
beachcomber
Mechanical
Just started back to work at same place as my last contract and they've just 'upgraded' to V21/ST.
I have to say (from an experienced user's view) that the interface is just not productive compared to V20 - having to swap menus all the time on the ribbon is a real PITA, and the way the pathfinder gets pushed down/up by the select menu and context menus etc is crap and a real waste of space. The ribbon also wastes so much space for commands that are rarely used.
I know I can reposition things to the another side of the screen, but that wastes even more space.
I also know it's intended to look and feel like MS Office (WHY!!! - the commands are different anyway), but at least that does try to remember what commands you've used and keep them handy.
I now have a customised Quick Access toolbar stretching across the whole screen that holds just about all the commands I frequently use - but I can't find a way to reorder the commands on it.
As an example, this morning I went into a new draft file and drew a rectangle - thats one click from Home onto the Sketching menu.
Next I want to dimension it - so I have to click Home again.
Now place a circle and dimension it.
This clicking from menu to menu is counter-productive.
The very least Siemens can do is make the interface more customisable for experienced users.
...but I do like the checkbox in Pathfinder for hiding/showing parts.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
I have to say (from an experienced user's view) that the interface is just not productive compared to V20 - having to swap menus all the time on the ribbon is a real PITA, and the way the pathfinder gets pushed down/up by the select menu and context menus etc is crap and a real waste of space. The ribbon also wastes so much space for commands that are rarely used.
I know I can reposition things to the another side of the screen, but that wastes even more space.
I also know it's intended to look and feel like MS Office (WHY!!! - the commands are different anyway), but at least that does try to remember what commands you've used and keep them handy.
I now have a customised Quick Access toolbar stretching across the whole screen that holds just about all the commands I frequently use - but I can't find a way to reorder the commands on it.
As an example, this morning I went into a new draft file and drew a rectangle - thats one click from Home onto the Sketching menu.
Next I want to dimension it - so I have to click Home again.
Now place a circle and dimension it.
This clicking from menu to menu is counter-productive.
The very least Siemens can do is make the interface more customisable for experienced users.
...but I do like the checkbox in Pathfinder for hiding/showing parts.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
BC,
to reorder and to have dividers on the QAT is scheduled for ST2.
The misplaced dimension button will also change with ST2.
It is also possible to have the whole button placed on the QAT
just RMB on the button and select 'Add to Quick ...'
You should also move the 'Save' on a different place on the
QAT just remove and add it again. Not doing so and a tiny
bit to the left you won't have the chance of doing an Undo
any longer. Also note: when in ST-Mode and switch the window
(or just open a different file and go back) will clear the
undo buffer.
dy
to reorder and to have dividers on the QAT is scheduled for ST2.
The misplaced dimension button will also change with ST2.
It is also possible to have the whole button placed on the QAT
just RMB on the button and select 'Add to Quick ...'
You should also move the 'Save' on a different place on the
QAT just remove and add it again. Not doing so and a tiny
bit to the left you won't have the chance of doing an Undo
any longer. Also note: when in ST-Mode and switch the window
(or just open a different file and go back) will clear the
undo buffer.
dy
beachcomber
Mechanical
Thanks Don.
I noticed that you could create a QAT with all of the main sets of commands thus creating a single set of drop-downs and then do away with the ribbon, but that's defeating the object.
It's really the 'context' menu that changes with each command that I find the most annoying.
It doesn't resize automatically and you cant't change it's layout from vertical to horizontal.
When is ST2 coming?
Will Sheet Metal still require a different file or will it be built into Part?
If it's still a Sheet Metal file I think an opportunity has been missed to rationalise the file types.
Have you seen Space Claim sheet metal? - you can change edges from ripped to bent & vice-versa, thus moving flanges from one edge to another, and you can have 2 windows to show folded and flattened form. There is a video on their web site that shows taking a plastic molded part and making it into sheet metal.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
I noticed that you could create a QAT with all of the main sets of commands thus creating a single set of drop-downs and then do away with the ribbon, but that's defeating the object.
It's really the 'context' menu that changes with each command that I find the most annoying.
It doesn't resize automatically and you cant't change it's layout from vertical to horizontal.
When is ST2 coming?
Will Sheet Metal still require a different file or will it be built into Part?
If it's still a Sheet Metal file I think an opportunity has been missed to rationalise the file types.
Have you seen Space Claim sheet metal? - you can change edges from ripped to bent & vice-versa, thus moving flanges from one edge to another, and you can have 2 windows to show folded and flattened form. There is a video on their web site that shows taking a plastic molded part and making it into sheet metal.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
BC,
ST2 is scheduled for the 2nd quarter this year. An, yes I'm
also not very exited about the new UI maybe it's OK for
Word and Co. but for a CAD, questionable I think.
In ST2 the UI might become more customizable but I've
no information about that. One must also keep in mind that
Microsoft is the one who must endorse any change because
he is the patent holder ...
Whether SM will be integrated into Part or not is not known
at the moment. It seems that it will see some major changes
and enhancements. As usual: no information is given by UGS
up to day X.
dy
ST2 is scheduled for the 2nd quarter this year. An, yes I'm
also not very exited about the new UI maybe it's OK for
Word and Co. but for a CAD, questionable I think.
In ST2 the UI might become more customizable but I've
no information about that. One must also keep in mind that
Microsoft is the one who must endorse any change because
he is the patent holder ...
Whether SM will be integrated into Part or not is not known
at the moment. It seems that it will see some major changes
and enhancements. As usual: no information is given by UGS
up to day X.
dy
beachcomber
Mechanical
OK, so I'm at the end of my first week using the new interface.
Have I changed my mind about it?
NO.
It's still VERY VERY poor, even for a first attempt, and I have found even more things to irritate me.
It's just not consistent - why so many tabs when there is so much unused space on each one?
What the hell does 'Home' indicate? - couldnt they think of a proper name?
Why is the Select command not on all tabs, or the Close and Return ?
Why are some common commands only available from a drop-down when there is ample space on the main tab - eg the hole command in sheet metal. At least the old interface remembered the last one you used.
Why are there different icon sizes?
Re-ordering parts in an assembly - when you drag the cursor to the top of the pathfinder it starts switching pathfinder tabs. Fortunately I can scroll with my spaceball.
We just reported a bug in the pattern part command in assembly. Trying to pattern a screw to a user-defined hole pattern in sheet a metal part throws the pattern in the wrong direction. This is on existing parts, not newly created. Has anyone else come across this?
We are version 100.00.03.03.
I can accept that the interface is different, but to make such a mess of it compared to the old one seems to indicate that they just wanted to get the job out and fix it later if anyone complained.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Have I changed my mind about it?
NO.
It's still VERY VERY poor, even for a first attempt, and I have found even more things to irritate me.
It's just not consistent - why so many tabs when there is so much unused space on each one?
What the hell does 'Home' indicate? - couldnt they think of a proper name?
Why is the Select command not on all tabs, or the Close and Return ?
Why are some common commands only available from a drop-down when there is ample space on the main tab - eg the hole command in sheet metal. At least the old interface remembered the last one you used.
Why are there different icon sizes?
Re-ordering parts in an assembly - when you drag the cursor to the top of the pathfinder it starts switching pathfinder tabs. Fortunately I can scroll with my spaceball.
We just reported a bug in the pattern part command in assembly. Trying to pattern a screw to a user-defined hole pattern in sheet a metal part throws the pattern in the wrong direction. This is on existing parts, not newly created. Has anyone else come across this?
We are version 100.00.03.03.
I can accept that the interface is different, but to make such a mess of it compared to the old one seems to indicate that they just wanted to get the job out and fix it later if anyone complained.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Hi Beachcomber,
Let me try to address some of your thoughts. I had some similar questions from one of my blog posts that I'll cut and paste here:
The "Home" word is pretty standard for ribbons. While everyone is right that CAD is not word processing, we have some common problems, ever increasing functionality being one of the big ones. The old UI paradigm was losing steam.
The new UI is more customizable in terms of window layout so if you have a small or larger monitor you can change the defaults to hide the ribbon bar, have windows fly out rather than stay pinned, etc. We also moved UI into a quickbar in the graphics area to avoid mouse travel and keep focus where you are working. I would look at one of my other blogs called “showing the ribbon who is boss”. for some more things you can do.
Now I don’t mean to say there isn’t a problem here since the range of monitor sizes (and number of monitors) has just gone crazy in the last year. We are looking at this for our next release.
The new icons in the windows are different sizes. Why? One of the concepts behind the ribbon bars used in so many new products is to make the most used functionality easily accessible and findable. Large buttons are used for the most used functionality and need to stand out. Small buttons are used important but less used commands. You can read more about the ideas behind Microsoft’s Ribbon here:
Slideshare:
Microsoft Blog:
Let me try to address some of your thoughts. I had some similar questions from one of my blog posts that I'll cut and paste here:
The "Home" word is pretty standard for ribbons. While everyone is right that CAD is not word processing, we have some common problems, ever increasing functionality being one of the big ones. The old UI paradigm was losing steam.
The new UI is more customizable in terms of window layout so if you have a small or larger monitor you can change the defaults to hide the ribbon bar, have windows fly out rather than stay pinned, etc. We also moved UI into a quickbar in the graphics area to avoid mouse travel and keep focus where you are working. I would look at one of my other blogs called “showing the ribbon who is boss”. for some more things you can do.
Now I don’t mean to say there isn’t a problem here since the range of monitor sizes (and number of monitors) has just gone crazy in the last year. We are looking at this for our next release.
The new icons in the windows are different sizes. Why? One of the concepts behind the ribbon bars used in so many new products is to make the most used functionality easily accessible and findable. Large buttons are used for the most used functionality and need to stand out. Small buttons are used important but less used commands. You can read more about the ideas behind Microsoft’s Ribbon here:
Slideshare:
Microsoft Blog:
Mr. Burhop,
Thanks for posting here. I can respect someone who goes to front to defend his employer's decisions. If you would, could you look at my post from 01/30 in the "Jumping on ST! Good or bad idea?" thread, as well as the screenshot I added.
Now would you please explain how a micro vertical scrollbar for just one icon improves access? Not to mention that you have 7 icons now, to do the job of the 5 icons we needed previously...
Norm C.
Thanks for posting here. I can respect someone who goes to front to defend his employer's decisions. If you would, could you look at my post from 01/30 in the "Jumping on ST! Good or bad idea?" thread, as well as the screenshot I added.
Now would you please explain how a micro vertical scrollbar for just one icon improves access? Not to mention that you have 7 icons now, to do the job of the 5 icons we needed previously...
Norm C.
Mark,
first: I'm not convinced second who is WE?
- You thought that some buttons should be standing out
- You thought that hiding the side bar is a good idea
- you thought that the QAT is a good idea
and so on.
That's your opinion about the new UI, fine but let me tell
you that I'm not convinced because my workflow is different
from yours. I doubt that you know which functions I need more
often than others and when, I don't need such large buttons
to find them.
My toolbars have only the name in common with an SE OOTB.
They are populated to suit my needs for my type of work.
When constructing a part most of the time only two or three
toolbars are visible along with the main toolbar and I place
them to keep the mouse travel at minimum. This way even on a 19"
screen it doesn't take up much real estate.
Don't tell me the new UI is the one I need because it's
more ergonomic than the current UI (aka Stream/XP) but I
didn't now that. BTW: I'm told that in SWX you have the
option to have either one. At least when 2009 is installed
on a PC where SWX 2007 is installed upon start it will take the
UI layout from the 2007 which has those 'old fashioned' toolbars.
Now the million dollar question: why does SWX handle it that way?
dy
first: I'm not convinced second who is WE?
- You thought that some buttons should be standing out
- You thought that hiding the side bar is a good idea
- you thought that the QAT is a good idea
and so on.
That's your opinion about the new UI, fine but let me tell
you that I'm not convinced because my workflow is different
from yours. I doubt that you know which functions I need more
often than others and when, I don't need such large buttons
to find them.
My toolbars have only the name in common with an SE OOTB.
They are populated to suit my needs for my type of work.
When constructing a part most of the time only two or three
toolbars are visible along with the main toolbar and I place
them to keep the mouse travel at minimum. This way even on a 19"
screen it doesn't take up much real estate.
Don't tell me the new UI is the one I need because it's
more ergonomic than the current UI (aka Stream/XP) but I
didn't now that. BTW: I'm told that in SWX you have the
option to have either one. At least when 2009 is installed
on a PC where SWX 2007 is installed upon start it will take the
UI layout from the 2007 which has those 'old fashioned' toolbars.
Now the million dollar question: why does SWX handle it that way?
dy
beachcomber
Mechanical
"The new UI is more customizable in terms of window layout"...
Please explain - apart from the quick access toolbar there is no customisation. I don't count being able to move a toolbar to sides, top or bottom as customising.
In the old layout I could put the toolbars at the top or side and they would adjust to either horizontal or vertical format - the new ones don't.
The command steps were where they should be - just below where you picked the command, on the smartstep ribbon bar.
View commands were always in the same place - with the other commands not as far away as they could possibly be.
Pathfinder used as much space as possible on either the right or left of the screen as you desired.
You NEVER had to scroll a window to get at a command option or find the hiddden input field - they were always in the same place.
As it happens, last night I installed the 30-day evaluation of SpaceClaim and that has exactly the same interface format as SEwST, but its a better implementation.
In the modelling environment there are only 3 tabs - Design, Detailing and Display. All the modelling commands are available from a single tab. Most of the icons are the same size, a few have a drop-down for other options, and there are no scroll bars.
I think the problem is that the new interface is designed more for ST where you don't have a long history tree to accomodate, but is not good for traditional mode.
I'm not against change - but PLEASE make the new better than the old, or at least not worse.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Please explain - apart from the quick access toolbar there is no customisation. I don't count being able to move a toolbar to sides, top or bottom as customising.
In the old layout I could put the toolbars at the top or side and they would adjust to either horizontal or vertical format - the new ones don't.
The command steps were where they should be - just below where you picked the command, on the smartstep ribbon bar.
View commands were always in the same place - with the other commands not as far away as they could possibly be.
Pathfinder used as much space as possible on either the right or left of the screen as you desired.
You NEVER had to scroll a window to get at a command option or find the hiddden input field - they were always in the same place.
As it happens, last night I installed the 30-day evaluation of SpaceClaim and that has exactly the same interface format as SEwST, but its a better implementation.
In the modelling environment there are only 3 tabs - Design, Detailing and Display. All the modelling commands are available from a single tab. Most of the icons are the same size, a few have a drop-down for other options, and there are no scroll bars.
I think the problem is that the new interface is designed more for ST where you don't have a long history tree to accomodate, but is not good for traditional mode.
I'm not against change - but PLEASE make the new better than the old, or at least not worse.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
Wow. Tough crowd!
I was just cruising through the comments and saw some questions I could answer. I was more trying to explain why things are they way they are and offer some tips than defend anything. Sorry if I messed that up.
Gemnoc - I was following the version thread but I didn't think I could offer anything useful. ST is pretty cool but if you don't need it yet, its not as clear you need this version. Don't know about the micro scrollbar but it doesn't sound right. Have you called GTAC?
donyoung - we = "Solid Edge team" although I should probably be careful. While I work as a product manager for SE, I should say "...the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Siemens PLM Software’s positions, strategies or opinions." For the UI stuff, I was mainly pointing out there are some other options beyond working with it as it comes out of the box. Personally, as a user, I don't like the QAT and will be glad when the new version shows up. With a new UI, its hard to "nail it" the first try.
Beachcomber - I realize I've got that big "Siemens PLM" label (target?) on my chest but I really just popped in to shed some light on the subject. I'm certainly not the one to be representing the whole product and really can't talk too much about your other question because I'm not the guy that worked on that. I can say that the best way to get these concerns addressed is to bring them up on the Solid Edge newsgroup ( ) where they can be discussed with other users and then turned into an enhancement request.
Really, I was just trying to be helpful. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to sell the product :-(
I was just cruising through the comments and saw some questions I could answer. I was more trying to explain why things are they way they are and offer some tips than defend anything. Sorry if I messed that up.
Gemnoc - I was following the version thread but I didn't think I could offer anything useful. ST is pretty cool but if you don't need it yet, its not as clear you need this version. Don't know about the micro scrollbar but it doesn't sound right. Have you called GTAC?
donyoung - we = "Solid Edge team" although I should probably be careful. While I work as a product manager for SE, I should say "...the postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent Siemens PLM Software’s positions, strategies or opinions." For the UI stuff, I was mainly pointing out there are some other options beyond working with it as it comes out of the box. Personally, as a user, I don't like the QAT and will be glad when the new version shows up. With a new UI, its hard to "nail it" the first try.
Beachcomber - I realize I've got that big "Siemens PLM" label (target?) on my chest but I really just popped in to shed some light on the subject. I'm certainly not the one to be representing the whole product and really can't talk too much about your other question because I'm not the guy that worked on that. I can say that the best way to get these concerns addressed is to bring them up on the Solid Edge newsgroup ( ) where they can be discussed with other users and then turned into an enhancement request.
Really, I was just trying to be helpful. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to sell the product :-(
beachcomber
Mechanical
Burhop,
None of my comments are aimed at you personally, more a pop at Siemens in general for following the crowd and spoiling a very good interface.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
None of my comments are aimed at you personally, more a pop at Siemens in general for following the crowd and spoiling a very good interface.
bc.
2.4GHz Core2 Quad, 4GB RAM,
Quadro FX4600.
- Status
